Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

She may be charged, subsequently, with "reticence", but only if she was found to be innocent.
However that would only happen much later. In the immediate situation, what would happen if she refused to answer questions would be that she would be immediately awarded the "indagata" status, arrested, and suspected of involvement in the murder.

So here is a classic heads the police win, tails the subject loses situation.

Mach's statement here is equivalent to saying that indeed Amanda Knox was a suspect from the beginning of the interrogation. If she had responded to questions with silence, which was her right, she would have been arrested for murder. Why, on what evidence? Apparently, her silence.

Had she not named Patrick Lumumba as the murderer as the police interrogators and interpreter/mediator obviously suggested, she would have suffered a continuation of the coercive interrogation until she did name him.

Having buckled and told what the police what they already knew, as stated by the chief of Perugia's police force in the Nov. 6, 2007 press conference, according to Italian courts she was guilty of calunnia, because it turned out that Patrick Lumumba was totally innocent of the murder/rape.

With regard to Italian law, it is worthwhile to recall two CCP articles:

CCP 188
1. 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.

CCP 191
1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Thus, CCP 188 states that the techniques of the coercive interrogation were illegal. Then, CCP 191 states that illegal evidence may not be used (in a trial).

Yet, Amanda Knox's rights under Italian law were violated in Italian courts because these two articles of the CCP were ignored by the judges. And the ECHR will note this violation as being also a violation of the Convention, because there was no lawyer present at Amanda Knox's interrogation, and thus no check on police behavior during the interrogation. Thus, while the Amanda Knox's application will have some uniqueness, it will be a slam dunk for the ECHR to find Italy in violation of Articles 6.3c with 6.1.

 

[Kauffer]

Exactly.



Well the grounds would be suspicion of involvement in murder, or covering a murderer, and cautionary custody would be attached (flagrante delicto if she is covering a murderer), at least as a first temporaty measure.
The stated charge for which she would become an "indagata" would be the highest one, rape and murder. From which cautionary arrest would derive immediately.
If she "asks for a lawyer", that means refuses to answer unless she has a lawyer, it is always the same thing. She can hold this position, but would be suspected of involvement and arrested.

But hang on! She's just a witness who refuses to talk. Why does that make her a suspect ? What's changed? What evidence has emerged? Or look at it from the reverse angle. All the evidence which exists on which to base an arrest existed prior to her decision not to talk. So, she should already have been told she's a suspect. Yes?

 

[Machiavelli]

That makes no sense. If she isn't a suspect while being questioned as a mere witness, then she's no more of a suspect after she refuses to answer questions.

Absolutely wrong. If she obstructs the investigation, this would be considered evidence she has an interest in doing so. Thus, circumstantial evidence of involvement. Or in alternative, flagrante delicto of covering up for a murderer.

What's the maximum sentence for reiticence?

I think four years, but that would be an extreme theoretical limit. It would be certainly a short suspended term which won't actually bring one in prison. Conviction would occur only after years. However it is a criminal record.

 

[Kauffer]

Absolutely wrong. If she obstructs the investigation, this would be considered evidence she has an interest in doing so. Thus, circumstantial evidence of involvement. Or in alternative, flagrante delicto of covering up for a murderer.



I think four years, but that would be an extreme theoretical limit. It would be certainly a short suspended term which won't actually bring one in prison. Conviction would occur only after years. However it is a criminal record.

I'm going for reticence. If I'm stopped by the police, I'll say nothing. I'll just be reticent. Much safer. Rather have a theoretical 4 than an actual 25

This is all utter madness!

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Having buckled and told what the police what they already knew, as stated by the chief of Perugia's police force in the Nov. 6, 2007 press conference, according to Italian courts she was guilty of calunnia, because it turned out that Patrick Lumumba was totally innocent of the murder/rape.
(...)

They didn't say she told what they already knew. Your statement is false. They stated that she changed version and made statements of which they knew something was true.
Your statement is false and a misreporting, whether you like it or not.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm going for reticence. If I'm stopped by the police, I'll say nothing. I'll just be reticent. Much safer. Rather have a theoretical 4 than an actual 25

This is all utter madness!

Well, the problem is that most of the times reticence is not interpreted as reticence, but rather interpreted on the spot as evidence of guilt.

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely wrong. If she obstructs the investigation, this would be considered evidence she has an interest in doing so. Thus, circumstantial evidence of involvement. Or in alternative, flagrante delicto of covering up for a murderer.



I think four years, but that would be an extreme theoretical limit. It would be certainly a short suspended term which won't actually bring one in prison. Conviction would occur only after years. However it is a criminal record.

So, she is compelled to answer the interrogators' questions.

 

[Kauffer]

They didn't say she told what they already knew. Your statement is false. They stated that she changed version and made statements of which they knew something was true.
Your statement is false and a misreporting, whether you like it or not.

Do you have the transcript of de Felice's press conference now then?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
CCP 188
1. 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.

CCP 191
1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Thus, CCP 188 states that the techniques of the coercive interrogation were illegal. Then, CCP 191 states that illegal evidence may not be used (in a trial).

Yet, Amanda Knox's rights under Italian law were violated in Italian courts because these two articles of the CCP were ignored by the judges. And the ECHR will note this violation as being also a violation of the Convention, because there was no lawyer present at Amanda Knox's interrogation, and thus no check on police behavior during the interrogation. Thus, while the Amanda Knox's application will have some uniqueness, it will be a slam dunk for the ECHR to find Italy in violation of Articles 6.3c with 6.1.

There is no evidence of coercive interrogation.

Actually, there is no evidence of interrogation at all. She released her statement to Mignini who acted as a notery, without being interrogated, and she wrote hand written statements containing false testimony. She declared of having written them voluntarily on her own initiative and having given them voluntarily to the police. Those statement place evidence against others.
Then she failed to state her testimony was false, and she failed to provide any credible account of coercion (she actually refused to answer questions about the calunnia topic again on Dec. 17.).

 

[Machiavelli]

So, she is compelled to answer the interrogators' questions.

If she is innocent, yes.

 

[Kauffer]

If she is innocent, yes.

Really? What about all the others - Romanelli, Mezzetti, Silenzi etc. some attended interview with counsel didn't they? Are you saying the presence of counsel is useless? That if counsel advises client who is not a suspect not to answer a question and they follow that advise, they place themselves in danger of immediate arrest?

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no evidence of coercive interrogation.

Actually, there is no evidence of interrogation at all. She released her statement to Mignini who acted as a notery, without being interrogated, and she wrote hand written statements containing false testimony. She declared of having written them voluntarily on her own initiative and having given them voluntarily to the police. Those statement place evidence against others.
Then she failed to state her testimony was false, and she failed to provide any credible account of coercion (she actually refused to answer questions about the calunnia topic again on Dec. 17.).

Not coercive? Upthread you yourself outlined how Anna Donnino played a part in the coercion - by acting as a mediator to get Knox to say things she otherwise did not remembrt.

Sometimes i think you're going for laughs with your replies.

 

[Dan O.]

But then I don't understand what we are arguing about!

I'm actually not arguing. My goal is a search for a better truth. Sometimes I find it necessary to push sideways to break the current understanding out of it's rut and explore new directions.

With the aparent contradictions in Frank's reporting, the next step is to review his source.

 

[Numbers]

They didn't say she told what they already knew. Your statement is false. They stated that she changed version and made statements of which they knew something was true.
Your statement is false and a misreporting, whether you like it or not.

My statement is based on what has been commonly reported.

You have avoided any mention of the flagrant violations of CCP 188 and CCP 191, the violations by the Italian police and courts at the heart of this travesty.

Amanda Knox wrote in her first Memoriale, on Nov. 6, 2007:

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
____
This can only be considered as a withdrawal of her statement. She doubts that it was true. That means it must be considered false. She attributes her statements to stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion, she explicity details some of the coercive measures the police used against her:
Threats of 30 years imprisonment
Hit in the head when she didn't "remember a fact correctly".

These are things she reports are among the usual methods of coercion by police. The ECHR will recognize them. Her Memoriale statements also show the confusion typical in those subjected to extensive, exhaustive interrogation. They also serve as a first complaint against the police. Her statements in court (pointed out in anglo's post) likewise constitute a complaint against the police, as would be recognized by ECHR. The slander lawsuit then pressed against her by the police shows duress, and is an indication that she would be limited in the domestic remedies she could seek regarding the coercion. The ECHR will recognize these issues.

 

[Machiavelli]

Won't make any difference at the ECHR. You want to recognise a class of crime which is legally inciteable by the police from which, suspects have no protection. Good luck with that.

I don't see any creation of a "class of crime". This goes simply do any crime.
I also don't see evidence of incitement or coercion, quite solid evidence of the contrary. There isn't also a status of suspect, since that would mean suspected of calunnia. There must be some precedent crime or crime connected to this to establish a status of suspect, while there is no suspicion of calunnia, nor a crime connected to calunnia (since calunnia didn't exist yet).
There is no provision in the Italian code regarding police conduct that could link it to the existence of crime. I fail to see how legally a police behavior could be found to determine a crime. No one else's conduct can be determinant to one's responsibility.

 

[Numbers]

Denied the right to silence

So, she is compelled to answer the interrogators' questions.

ECHR would view the pressing of charges against someone simply because they were silent as a denial of the right to silence. This can only be taken as an inference in a court under rather special circumstances, such as terrorism cases, and where there is other evidence against the defendant.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - when Giuliano Mignini told Drew Griffin that he had not interrogated Knox, and acted as if only a notary, not only was that a lie it was an awkward lie.

Why? Because it would have been worse if he'd been telling the truth. It was simply ridiculous to claim such as someone ready to arrest a confessee.

It's even more ridiculous to claim Knox wrote the 5:45 am declaration which says, "I wish to spontaneously say....". Who says such things other than prosecutors knowing it needs to be phrased that way for future court?

It's amazing you even try to defend Mignini who is lying, obviously lying, and obviously awkwardly lying.

 

[Machiavelli]

Really? What about all the others - Romanelli, Mezzetti, Silenzi etc. some attended interview with counsel didn't they? Are you saying the presence of counsel is useless? That if counsel advises client who is not a suspect not to answer a question and they follow that advise, they place themselves in danger of immediate arrest?

In those cases their lawyers couldn't interfere with interviews. I am not aware Romanelli attended her interviews with a lawyer - maybe she attended one of them with a lawyer. But yes it's basically useless. In her case, she is a lawyer herself and the lodger of the house; in all those cases lawyers may have been allowed to be present, but merely as spectators, and only if the prosecutor was present himself. Investigators have no duty to let the lawyers in. They may kindly fo that. Certainly a refusal to talk would have consequence, if it's not justified by an actual attitude of suspicion by the police, leading to a potential future charge of obstruction. It would have immediate consequence also in the event of open suspicion, leading to formulizing the status of suspect, and probable cautionary arrest.

 

[Numbers]

If she is innocent, yes.

Is there an Italian law that covers this situation? Please provide the CCP article number or other identification.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not coercive? Upthread you yourself outlined how Anna Donnino played a part in the coercion - by acting as a mediator to get Knox to say things she otherwise did not remembrt.

Sometimes i think you're going for laughs with your replies.

You were talking about the 01:45 interrogation.
Anna Donnino wad also present at the 05:45 statement.