Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[tsig]

-




-

I think it's at least a bad investigative technique to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in, but that's me. And that is what they did. They went out and arrested PL without any investigation and kept him in jail for two weeks, even after they found out he had an alibi.

That's crazy, in my opinion,

d

-
ETA: I just wonder why they went out and arrested PL without any investigation. It just looks to me like they had already done that investigation before they even talked to Knox and went in with that expectation. It just looks all around like they somehow talked Amanda into saying PL did it. Even if Amanda were guilty, it looks like they talked her into naming him.

-

Probably because Amanda accused him of murder.

So the police's main mistake was believing Amanda? Well lots of others have made that mistake.

 

[tsig]

There isn't anything crazy in Di Felice saying:

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

That's actually how they do interrogations. What makes the quote germane in this instance is that there weren't any 'facts' (relevant to the murder) in those statements that were correct, thus with Amanda repudiating the statements and claiming coercion, the context of the all-night interrogation and the police refusing to release Patrick the impetus of those 'facts' could only have come from police.

Had those facts stood up then it would have been proper police work, however since they didn't it must be acknowledged that those statements were coerced from her by police, who then compounded their error by failing to admit to it and instead still pretended the both of them were involved in Rudy Guede's murder.

Or she was lying to cover herself.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

video clips in various locations

That would be 'in these threads,' and multiple times at that. For the former, one place I know you can look is a post from me to Darth Rotor at the very end of the 4th continuation, for the latter go to Kermit's post history and you'll find his last posts were on that subject, he's not returned since that epic propaganda fail was exposed and the ten car triumphalist display documented extensively with numerous citations and even video.

Hi Kaosium,

Great to see you again. I unearthed a short video clip and posted a link of what I found within the last few weeks, and Charlie Wilkes provided a link to a documentary at about the same time. I am not sure what more anyone could want.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the tale of the tape

Or she was lying to cover herself.

Let's listen to the audio recording of the interrogation and see for ourselves who is telling the truth about the interrogation tactics. I'll even pop the popcorn. Oh, wait...never mind.
EDT
The problem of why she would choose to blame someone whom she would have every reason to think had an alibi and not Guede or even Sollecito does not have an easy answer for commenters on the PG end of the spectrum. That she was coerced is a much simpler explanation. MOO.

 

[Diocletus]

Or she was lying to cover herself.

Let's imagine a situation:

A police officer suspects young woman of involvement in a crime, refuses to allow access to counsel, and instead, pulls down his pants and tells young woman that he will rape her if she doesn't accuse/stab Mr. Smith. He never touches young woman, but she is very scared and in order to get herself out of this difficult situation she accuses or stabs Mr. Smith. (This isn't so far-fetched, because there is in fact an ECHR case involving statements made under threat of rape).

Assume that young woman's rights to counsel and silence were violated. Should this be a reason to exclude use of her statements and actions to convict her?

Is she responsible for her crime even though she acted willfully and intended to injure someone? If her defense is coercion, how does she prove it?

 

[MDDVS]

Let's imagine a situation:

A police officer suspects young woman of involvement in a crime, refuses to allow access to counsel, and instead, pulls down his pants and tells young woman that he will rape her if she doesn't accuse/stab Mr. Smith. He never touches young woman, but she is very scared and in order to get herself out of this difficult situation she accuses or stabs Mr. Smith. (This isn't so far-fetched, because there is in fact an ECHR case involving statements made under threat of rape).

Assume that young woman's rights to counsel and silence were violated. Should this be a reason to exclude use of her statements and actions to convict her?

Is she responsible for her crime even though she acted willfully and intended to injure someone?

There is no need for coersion for a finding of incitement by the police. Even if they just ask you politely to commit a crime they may be guilty of incitement as shown by echr precedent.

 

[acbytesla]

Or she was lying to cover herself.

You can't be serious? Isn't it just as likely that she lied to end the interrogation?

The fact that De Felice said, "She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct" shows that Lumumba was suggested by the police in so many ways.

But where is the connection to Rudy tsig? We know that Amanda communicated to Patrick that evening as well as countless other times and yet we don't have an email, text or phone call between Rudy and either Amanda or Raffaele EVER. How did they get together that evening and why?

 

[Kaosium]

Or she was lying to cover herself.

How did that lie 'cover herself' or how could anyone think it might? If she was actually there that night she would know that Patrick was not and they couldn't find evidence he was and that he'd likely be able to produce an alibi. It would just serve to incriminate her, which of course is all the statements ever did anyway. How did she 'cover herself' by putting herself in a prison cell?

Why would you even consider that a likelihood anyway when you already have an admission from a Perugian police chief that they wouldn't believe her and questioned her until she buckled and told them what they 'knew' to be correct? You now know that wasn't correct and that Amanda almost immediately repudiated it, but police kept him locked up for two weeks regardless.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi Kaosium,

Great to see you again. I unearthed a short video clip and posted a link of what I found within the last few weeks, and Charlie Wilkes provided a link to a documentary at about the same time. I am not sure what more anyone could want.

What they want is (probably) vindication, what they need is absolution.

 

[Machiavelli]

-
-

I think it's at least a bad investigative technique to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in, but that's me. And that is what they did. They went out and arrested PL without any investigation and kept him in jail for two weeks, even after they found out he had an alibi.

That's crazy, in my opinion,

d

-
ETA: I just wonder why they went out and arrested PL without any investigation. It just looks to me like they had already done that investigation before they even talked to Knox and went in with that expectation. It just looks all around like they somehow talked Amanda into saying PL did it. Even if Amanda were guilty, it looks like they talked her into naming him.

-

You, as other Knox advocates, keep on diverting the discourse upon such unjustified criticism, I believe this shows you are still a bit confused about who did what and who said what.
The police arrested Lumumba. The reason why they arrested him immediately instead of waiting is rather obvious to me. I am not saying that one cannot criticize the decision. I say that it makes no sense to state that the decision was crazy. The bottom line is that they arrested him because they had to take a decision, a decision may be taken on incomplete information and may depend on various cautionary criteria, contrasting dangers that need to be weighted, and this may happen within a short time. It was a cautionary decision, taken in the night and based solely on Knox's 05.45 statement. It would be legally compulsory anyway, once they decided to declare Lumumba a suspect, and if they considered Amanda's statements as a somehow relevant piece of evidence.
As for keeping him in jail for two weeks, this I not "their" decision because the police and prosecution don't have a power to release suspects. It was the investigating judge who decided. Lumumba was legally an innocent person but the Italian law allows to keep innocents in jail on cautionary grounds; a cautionary measure is usually not withdrawn in one day.

 

[Numbers]

Applications to the ECHR must be submitted up six months after the completion of a member states judicial process, I assume it was submitted on time and was in order. The confidentiality of the ECHR process makes it difficult to confirm.

I would say it is a complete fantasy to believe the ECHR as a pan European institution are going to use this particular application out of approximately 10,000 pending applications to sort out Italy’s judiciary finally. ETA: If you factor in events earlier this year concerning the Russia invading the Ukraine, annexing the Crimea continued armed skirmishes along Ukraine border with pro Russian forces and the shooting down or a commercial airplane MH17 over the Ukraine, one could conclude the ECHR are going to see a sharp increase of applications.

The volume of applications from Ukraine as of Nov. 30, 2014 indeed surpasses that from Italy (see my earlier post, data are from:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=).

The ECHR and Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe are in a continuing process to help several of the European states "sort out" their human rights issues. But the Convention makes it clear that the responsibility for change rests with each individual State. Each State has undertaken a solemn obligation to follow the Convention and the rulings of the ECHR.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

All cases.

Don't you think, as a critical thinker yourself, that you should question all assumptions?

-

Well, then you should apply it to Rudy Guede, declare him innocent, and also demand the acquittal of all those who allegedly committed crimes while you were not there (basically all convicted criminals).

 

[Kauffer]

You, as other Knox advocates, keep on diverting the discourse upon such unjustified criticism, I believe this shows you are still a bit confused about who did what and who said what.
The police arrested Lumumba. The reason why they arrested him immediately instead of waiting is rather obvious to me. I am not saying that one cannot criticize the decision. I say that it makes no sense to state that the decision was crazy. The bottom line is that they arrested him because they had to take a decision, a decision may be taken on incomplete information and may depend on various cautionary criteria, contrasting dangers that need to be weighted, and this may happen within a short time. It was a cautionary decision, taken in the night and based solely on Knox's 05.45 statement. It would be legally compulsory anyway, once they decided to declare Lumumba a suspect, and if they considered Amanda's statements as a somehow relevant piece of evidence.
As for keeping him in jail for two weeks, this I not "their" decision because the police and prosecution don't have a power to release suspects. It was the investigating judge who decided. Lumumba was legally an innocent person but the Italian law allows to keep innocents in jail on cautionary grounds; a cautionary measure is usually not withdrawn in one day.

When did Lumumba first see a lawyer? What time? What date?

 

[Numbers]

This case is totally unique for a number of reasons, for example
1. There is complete proof by multiple pathways of total innocence.
2. Three judges, a senator, and many scientists are vocally supporting this.
3. It is very publicly demonstrating a broken system by the incredible length and contrary findings of the Italian judiciary.

It is an excellent case to focus the minds of intelligent Italians and normal people elsewhere on the need to repair this wreck.

I really do not know whether it is unique amongst 10, 000 or so applications currently against Italy. However, it is the content of the application and not the public comments of the people you mention nor is it within the remit of ECHR to put member states judiciary in order based on public opinion.

If you can find another case that satisfies my clause 2 above, I will withdraw my claim. If you can't I will leave that as sufficient reason to support the reform of the Italian judiciary.
Clause 1 and 3 are supporting the uniqueness claim.

It's important to remember that the case if admitted, will be tested against the convention rights it is alleged have been breached, from the specific claims in the application. It is the application which will guide the examination, with reference to the law - and in respect of the callunia conviction. If admitted, there won't be a retesting of the evidence generally - merely a determination as to whether or not there was a breach of a convention right or rights as claimed by Ms Knox, but drafted by Mr Dalla Vedova (who is noted on the application), presumably with some assistance from convention specialists. The implications of a ruling, however, will be far more widespread for the case.

It's useful to keep the limitations of the process in perspective.

As Kauffer points out, and as Amanda stated, the application is directed toward her conviction for calunnia. When the ECHR reviews that application, the other issues of the case may not be germane; the ECHR will be focused on the issues and claims brought out in the application.

Italy and other CoE States have already been subject of attempts by the CoM of the CoE to reform their systems. The provisions of the Italian Constitution and laws (CCP) have changed or been augmented by the Italian Parliament, but apparently the judicial practice has not (in this case, at least) followed the changes.

Depending on the finalization of the murder/rape case, and what the final verdict may be, there could be consideration by the ECHR of the broader issues in the case. But if the final verdict is an acquittal, there will most likely not be any ECHR review of the broader issues. In the case of final acquittal, the earlier violations of rights will be considered as having been corrected (provided there is adequate compensation and, perhaps, a statement acknowledging the violations).

 

[Dan O.]

Well, then you should apply it to Rudy Guede, declare him innocent, and also demand the acquittal of all those who allegedly committed crimes while you were not there (basically all convicted criminals).

This is a recurring theme of your Machiavelli. Why do you believe Rudy Guede is innocent?

 

[Numbers]

Surely, you should be providing a citation for your own assertion. As I said the opinions of a US senator and assume US judges has absolutely no bearing whatsoever and I would, say is completely irrelevant to an application to ECHR.
I am not sure how one can speak of uniqueness of an application that has not been made public. In addition, you do not have any knowledge of the content of the other 10, 000 odd applications currently against Italy.

As you state, this is an assumption on your part. In the ECHR, the findings and opinions of international bodies and outside experts may be considered as the ECHR considers appropriate.

The issue in terms of timely processing of the application through the ECHR mechanisms is one of priority and filing date, not of uniqueness. Applications that are truly not unique - that are repetitive - and are related to pilot judgments - are processed very quickly.

ETA: "Very quickly" in relative terms, of course.

 

[Desert Fox]

Or she was lying to cover herself.

One of the other things that Deirdre Enright, the women I spoke about before who works for the innocence, is to start with a presumption of innocence. Don't assume Amanda, Raff, or to be blunt even Guede is guilty. Assume that they are innocent and then see if you can built a case of guilt even if only in your own mind.

You have been on this board longer than the Amanda Knox case has existed so I don't think you are as invested as some of the others.

 

[acbytesla]

You, as other Knox advocates, keep on diverting the discourse upon such unjustified criticism, I believe this shows you are still a bit confused about who did what and who said what.
The police arrested Lumumba. The reason why they arrested him immediately instead of waiting is rather obvious to me. I am not saying that one cannot criticize the decision. I say that it makes no sense to state that the decision was crazy. The bottom line is that they arrested him because they had to take a decision, a decision may be taken on incomplete information and may depend on various cautionary criteria, contrasting dangers that need to be weighted, and this may happen within a short time. It was a cautionary decision, taken in the night and based solely on Knox's 05.45 statement. It would be legally compulsory anyway, once they decided to declare Lumumba a suspect, and if they considered Amanda's statements as a somehow relevant piece of evidence.
As for keeping him in jail for two weeks, this I not "their" decision because the police and prosecution don't have a power to release suspects. It was the investigating judge who decided. Lumumba was legally an innocent person but the Italian law allows to keep innocents in jail on cautionary grounds; a cautionary measure is usually not withdrawn in one day.

Now that is just plain stupid. Just like their decision to arrest Patrick. There was not a shred of evidence incriminating Patrick and the fact that it would be incredibly easy to verify his alibi which makes their decision doubly stupid. Patrick had lived in Perugia for a long time, he had a family as well as a business. He is not likely to run. Had the police done their job, they would have come to the conclusion very quickly that Patrick wasn't there that night. What's really hard to believe is that they thought Patrick was involved in the first place.

What this decision proved is that they were MORONS. Dumb as posts. Or at least LAZY as hell.

 

[tsig]

Let's imagine a situation:

A police officer suspects young woman of involvement in a crime, refuses to allow access to counsel, and instead, pulls down his pants and tells young woman that he will rape her if she doesn't accuse/stab Mr. Smith. He never touches young woman, but she is very scared and in order to get herself out of this difficult situation she accuses or stabs Mr. Smith. (This isn't so far-fetched, because there is in fact an ECHR case involving statements made under threat of rape).

Assume that young woman's rights to counsel and silence were violated. Should this be a reason to exclude use of her statements and actions to convict her?

Is she responsible for her crime even though she acted willfully and intended to injure someone? If her defense is coercion, how does she prove it?

Amanda was not threatened with rape.

 

[Diocletus]

Amanda was not threatened with rape.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.