Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

The Court stated that the hand written memorials are usable in any charge (suggesting they may "illuminate" her implication), that the 01.45 statement is usable contra alios even in the charge of murder, while the 05.45 statement is not usable in the case of murder, while courts didn't rule anything against their use in the case of calunnia, Diocletus.

Are you expecting the ECHR to state that the Cassazione got it wrong?

Well, yeah. Everybody agrees that she was indagata at 5:45, right? So, that statement and everything thereafter is subject to the exclusionary rule (first applied by the ECHR in 2008), and could not be used to convict. So, basically, cassazione epically screwed up.

The 1:45 statement is a closer call, but Kauffer is right: Giobbi ordered her to be taken into custody and interrogated.

 

[griffinmill]

She was a suspect because:
1) An order for her arrest ("to be taken") had been given (Giobbi)
2) She was being bugged
3) Police don't do background interviews with people late at night and very early in the morning and...
4) She had already been interviewed for about 40 hours over the previous three days (so they had a lot of "background" from her already).

Additionally, it would appear that Lumumba's bar was being bugged, which would mean he was a suspect too. Incidentally, when did he get a lawyer?

What time, exactly, do you think she became a suspect? Presumably, it wasn't three days later, when she did get to see a lawyer and finally got to learn she was in serious trouble.

Do you really think the ECHR is going to look at this, her application and the case law and conclude that everything is all fair and reasonable and hunky dory and voluntary?

Your 4 reasons don't make much sense to me, but I'll leave that aside.

I think AK became a formal suspect when she placed herself at the scene of the crime and falsely accused another man of rape and murder. Before that, she was only a person that the police suspected knew more than she was saying. In other words, a witness.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

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).

-

Also, just because I wasn't there at any crime doesn't mean I can't assign probabilities. I have never said I was 100% sure they were innocent, I just can't convince myself they're more probably guilty, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

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).

Also, just because I wasn't there at any crime doesn't mean I can't assign probabilities. I have never said I was 100% sure they were innocent. I just can't convince myself they're more probably innocent, in my opinion,
-

In addition, by what Machiavelli wrote, we cannot look at any cases and second guess the court or jury.

 

[griffinmill]

Giobbi ordered her to be taken into custody and interrogated.

Whatever Giobbi said, no party on either side disputes that AK was asked to leave the night she showed up at the precinct with RS.

You are effectively expecting that the ECHR will subjectively take one person's testimony as being indicative of the entire police force having declared AK and RS formal suspects behind the scenes.

I would be stunned if that piece of "evidence" carries any weight.

 

[Diocletus]

To assume that a "retraction" of her alibi automatically branded her a formal suspect in a murder investigation -- instantaneously within the course of simultaneous questioning of RS -- seems a little farfetched to me. I can't imagine questioning anyone, in any police investigation, on their alibi would ever necessitate their being branded a formal suspect. And in this case, the police were getting their information in real time with no opportunity to step back and reflect. Not to mention, AK was effusive in absolutely non coerced, totally voluntary statements that what she said under alleged coercion was correct.

But you have your opinion. I doubt it holds much legal sway, but we'll see. As to whether the ECHR will ignore AK not filing a formal complaint of coercion or physical abuse, I think you're wrong. The fact she didn't weakens her argument that she was coerced significantly, but perhaps the law doesn't allow the ECHR to make those types of subjective judgments.

Why would the police interrogate a non-suspect about her alibi? The only reason you ask someone about their alibi is to see whether they can prove that they weren't involved in the crime.

Also, don't you think the cops realized that she was a suspect whole they were typing up the 1:45 statement? Every piece of the arrest warrant was in place before they asked her to sign the 1:45 statement. As a matter if fact, the way the echr is interpreted, there are almost no situations where the police should be typing up incriminating statements and asking people to sign them without counsel present.

 

[Diocletus]

I think AK became a formal suspect when she placed herself at the scene of the crime and falsely accused another man of rape and murder.

Right. And then the police didn't get her a lawyer, but instead, typed that into a statement and had her sign it.

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

I have written here many times that I have my doubts that Rudy killed Meredith. He just doesn't have a history of that kind of violence.

But, there is a lot more physical evidence that he was there when Meredith died than there is of Raffaele and Amanda, and he never called for help. That bothers me.

He might have been telling the truth in that Skype call be made to his friend, and Raffaele and Amanda might actually have been there and killed her, I just don't see it. I just can't convince myself, like you can, that they're probably guilty.

I always try to question my assumptions, and you should too.

The skeptic should always be skeptical of their own assumptions also,

d

-

From Rudy's personal history I can see why you might have that opinion Amy. My problem is that Rudy reeks of guilt. Rudy weaves a bizarre story during the Skype call. That a man came in and killed Meredith while he was listening to music on his headphones taking a dump...while on his first date with Meredith? Seriously? Not only is there not the slightest bit of confirmation that Rudy had a date with Meredith, it is not believable that Rudy would spend 10 to 15 minutes on the john while on the first date with a woman. It is also not believable that someone came in and killed his date while was in the other room. It is also not likely that Rudy would have used Filomena's and Laura's bathroom when there is a bathroom steps from the bedroom (Meredith's) that he was just in.

Then there is the fact that Rudy fled the country when no one was pursuing him. That demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

I don't find anything of what Rudy said on the Skype call to be believable except Meredith's time of death and the only reason I believe that is Rudy has no reason to lie about this point. It is irrelevant to his culpability.

 

[Numbers]

It's not a matter of placing burden at all. They will most likely accept the determination of the police that she wasn't a formal suspect based on the principles of law in the Italian system for investigating a murder.

To the extent they do weigh in subjectively, they will probably notice that AK, by her own testimony, was asked to leave the precinct that night, and that the police didn't want to talk to her. They will also note that the police didn't have much reason to formally suspect her of actual involvement until she made a statement that both put herself at the scene of the crime and falsely accused another man of murder. If they were to further speculate she was coerced, they will note she never filed charges of coercion or being struck. Lastly, they will see that she voluntarily corroborated her own callunia while not being questioned.

I doubt very much this will all be waved away because the ECHR makes a highly subjective determination that in the fluid course of her questioning that night the police should have made an instantaneous decision she was a culprit, not a witness.

I understand your arguments, I just think they're wishful at best, delusional at worst.

griffin,
I added emphasis (bolding and highlighting) to your statement "the police didn't want to talk to her".

If that statement were true, why would Giobbi have testified in court that he had ordered Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be picked up and interrogated, in a special parallel interrogation not done before in Perugia, the night of Nov. 5/6, 2007?

If that statement were true, why would police have requested that Amanda enter an interrogation room, interrupting her yoga excises and/or studying in the public area of the police station?

If that statement were true, why would so many teams of police be interrogating Amanda during the night, using the tag-team method?

If that statement were true, why would Giobbi have testified in court that Amanda was yelling and crying for help during the interrogation?

By the way, griffin, I am curious about some of your beliefs about the European Convention for Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, and how you may have come to such beliefs. Do you, for instance, believe that the purpose of the ECtHR is to accept whatever police or domestic courts claim is true, or do you believe that the ECtHR looks at evidence in order to determine whether claims of violations of rights may be true?

Have you read the Convention or any part of it? You can find the text as a PDF at:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer

The case law of the ECtHR is available on HUDOC, a searchable database, but summaries of important cases are provided by the ECtHR; for example:

Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb)
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf

Here are some quotes from the Guide on Article 6:

122. The right to remain silent applies from the point at which the suspect is questioned by the police (John Murray v. the United Kingdom, § 45).

125. Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination. In order for the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 to remain sufficiently “practical and effective”, access to a lawyer should, as a rule, be provided from the first time a suspect is questioned by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (Salduz v. Turkey [GC], §§ 54-55).

 

[Diocletus]

Whatever Giobbi said, no party on either side disputes that AK was asked to leave the night she showed up at the precinct with RS.

You are effectively expecting that the ECHR will subjectively take one person's testimony as being indicative of the entire police force having declared AK and RS formal suspects behind the scenes.

Why shouldn't they take giobbi's word for it? He was the captain of the ship.

Let's put it this way: They're not going to NOT take giobbi's testimony. They were clearly the focus of the investigation, disguise able from all others, and that's a big problem for the prosecution.

 

[griffinmill]

Why would the police interrogate a non-suspect about her alibi? The only reason you ask someone about their alibi is to see whether they can prove that they weren't involved in the crime.

Also, don't you think the cops realized that she was a suspect whole they were typing up the 1:45 statement? Every piece of the arrest warrant was in place before they asked her to sign the 1:45 statement. As a matter if fact, the way the echr is interpreted, there are almost no situations where the police should be typing up incriminating statements and asking people to sign them without counsel present.

Are you suggesting that police only ask about alibis to formal suspects? That's ludicrous. They ask alibis of everyone while they investigate.

AK became a formal suspect when she signed her 1:45 statement because she stated she was a material witness to a rape and murder.

It's not that complicated. Before that, she was someone they thought knew more. After, they realized she was actually involved.

 

[Desert Fox]

Are you suggesting that police only ask about alibis to formal suspects? That's ludicrous. They ask alibis of everyone while they investigate.

AK became a formal suspect when she signed her 1:45 statement because she stated she was a material witness to a rape and murder.

It's not that complicated. Before that, she was someone they thought knew more. After, they realized she was actually involved.

You are splitting hairs between "knowing more" and "being involved."

 

[anglolawyer]

Are you sure Anglo? I thought Pasquale was the police officer who questioned Quintavalle a few days after the murder.

No, I'm not sure, which is why I said 'something like'. Dan O has it on his wiki which may well be where I read it. The name will be in the Matteini motivation too.

 

[acbytesla]

Whatever Giobbi said, no party on either side disputes that AK was asked to leave the night she showed up at the precinct with RS.

You are effectively expecting that the ECHR will subjectively take one person's testimony as being indicative of the entire police force having declared AK and RS formal suspects behind the scenes.

I would be stunned if that piece of "evidence" carries any weight.

I admit I have no idea how the ECHR will rule although the precedence that Numbers quotes seems to support a slam dunk win for Amanda. What I don't know is if there are case that Numbers has missed or hasn't presented that would support Italy's arguments.

But I do think it is a sign of intellectual dishonesty to think or argue that Amanda was not a suspect at the time of the interrogation. You are not merely a witness when police are yelling at you calling you a liar. A fact that no one denies.

 

[acbytesla]

No, I'm not sure, which is why I said 'something like'. Dan O has it on his wiki which may well be where I read it. The name will be in the Matteini motivation too.

You got it right...someone confirmed it in the thread, It was Volturno that I was thinking of.

 

[Diocletus]

AK became a formal suspect when she signed her 1:45 statement because she stated she was a material witness to a rape and murder.

It's not that complicated. Before that, she was someone they thought knew more. After, they realized she was actually involved.

Oh, really? So you don't think they suspected her when she said the things that they purported to write down on the statement? Or maybe while they were actually typing it?

And yeah, if you're interrogating someone about their alibi, after you've already been told what it is and you think it was retracted, then you are exploring the possibility of their involvement in the crime.

And, what do you mean by "formal suspect"?

 

[Numbers]

Whatever Giobbi said, no party on either side disputes that AK was asked to leave the night she showed up at the precinct with RS.
You are effectively expecting that the ECHR will subjectively take one person's testimony as being indicative of the entire police force having declared AK and RS formal suspects behind the scenes.

I would be stunned if that piece of "evidence" carries any weight.

griffin,
I highlighted your statement above.

First, you state "...the ECHR will subjectively take one person's testimony...".

The ECHR evaluates evidence; perhaps you believe that the evaluation of evidence is a subjective process. The ECHR in its judgments first presents the claims of the applicant, then the response of the State, and then any facts it has gathered on its own, including relevant domestic and international laws, including the Convention and ECHR case law. Then it evaluates all those factors judiciously. If you wish to believe that type of evaluation is subjective, you are free to do so.

Second, you state "...one person's testimony as being indicative of the entire police force ....".

What will be noted by the ECHR is that the "one person" is the major-crimes specialist, Edgardo Giobbi, sent from Rome to aid the Perugian police in solving Meredith Kercher's murder/rape. He was a co-director of the investigation and helping to direct the Perugian police unit in its work. Therefore, considerable weight must be assigned to the significance of his testimony.

 

[griffinmill]

Oh, really? So you don't think they suspected her when she said the things that they purported to write down on the statement? Or maybe while they were actually typing it?

And yeah, if you're interrogating someone about their alibi, after you've already been told what it is and you think it was retracted, then you are exploring the possibility of their involvement in the crime.

And, what do you mean by "formal suspect"?

I imagine they were suspicious of her early on. But they were probably suspicious of many people.

The question is when they were legally forced to stop their questioning and provide her with a lawyer.

I don't know the intricacies of Italian law. But I'm guessing they never crossed those boundaries when they were interviewing her on a night they didn't want to see her, and in a split second she decided to tell them she was at the scene of the murder and witnessed another man rape and murder MK.

You can spin this out legally any way you want. I just doubt the ECHR will see it any differently.

 

[Numbers]

Are you suggesting that police only ask about alibis to formal suspects? That's ludicrous. They ask alibis of everyone while they investigate.

AK became a formal suspect when she signed her 1:45 statement because she stated she was a material witness to a rape and murder.

It's not that complicated. Before that, she was someone they thought knew more. After, they realized she was actually involved.

griffin,

The terminology "formal suspect" is not used AFAIK by the ECHR. They do use "suspect" and person who has been placed under "criminal charge".
Here's a quote from Guide on Article 6 to illustrate.

3. The concept of a “criminal charge” has an “autonomous” meaning, independent of the categorisations employed by the national legal systems of the member States (Adolf v. Austria, § 30).

4. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. It may thus be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”, a definition that also corresponds to the test whether “the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected” (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, §§ 42 and 46, and Eckle v. Germany, § 73). The Court has also held that a person in police custody who was required to swear an oath before being questioned as a witness was already the subject of a “criminal charge” and had the right to remain silent (Brusco v. France, §§ 46-50).

Thus, when the police "invited" Amanda into the interrogation room on the night of Nov. 5/6, her "situation had been substantially affected" because they were planning to interrogate her as a suspect. She had already been interviewed for many hours by the police, and it is clear that they were now going to move forward to "break" Amanda and Raffaele; that is why the police were in teams and prepared to interrogate all night (a standard interrogation tactic to wear down a suspect). Note that a "witness" interrogated as a "suspect" becomes a person under "criminal charge". And it is ECHR that defines these situations, not merely the legalisms of a State.

 

[Numbers]

I imagine they were suspicious of her early on. But they were probably suspicious of many people.

The question is when they were legally forced to stop their questioning and provide her with a lawyer.

I don't know the intricacies of Italian law. But I'm guessing they never crossed those boundaries when they were interviewing her on a night they didn't want to see her, and in a split second she decided to tell them she was at the scene of the murder and witnessed another man rape and murder MK.

You can spin this out legally any way you want. I just doubt the ECHR will see it any differently.

griffin,
Added highlighting to your quote.

The Convention is Italian law, and it is the law of each of the Council of Europe States. Italy and the other States undertook to follow the Convention and the judgments of the ECtHR. Domestic State law must yield to the Convention and its case law when the State law provides less human rights protection.

Sadly, Italy and some of the other States don't follow the Convention very well. That is why there are so many applications against them (over 10,000 pending applications against Italy as of Nov. 30, 2014).

ETA: Italy also violated its own Constitution and CCP in this case, as has been pointed out in earlier posts.
ETA2: Again, she was at the police station voluntarily, she did not choose to be in the interrogation room or to be asked questions in that room. That was at the "invitation" of the police, and they clearly had a plan to "question" (really, coercively interrogate) her.