Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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.

The question isn't about the intricacies of Italian Law but the ECHR convention that Italy is a signatory.

Earlier, you said it was just wishful thinking, but that isn't it at all. It is based on the precedence of similar cases. The ECHR convention and the case law seems to support Amanda. You're the one that seems to be basing your opinion about how they will rule based on nothing but your own gut or wishful thinking. I have yet to read about a case where the defendant was denied legal counsel during questioning where they have ruled in favor of the prosecution. Do you?

 

[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,
{Highlighting added by me to your quote]

To help clarify what the ECHR looks at, here is a quote from the Deweer v. Belgium case, 6903/75, 27/02/1980:

44. However, the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see especially the above-mentioned Airey judgment, pp. 12-13, par. 24) prompts the Court to prefer a "substantive", rather than a "formal", conception of the "charge" contemplated by Article 6 par. 1 (art. 6-1). The Court is compelled to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the procedure in question.

{emphasis added}
Thus, the realities and substance of a case or situation are what matters to the ECtHR, not the legalisms or formalities that may be imposed by a State, especially when those legalities and formalities serve to deprive someone of their Convention rights, such as the right to a fair trial. And one can't have a fair trial if the conviction is based upon statements (whether true or false) made in an interrogation without the presence of a lawyer for the suspect (and the "suspect" may be defined as the "person being interrogated").

 

[Samson]

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.

This is new to me, seems to close the ECHR case. She was a suspect before the evening began at 10 32pm then, and
1. Was illegally questioned if a lawyer was not present.
2. A voice/video recording was legally required (?)

 

[Diocletus]

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

We're not talking about "early on". The question is whether they suspected her after she made the (oral) statements that they then typed up and asked her to sign, because if they did (and they did, see arrest warrant), they should have gotten her a lawyer before they had her sign anything. I maintain that the police can almost never ask someone to sign an incriminating statement without procuring counsel, and then use that statement to convict.

Early on, all of the building residents were suspected due to the keyholder/staging issues, but they were all (except Knox) eliminated as suspects before the questioning on the 5th.

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

Sort of, but not really. The question is when her procedural rights attached under the ECHR. BTW, I just noticed that in addition to the right to asssistance of counsel, the right to remain silent, and the right to a translator, there is also a recognized right not to be incited.

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.

Again, Italian law doesn't matter. And yes, there are situations where police will be questioning a witness and start to suspect that person. The police can continue questioning that person, but if they do so in the absence of counsel, the ECHR prevents them from using the ensuing statements to convict the person.

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

You can call it spin, but what we're doing is applying the facts of this case to determinable ECHR law. You don't seem to have satisfactory answers to most of these questions, and you're relying on a gut feeling/hope, which is fine, but not impressive.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Can I ask what is Dan O's wicki? Is that www.murderofmeredithkercher.com?

If so, does Dan O manage that all by himself?

 

[anglolawyer]

Can I ask what is Dan O's wicki? Is that www.murderofmeredithkercher.com?

If so, does Dan O manage that all by himself?

No it's something Dan created long before. It's a repository of useful information.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When did the police enter Raffaele's apartment?

Can someone remind me of what time the police entered Raffaele's apartment? If it were before the 1:45 statement, would that constitute evidence that the police thought Raffaele was a suspect? Does that carry over to Amanda because both were charged?

The material leaked to the press on or before 5 November, the fact that everything Giobbi indicated was suspicious behavior had occurred before the evening of 5 November, the fact that the police surreptitiously recorded them one evening, and Matteini's words, convinces me that they were both suspects by the time that they walked into the station.

 

[Dan O.]

Can I ask what is Dan O's wicki? Is that www.murderofmeredithkercher.com?

If so, does Dan O manage that all by himself?

My wiki was started early in the original thread and I invited the best researchers on both sides to contribute. It is a repository of facts, links and indexes relavent to the case.

It does seem at times that I have to manage this resource all by myself.

 

[carbonjam72]

Coercive Interrogations Produce Self-Incriminating Statements, i.e. conspiracies.

Can someone remind me of what time the police entered Raffaele's apartment? If it were before the 1:45 statement, would that constitute evidence that the police thought Raffaele was a suspect? Does that carry over to Amanda because both were charged?

The material leaked to the press on or before 5 November, the fact that everything Giobbi indicated was suspicious behavior had occurred before the evening of 5 November, the fact that the police surreptitiously recorded them one evening, and Matteini's words, convinces me that they were both suspects by the time that they walked into the station.

I'd also suggest that the style and substance of the Italian police interrogations, seems to go hand in hand with a preference for criminal conspiracies.

By luring in "suspects" and brutalizing confessions out of them through obviously well practiced and familiar methods, such as sleep deprivation, food deprivation, violence, threats, denial of attorney, late night & other fatigue generating tactics, and isolation - all the police need to do is break a suspect into an admission that they "were there".

Which means the 'suspects' were complicit by virtue of their presence, and therefore, also a witness.

So it's not surprising we see the same pattern over and over with the Italian police - forced recanted confessions, with multiple persons alleged in crimes which a normal reading of evidence would suggest were single perps.

Mignini and the Italian judiciary's seeming fondness for conspiracy, is consequent to an addiction to abusive interrogation tactics, used as a method for grinding out implicating confessions & thus multi-party convictions.

In essence, Italian justice is fundamentally structured as a witch hunt.

 

[Dan O.]

Can someone remind me of what time the police entered Raffaele's apartment? If it were before the 1:45 statement, would that constitute evidence that the police thought Raffaele was a suspect? Does that carry over to Amanda because both were charged?

The material leaked to the press on or before 5 November, the fact that everything Giobbi indicated was suspicious behavior had occurred before the evening of 5 November, the fact that the police surreptitiously recorded them one evening, and Matteini's words, convinces me that they were both suspects by the time that they walked into the station.

The first official visit was when they took Raffaele (barefoot because they had taken his shoes) back to his apartment the morning of the 6th. This is when one of the officers opened a kitchen drawer (making it an illegal search) and discovered the famous clean kitchen knife.

But Raffaele's computer records show that there was human interaction on his computer at a time when Raffaele was at the police station the evening of the 5th.

The plan to meet at the police station starting at 5PM and begin the interrogations at 10PM (Giobbi's testimony) is an indication that they were being treated as suspects.

That evening didn't just happen. It was meticulously planned. They knew what they were after and had lines of questioning laid out to achieve their goals. Amanda's cell phone message didn't just happen to come up in conversation. They knew in advance that there was a text exchange and they planned the questioning to bring out the cell phone and get their hands on it. As soon as one of the officers got ahold of the phone he disappeared from the room with it.

 

[Diocletus]

The first official visit was when they took Raffaele (barefoot because they had taken his shoes) back to his apartment the morning of the 6th. This is when one of the officers opened a kitchen drawer (making it an illegal search) and discovered the famous clean kitchen knife.

But Raffaele's computer records show that there was human interaction on his computer at a time when Raffaele was at the police station the evening of the 5th.

The plan to meet at the police station starting at 5PM and begin the interrogations at 10PM (Giobbi's testimony) is an indication that they were being treated as suspects.

I believe they had ruled out the boys downstairs by some time on the 4th.

 

[Dan O.]

I believe they had ruled out the boys downstairs by some time on the 4th.

It is also on the 4th that the confused Kate Mansey interview is published. The police further confused this story with their own speculations and got Raffaele to agree with it. But that resulting scenario is contradicted by clear facts. Raffaele himself reflects on this second version and calls it a pack of lies (or load of crap) in front of the judge claiming that Amanda brought him to say these things and he didn't realize the contradictions. But we know that the police had Amanda and Raffaele separated that night. It is the police alone that would have been feeding Raffaele stories of what Amanda was saying just as they were feeding Amanda stories of what Raffaele was saying (seen in Amanda's writings).

 

[anglolawyer]

Can someone remind me of what time the police entered Raffaele's apartment? If it were before the 1:45 statement, would that constitute evidence that the police thought Raffaele was a suspect? Does that carry over to Amanda because both were charged?

The material leaked to the press on or before 5 November, the fact that everything Giobbi indicated was suspicious behavior had occurred before the evening of 5 November, the fact that the police surreptitiously recorded them one evening, and Matteini's words, convinces me that they were both suspects by the time that they walked into the station.

The interference with his computer was at about 10.00 p.m. on the 5th, before the interrogations.

 

[Dan O.]

The interference with his computer was at about 10.00 p.m. on the 5th, before the interrogations.

Candice says Raffaele went to the police station at 21:40. There should at least be a hard number from Raffaele's phone records for when he was called. Amanda had already been kicked out to the elevator lobby, settled in to begin studying, got up to stretch and called Filomena when they approached her to begin questioning at 22:39. The judges report says Raffaele signed the first summary at 22:40.

Did Raffaele really have an opportunity to finish dinner at the friends house, run home to interact with his computer, run to the police station and make up a "load of crap" to appease the police all while stoned?

 

[Machiavelli]

-

First of all, I'm not a big fan of Amanda. I just believe Raffaele and her are probably innocent, and you still haven't proven that the De Felice quote is wrong,

-

But I have presented my testimony about what De Felice said at the press conference. And you don't have any quote from the original statement, nor another Italian person who explains you what he said.
The allegation that the police was already focused on Lumumba is an extraordinary assumption, that would require a solid proof for a reasonable person to believe it.

 

[Welshman]

PGP like to use the statement Amanda made after the interrogation. They argue that the statement was made voluntarily when Amanda was not being put under pressure from the police. Althought Amanda describes confusion and uncertainty about what her recollection of events, Amanda describes being in the cottage witnessing Patrik Lumumba killing Meredith which to the PGP is an admission of guilt. An issue which interests me is can interrogations techniques cause confusion and disorentation after an interrogation has finished. I raised this issue on the IIP forum and this was the response I got http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=2872&p=128172#p128172

 

[carbonjam72]

It is also on the 4th that the confused Kate Mansey interview is published. The police further confused this story with their own speculations and got Raffaele to agree with it. But that resulting scenario is contradicted by clear facts. Raffaele himself reflects on this second version and calls it a pack of lies (or load of crap) in front of the judge claiming that Amanda brought him to say these things and he didn't realize the contradictions. But we know that the police had Amanda and Raffaele separated that night. It is the police alone that would have been feeding Raffaele stories of what Amanda was saying just as they were feeding Amanda stories of what Raffaele was saying (seen in Amanda's writings).

Link is busted, but I'd be curious to read if anyone has it -

 

[carbonjam72]

PGP like to use the statement Amanda made after the interrogation. They argue that the statement was made voluntarily when Amanda was not being put under pressure from the police. Althought Amanda describes confusion and uncertainty about what her recollection of events, Amanda describes being in the cottage witnessing Patrik Lumumba killing Meredith which to the PGP is an admission of guilt. An issue which interests me is can interrogations techniques cause confusion and disorentation after an interrogation has finished. I raised this issue on the IIP forum and this was the response I got http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=2872&p=128172#p128172

Both Amanda and Raf describe the disorientation they experienced from their Nov 5/6th interrogations as taking days or even weeks to wear off, in their books. Did they coordinate that?

The idea that in the room they are lying and manipulative, or momentarily coerced, but then 4 hours later when Amanda writes a statement, she cannot be said to be experiencing coercion, strikes me as an extraordinary lack of empathy, illogic, and an inherently dishonest need to find guilt.

I never believed the convicting judges were serious in this case. Not one of them. They convict because they want to, and because they can.

It's not a real courtroom, judges, evidence, or crimes.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Debra Milke case in Arizona is not really an exact parallel to the Perugian miscarriage of justice - but it shows how these things can linger on for years until some court wisens-up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/case-tossed-vs-woman-held_n_6311502.html

At the heart of why Debra Milke spend 22 years on death-row, before being exonerated and freed, is prosecutorial misconduct as well as a cop with a known history of lying being listened to over and above common sense.

The Arizona Court of Appeals leveled harsh criticism against prosecutors over their failure to turn over evidence during Debra Jean Milke's trial about a detective with a long history of misconduct and lying. The court called prosecutors' actions "a severe stain on the Arizona justice system."​

Of course, the prosecution now has the option of appealing this ruling. If they do so, IMO it will be only to protect ego, not to serve any sense of meaningful justice.

What does that remind you of?

 

[carbonjam72]

The Debra Milke case in Arizona is not really an exact parallel to the Perugian miscarriage of justice - but it shows how these things can linger on for years until some court wisens-up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/case-tossed-vs-woman-held_n_6311502.html

At the heart of why Debra Milke spend 22 years on death-row, before being exonerated and freed, is prosecutorial misconduct as well as a cop with a known history of lying being listened to over and above common sense.

​

Of course, the prosecution now has the option of appealing this ruling. If they do so, IMO it will be only to protect ego, not to serve any sense of meaningful justice.

What does that remind you of?

What happens to the lying policeman and the prosecutors? Zippo?