Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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.

Did Aviello apply, or will he apply, to the ECHR with a complaint that a CoE State had violated his rights? If not, and with the other information about him above, the relevance of his situation to Amanda's is ZERO.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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

My opinion differs. If no one on this thread as seen the application then all we can do is speculate about it’s possible merits and discuss theories based on those assumptions.

 

[Numbers]

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

In fact, I've never seen anyone's application to the ECHR. I've only seen judgments, press releases, legal summaries, and informational documents from the ECHR. The applications are, I believe confidential.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

I was responding in kind to post # 4011.

 

[Kauffer]

My opinion differs. If no one on this thread as seen the application then all we can do is speculate about it’s possible merits and discuss theories based on those assumptions.

That's ok. You can have that opinion. I can neither confirm or deny whether some of us have seen it.

 

[anglolawyer]

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?

If you think about it, they must have been following A & R that night to make sure the coast was clear to get into Raf's place and look around. Now Mach has told us they will have applied to a judge for authority to do this and I think he mentioned Matteini. Can we see the application? It will pre-date the interrogations and set out their thinking to that point. It will very likely have been drafted by Mignini. We can better judge whether they were suspects from it I expect.

Machiavelli, see if you can get us a copy please.

 

[Vibio]

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?

From what I understand, it was Raff that requested to come in after dinner. 10 pm is after dinner in Italy.

He and Knox had dinner together that evening.

However Raff planned well for his interview: he showed up stoned and equipped with a pocket knife.

 

[Numbers]

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?

The US, Canada, Japan, and Mexico have observer status at the ECHR.
They would possibly learn from that, or be informed by the Knox legal team.

 

[Numbers]

If you think about it, they must have been following A & R that night to make sure the coast was clear to get into Raf's place and look around. Now Mach has told us they will have applied to a judge for authority to do this and I think he mentioned Matteini. Can we see the application? It will pre-date the interrogations and set out their thinking to that point. It will very likely have been drafted by Mignini. We can better judge whether they were suspects from it I expect.

Machiavelli, see if you can get us a copy please.

The subject document (if it hasn't been mysteriously lost) will be a classic for ECHR.

 

[Diocletus]

My opinion differs. If no one on this thread as seen the application then all we can do is speculate about it’s possible merits and discuss theories based on those assumptions.

Also, no one on this thread saw Meredith Kercher get murdered.

 

[Numbers]

From what I understand, it was Raff that requested to come in after dinner. 10 pm is after dinner in Italy.

He and Knox had dinner together that evening.

However Raff planned well for his interview: he showed up stoned and equipped with a pocket knife.

Just like any innocent and naive college student.

 

[Vibio]

What was the purpose of such a late starting time and why didn't Mignini and the interpreter get the memo?

Because Knox was not called in. Duh.

 

[Numbers]

Also, no one on this thread saw Meredith Kercher get murdered.

But can we be sure that Rudy Guede is not a poster here?

 

[Vibio]

Just like any innocent and naive college student.

Just like any reckless sociopath.

 

[Vibio]

My opinion differs. If no one on this thread as seen the application then all we can do is speculate about it’s possible merits and discuss theories based on those assumptions.

"theories based on those assumptions.

That pretty much sums things up.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Mach,

You could at least read the Guide on Article 6 before you write your posts.

I'm looking forward to your posting of some ECHR case law cites that cover your position.

 

[Numbers]

My opinion differs. If no one on this thread as seen the application then all we can do is speculate about it’s possible merits and discuss theories based on those assumptions.

Did you have a theory you wished to discuss?

 

[Kauffer]

"theories based on those assumptions.

That pretty much sums things up.

Don't you think that multiple violations of Article 6 are good assumptions based on the motivation report of the judge who convicted Ms Knox? Haven't you read that?

 

[Diocletus]

Don't you think that multiple violations of Article 6 are good assumptions based on the motivation report of the judge who convicted Ms Knox? Haven't you read that?

Quite.

There's also this:

Today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander conviction with the European Court of Human Rights. My slander conviction was based on comments I made regarding Patrick Lumumba…comments that were coerced during a lengthy interrogation by Perugia police shortly before I was arrested in 2007. The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith’s murder, which was a violation of my human rights. The police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name saying they knew I was going to meet him the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder which was not true. I have stated many times that my original comments about Patrick were coerced by the police and not true.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Did you have a theory you wished to discuss?

Thank you for asking; I have already discussed my theories regarding the possibility of the application passing the admissibility phase prior to the scheduled third level trial, time will tell.