Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Mr Lumumba as you correctly accord him gentlemanly status is seeking money from Amanda Knox, who he probably correctly believes has ability to pay.
This is a parallel notion to the five surviving Kercher family members seeking money from Raffaele Sollecito, who are also probably correct in believing he has the ability to pay.

Since he is out of the clutches of Italy, has anybody thought about contacting him? Might explain what happened from a scholarly point of view. If he is an honorable person, might drop all suits against Amanda.

 

[Numbers]

Perhaps the ECHR would be minded not to admit it, if indeed it ever existed, since he is no longer in jeopardy and was awarded compensation against Italy -8 grand, wasnt it? One wonders whether the ECHR will eventually decide that these denial of counsel claims in Italy amount to a "repetitive" problem.

You bring up interesting points.

IIUC, the award from Italy to Mr. Lumumba was strictly for the false arrest. They did not admit to violating his rights by the police abusing him. So the ECHR would still see a case despite that award.

But the question is, what further steps did Patrick Lumumba take, or could he have taken, within the Italian judicial system, to have the (alleged) violation of his rights remedied? If he did not pursue them because they were not practically available, his ECHR case could be maintained, but if he did not pursue them although they were in reality practically available, his case would be decided inadmissible.

I don't know how many cases the ECHR would consider as justifying calling them repetitive. There was a Turkish law that stated that anyone who was charged in a "state security matter" and was to appear before the "state security court" (which included military judges) was NOT entitled to a lawyer during interrogation. The ECHR had many cases relating to this, including the Salduz v. Turkey case. Eventually, the judgments in these cases became very short, since the ECHR had become familiar with the issues. Turkey eventually changed its law, with urging from the ECHR.

 

[Kauffer]

Since he is out of the clutches of Italy, has anybody thought about contacting him? Might explain what happened from a scholarly point of view. If he is an honorable person, might drop all suits against Amanda.

This is in fact a most interesting line of thought. Indeed all of the main protagonists in this murky saga, with the exception of Curatalo, are available to approaches. Maybe one of them might have something he or she is prepared to say that might go some way to changing the direction of this case. As you suggest, the "clutches" of Italy represent something of a deterrent.

In the Faria case, I rather felt for the two jurors who came forward, even though they had been part of the whole jury which basically invented an evidence point upon which to convict Mr Faria - that he left his mobile phone to ping off a distant tower in order to enhance his alibi. They seem to have realised that they have been both duped and foolish.

 

[Vibio]

I see you're back on this topic. Apparently discussion of the horrendous police mistreatment of Patrick Lumumba, which had been documented in a contemporary newspaper article if I recall correctly, has touched a nerve.

While I said that I speculated that Mr. Lumumba had dropped his legal action and ceased making statements about his mistreatment at the hands of the Italian police

The Knoxians never note that the famous DailyMail article about Lumumba's maltreatment by the police was published on the 25th of November.

The very next day on the 26th, Il Corriere della Sera published an interview with Lumumba where he says he was misquoted by the DailyMail.

In the interview he says:

"Non sono stato picchiato - afferma inoltre Lumumba. - Io ho detto che sono stato molto umiliato perché la polizia mi ha preso senza dirmi il motivo e poi la mia parola non valeva niente. Ma non ci sono stati atti di violenza. I poliziotti hanno fatto la faccia dura per farmi confessare. Non so come hanno trattato Amanda e Raffaele, ma io non sono stato trattato molto bene».

"I was not beaten, I said that I was very humiliated because the police came and got me without telling me why and my word was worth nothing. But there were no acts of violence. The police acted tough to get me to confess. I do not know how they treated Amanda and Raffaele, but I was not treated very well. "

He also says he was misquoted in his comments about Amanda. He's not as harsh about her in the Corriere article.

If you want to think that Lumumba made this Corriere interview because of pressure from the police in only 24 hours, ...well, I doubt it. And remember: the article was published in English and not (easily) available in Italy.

And furthermore: Lumumba did sue over his arrest. He won 8,000 euros for the 2 weeks he was in jail. And he felt that was not enough... he originally sued for 500,000 and so he sued again.

Kind of strange if he was so intimidated by the cops.

 

[anglolawyer]

The Knoxians never note that the famous DailyMail article was published on the 25th of November.

The very next day on the 26th Il Corriere della Sera published an interview with Lumumba where he says he was misquoted by the DailyMail.

He says he was

It was published in English and not (easily) available in Italy.

In the interview he says:

"Non sono stato picchiato - afferma inoltre Lumumba. - Io ho detto che sono stato molto umiliato perché la polizia mi ha preso senza dirmi il motivo e poi la mia parola non valeva niente. Ma non ci sono stati atti di violenza. I poliziotti hanno fatto la faccia dura per farmi confessare. Non so come hanno trattato Amanda e Raffaele, ma io non sono stato trattato molto bene».


"I was not beaten, I said that I was very humiliated because the police came and got me without telling me why and my word was worth nothing. But there were no acts of violence. The police acted tough to get me to confess. I do not know how they treated Amanda and Raffaele, but I was not treated very well. "

He also says he was misquoted in his comments about Amanda. He's not as harsh about her in the Corriere article.

If you want to think that Lumumba made this Corriere interview because of pressure from the police in only 24 hours... well, I doubt it.

And furthermore: Lumumba did sue over his arrest. He won 8,000 euros for the 2 weeks he was in jail. He felt that was not enough... he originally sued for 500,000 and so he sued again.

Kind of strange if he was si intimidated by the cops.

In other words, they infringed his right not to be questioned without legal assistance but we are supposed to believe they would never have done such a thing with A & R. Believe that and you will believe anything. But we already know that about the guilters.

 

[Dan O.]

Annella,
Thanks! So Guede apparently had a mobile phone when he left for Germany. If this is correct, the questions are: what the police know about Guede, when did they know it, and when was his mobile bugged.

(...)

He says he didn't have a SIM card. This is why Giacomo can't call him, and they have to talk on Skype from an internet café.

The question under discussion was whether the police could have tapped Rudy's phone. The fact is that Rudy did have a SIM card registered in his name and he even tells us that his number was 329.1819627. The card was presumably in the stollen phone at the time he was apprehended in Milan so the card too was likely confiscated. But this fact does not prevent the police from applying a tap on that number. The number is from an Italian provider and therefore the Italian postal police have access to the registration information that would link Rudy's name to the number.

 

[Machiavelli]

The question under discussion was whether the police could have tapped Rudy's phone. The fact is that Rudy did have a SIM card registered in his name and he even tells us that his number was 329.1819627. The card was presumably in the stollen phone at the time he was apprehended in Milan so the card too was likely confiscated. But this fact does not prevent the police from applying a tap on that number. The number is from an Italian provider and therefore the Italian postal police have access to the registration information that would link Rudy's name to the number.

The Buratti interview implies that there are transcribed recordings of Guede, not that the police tapped his phone.

The basic element anyway, is that Buratti doesn't state nor implies that Lumumba's phone was tapped, even less that it was tapped before the 5th. I suggest you just admit that and close the topic.

 

[Machiavelli]

In other words, they infringed his right not to be questioned without legal assistance but we are supposed to believe they would never have done such a thing with A & R. Believe that and you will believe anything. But we already know that about the guilters.

This statement makes no sense. We all know that Knox was interrogated.
But we also know that Knox released a spontaneous statement before a magistrate, that she wrote false acusations herself, again and repeatedly and that she refused to clarify her statements subsequently. We also know that she claimed having incurred in a false memory syndrome, and not having been forced to lie under coercion.
All this is on paper, there is nothing to "believe":

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting, underlining, and bold added to quote.}

Mach,
The statement highlighted and bolded in your quote is absolutely incorrect with respect to the underlined text. Failure to provide a lawyer to a suspect who was arrested and interrogated is absolutely against ECHR case-law; it was a violation by the police of Mr. Patrick Lumumba's Convention human rights, Article 6.3c. Since Mr. Lumumba was never brought to trial, and charges were dismissed (IIUC) there was no violation of Article 6.1.

The abuse, verbal and physical, that Mr. Lumumba experienced from the police were a violation of Article 3. I did see in a newspaper account that he had returned the money he had been offered by the Italian Republic to compensate for his false arrest, and was intending to file an application with the ECHR, but I could not find a case under his name in the HUDOC database.

The right to a counsel is not absolute, not even for the ECHR. The application of this right can be limited, over a short period of time, by the public interest of not hampering the investigation.
If Lumumba suffered abuses is his right to file proceedings at the ECHR to seek compensation. This has nothing to do with Knox's guilt or innocence.

 

[Kauffer]

This statement makes no sense. We all know that Knox was interrogated.
But we also know that Knox released a spontanepus statement before a magistrate, that she wrote false acusations again herself repeatedly and that she refused to clarify her statements subsequently. We also know that she claimed having incurred in a false memory syndeomr, and not having been forced to lie under coercion.
All this is on paper, there is nothing to "believe":

You have stated that Lumumba's denial of counsel was legal! You referred but did not cite the code. Please do so. Your claims are even more extraordinary. You claim Ms Knox had no lawyer because she was not a suspect. You claim Lumumba had no lawyer because the police have a right to deny suspects lawyers!!! You have some explaining to do and some clarifications to make.

 

[Dan O.]

The Milan police knew Guede didn't have a cell phone, since they had seized the only one he was carrying. But the point is that Comodi and Buratti make clear that recordings of Guede do exist. I don't see why they couldn't be the Skype calls, since we know they were transcribed.
One thing you can't do is to replace his words so that a recordings becomes an "attempt", as if they just tried to make a recording but made none. Clearly Buratti says they have 83 recordings of various kinds, some environmental but most of them electronic interceptions, and the whole number includes Guede. But we know he had no phone.

And again, Machiavelli lies by omission. the rest of what Buratti says in his testimony is:

QUESTION - Then there were under interception of telephones defendants?
ANSWER - The phones of the defendants, the Knox and ...
QUESTION - Of the suspects then?
ANSWER - The suspects then so from the day 2, from day 2 to follow developments Business investigative hand to hand were authorized wiretaps. QUESTION - So Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.
ANSWER - Yes, and then we talk about the first interception, no?
QUESTION - I do not ask in chronological order, so Rudy Guede, Lumumba?
ANSWER - Yes, Romanelli, Mezzetti.
QUESTION - So even friends?
ANSWER - Yes.​

 

[Machiavelli]

Well now. I'd like to hear more about this, because it's new. We have a suspect in a murder investigation and the "denial of lawyer and isolation is completely within the provisions of the code", according to you. With reference to the code, show us how Lumumba's treatment by the police "is legal".

As for the ECHR interpretation of Convention art. 6 and 3., Enea vs. Italy and Mole vs. Italy sets the principles that defence rights can be partly sacrified on the bìground of compelling needs to protect the public interest to security, that is pretectig the ongoing of the investigation.
Decisions Salduz vs. Turkey and Simons vs. Belgium (the latter inadmissible) also stated that the right to counsel is not absolute from the moment of arrest, and may be delayed by ahtorities on grounds of public security.

As for the Italian law, the power to delay access to counsel is set in procedure code art. 104, §§ 3 and 4. This article was applied to all three suspects.

 

[Numbers]

Mach,

I see you're back on this topic. Apparently discussion of the horrendous police mistreatment of Patrick Lumumba, which had been documented in a contemporary newspaper article if I recall correctly, has touched a nerve.

While I said that I speculated that Mr. Lumumba had dropped his legal action and ceased making statements about his mistreatment at the hands of the Italian police, which occurred at the time and subsequent to his arrest on Nov. 6, 2007 for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, which was a false charge brought against him by the Italian police, as a result of coercion or some form of threat or intimidation by the police, I never called him a "puppy" nor was I the one speculating in any way about him being blackmailed as a result of any questionable activity on his part. Others might have speculated about him being blackmailed on the basis of some activity the police had detected, but I believe the police in some places are powerful and corrupt enough not to need such an excuse to persecute or coerce an honest and innocent person, especially in Italy.

All these insults you are piling on Mr. Lumumba (puppy, worm, loathing compassion, etc.) are strictly your own saying, your own words. You are not quoting me.

I have never met Mr. Patrick Lumumba, but if he has been a victim of police brutality, as he initially reported and began to take legal action on, I feel a deep and sincere compassion for him. There have been many such victims, even here in the US. And I have a strong belief that authorities who abuse and brutalize should be held accountable. Your words seem to me merely a way to disguise the issue of this alleged police brutality that was initially reported by Patrick Lumumba.

However, it is or was for Mr. Lumumba and the Italian Republic to seek the legal consequences for alleged police brutallity in the jurisdiction of Italy, since we here in the US only know about it from news reports. If Patrick Lumumba decided based upon his own reason and free will not to pursue that matter, that was of course his free choice.

If I or others here speculate that a corrupt police force has coerced or influenced him to drop his legal action against the police, I certainly do not consider that a mark against him. There are many otherwise proud and courageous people who have been forced to do things against their will by the coercion of unjust authorities. Europe in the twentieth century was replete with uncounted examples of that.

In my opinion, you merely hide your support of a corrupt police force behind you insincere concerns for Mr. Lumumba's honor.

The Knoxians never note that the famous DailyMail article about Lumumba's maltreatment by the police was published on the 25th of November.

The very next day on the 26th, Il Corriere della Sera published an interview with Lumumba where he says he was misquoted by the DailyMail.

In the interview he says:

"Non sono stato picchiato - afferma inoltre Lumumba. - Io ho detto che sono stato molto umiliato perché la polizia mi ha preso senza dirmi il motivo e poi la mia parola non valeva niente. Ma non ci sono stati atti di violenza. I poliziotti hanno fatto la faccia dura per farmi confessare. Non so come hanno trattato Amanda e Raffaele, ma io non sono stato trattato molto bene».

"I was not beaten, I said that I was very humiliated because the police came and got me without telling me why and my word was worth nothing. But there were no acts of violence. The police acted tough to get me to confess. I do not know how they treated Amanda and Raffaele, but I was not treated very well. "

He also says he was misquoted in his comments about Amanda. He's not as harsh about her in the Corriere article.

If you want to think that Lumumba made this Corriere interview because of pressure from the police in only 24 hours, ...well, I doubt it. And remember: the article was published in English and not (easily) available in Italy.

And furthermore: Lumumba did sue over his arrest. He won 8,000 euros for the 2 weeks he was in jail. And he felt that was not enough... he originally sued for 500,000 and so he sued again.

Kind of strange if he was so intimidated by the cops.

Vibio,
I attached my whole post to your quote. I feel that your truncation of my post affected its meaning.

Second, I am not a witness to whatever treatment Mr. Lumumba had at the hands of the police in Perugia. He is the person who rightfully can or could pursue any legal actions relating to violations of his rights.

Italy offered to compensate him for the false arrest/imprisonment they imposed upon him. The police committed this error or crime because they did not await the evaluation of forensic results and other evidence before they took action. The police relied on coercing statements from innocent people to confirm police beliefs in who was involved in the crime, and the police then arrested Mr. Lumumba and others - Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - all of whom being totally innocent.

Mr. Lumumba, if I understand correctly, had initiated legal action against Italy for police brutality as well as false arrest and imprisonment. He did not pursue the police brutality part of the case, and did not accept the compensation Italy awarded to him for the false arrest/imprisonment. Following his release from detention, his pub was closed for four months, IIUC, which is a long time for a small business. It is unclear why the pub was closed - do you have an explanation? Some, myself included, believe it likely that the pub was closed as a warning from the authorities to Mr. Lumumba not to pursue his human rights case against the police.

A major failing of the authorities - the police and prosecution in Perugia - was that when they understood that Mr. Lumumba was innocent and thus should be released, they did not also acknowledge that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were also innocent and should have been released. The coerced statement(s) obtained from Ms. Knox were clearly false, and were only generated because of the coercion of the interrogation by the police. They were not calunnia, because Ms. Knox did not volunteer them of her own free will; they were made because the police violated the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure Article 188: Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

 

[Machiavelli]

And again, Machiavelli lies by omission. the rest of what Buratti says in his testimony is:
(...)

Buratti never says Lumumba was tapped before 5th, it's time for you to quit. This obstinate attept to make up thing that don't exist doesn't make you look more credible and is not good to your understanding of things.

P.S. By the way Buratti just the line before that says just "intercettazioni", not "wiretappings"; but also he is clearly NOT going in chronological order, this is clearly stated.

 

[Kauffer]

Buratti never says Lumumba was tapped before 5th, it's time for you to quit. This obstinate attept to make up thing that don't exist doesn't make you look more credible and is not good to your understanding of things.

P.S. By the way Buratti just the line before that says just "intercettazioni", not "wiretappings"; but also he is clearly NOT going in chronological order, this is clearly stated.

I think your Italian powers of logic should really kick in here. If Lumumba's phone was tapped it MUST have been on or before the 5th. After this he was in prison until the 20th and exonerated thereafter. Logic!

 

[Machiavelli]

You have stated that Lumumba's denial of counsel was legal! You referred but did not cite the code. Please do so. Your claims are even more extraordinary. You claim Ms Knox had no lawyer because she was not a suspect. You claim Lumumba had no lawyer because the police have a right to deny suspects lawyers!!! You have some explaining to do and some clarifications to make.

I have actually no clarification to make. Everything is absolutely clear. You decide to misinterpret it and make straw men. Clearly, I attributed no importance to the fact that Knox was not a formal suspect at the beginning of the 5th interrogation. It is the Knoxophiles who attach importance to this, not me, and not the law. I say she was not a suspect, and I believe this was correct based on jurisprudence. But this is not wat has implication. It's not really important whether the "status" of informant or suspect was correctly attributed. What matters, is the type of statementm the claunnia, and her behaviour subsequently to that.

She was denied a counsel after application of art. 104, but this was decided at 8am of Nov. 6th: at that point the prosecution decided she was to be denied counsel until Nov. 8th.

I don't think I have to paste art. 104, of the procedure code do I? It's public, quite easy to find.

 

[Numbers]

As for the ECHR interpretation of Convention art. 6 and 3., Enea vs. Italy and Mole vs. Italy sets the principles that defence rights can be partly sacrified on the bìground of compelling needs to protect the public interest to security, that is pretectig the ongoing of the investigation.
Decisions Salduz vs. Turkey and Simons vs. Belgium (the latter inadmissible) also stated that the right to counsel is not absolute from the moment of arrest, and may be delayed by ahtorities on grounds of public security.

As for the Italian law, the power to delay access to counsel is set in procedure code art. 104, §§ 3 and 4. This article was applied to all three suspects.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,
You (and perhaps the prosecution in the original case) are trying to apply findings from a case involving Mafia-related crimes to this case against innocent college students who have no organized crime associates.

In fact, there was a violation in Enea v. Italy:
84. In conclusion, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The arguments that national security considerations prevail in the application of Ms. Knox to the ECHR is fallacious. This concept is addressed in Salduz v. Turkey, and Salduz was accused of crimes against the State, and denial of a lawyer while he was interrogated was found to be a violation of Article 6.3c.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think your Italian powers of logic should really kick in here. If Lumumba's phone was tapped it MUST have been on or before the 5th. After this he was in prison until the 20th and exonerated thereafter. Logic!

No. Lumumba was a formal suspect for monts after his release. He was not exhonerated on the 20th; he was just released.

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,
You (and perhaps the prosecution in the original case) are trying to apply findings from a case involving Mafia-related crimes to this case against innocent college students who have no organized crime associates.

In fact, there was a violation in Enea v. Italy:
84. In conclusion, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The arguments that national security considerations prevail in the application of Ms. Knox to the ECHR is fallacious. This concept is addressed in Salduz v. Turkey, and Salduz was accused of crimes against the State, and denial of a lawyer while he was interrogated was found to be a violation of Article 6.3c.

It's not fallacious, because the finding also accepts that delay of access to counsel is anyway admissible, and security considerations may prevail on this. Which is what we are talking about with reference to Lumumba. His access to consuel was not prevented, it was delayed until the 8th.

Art. 104 does not have any specifical designation or limitation to mafia related cases. This is a false claim.

 

[MDDVS]

As for the ECHR interpretation of Convention art. 6 and 3., Enea vs. Italy and Mole vs. Italy sets the principles that defence rights can be partly sacrified on the bìground of compelling needs to protect the public interest to security, that is pretectig the ongoing of the investigation.
Decisions Salduz vs. Turkey and Simons vs. Belgium (the latter inadmissible) also stated that the right to counsel is not absolute from the moment of arrest, and may be delayed by ahtorities on grounds of public security.

As for the Italian law, the power to delay access to counsel is set in procedure code art. 104, §§ 3 and 4. This article was applied to all three suspects.

You're joking right? The Simons vs Belgium judgement does not say what you're saying but the complete opposite.

"The Court noted that, according to its case-law, accused persons had the right to be assisted by a lawyer from the start of their time in police custody or pre-trial detention, and when being questioned by the police or the investigating judge. While some restrictions on that right might be justified in certain conditions, the fact of being unable to obtain the assistance of a lawyer in such circumstances by virtue of a rule of domestic law was incompatible with the right to a fair trial."

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4068142-4761275

The appeal by Ms. Simons relied on violations of articles 5 and 6. It was considered inadmissible only in terms of article 5. In terms of article 6 there was an obvious violation as stated in the decision but it was not considered because the trial was still ongoing.