Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

An ECHR case in which the court choose not to admit the report/testimony of a defense expert, resulting in a violation of Convention Article 6.1.

MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA 58428/10 27/03/2014


169. It is primarily for the national courts to decide whether a particular piece of evidence is formally admissible (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28). Similarly, under Article 6 it is normally not the Court’s role to determine whether a particular expert report available to the domestic judge was reliable or not (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, cited above, § 700). Subject to some exceptions, the general rule is that the domestic judge has a wide discretion in choosing amongst conflicting expert opinions and picking one which he or she deems consistent and credible. However, the rules on admissibility of evidence may sometimes run counter to the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, or affect the fairness of the proceedings otherwise (see, for example, Tamminen v. Finland, no. 40847/98, §§ 40-41, 15 June 2004). In the context of expert evidence, the rules on its admissibility must not deprive the defence of the opportunity to challenge it effectively, in particular by introducing or obtaining alternative opinions and reports. In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).

207. The Court is mindful of the fact that Judge M. heard a number of witnesses for the defence, examined several expert opinions and studied various documents. However, the question of whether or not the defence enjoyed “equality of arms” with the prosecution and whether the trial was “adversarial” cannot be addressed solely in quantitative terms. In the present case it was very difficult for the defence to effectively challenge the expert evidence submitted to the court by the prosecution. The Court stresses that the case against the applicant was built upon that expert evidence. In those circumstances, the way in which expert evidence was handled made the applicant’s trial unfair. Therefore, the Court does not need to address the other procedural violations alleged by the applicant.
208. On the strength of the above the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

[Desert Fox]

Gosh, well no just that the Italian judiciary, as an institution more than likely will have a different opinion to yours.

Numbers, let us all keep in mind that none of us know the basis of the caluunia application, sure you can make educated guesses but you don’t know its content this for me at least is an important point, I don’t understand how this point seems to have been forgotten.

According to Number's research, there are several solid grounds which an ECHR case can be brought. As such, anybody who is reasonably intelligent can be pretty sure what grounds are being argued.

The thing is that the Italian Judiciary is insane and one cannot know how they react to reasonable arguments. Otherwise, to be blunt, they would have dusted Amanda and Raff off and said "sorry"

 

[Numbers]

Gosh, well no just that the Italian judiciary, as an institution more than likely will have a different opinion to yours.

Numbers, let us all keep in mind that none of us know the basis of the caluunia application, sure you can make educated guesses but you don’t know its content this for me at least is an important point, I don’t understand how this point seems to have been forgotten.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The Italian judiciary may have a different opinion than mine. But how do you know their opinion? Are you referring to the CSC, with about 400 members, about 200 in the criminal division? Or the panel of 5 (or will it be a United Section of 9) who will hear Amanda's and Raffaele's appeals on March 25?

Are you aware that the judiciary is not directly involved in the ECHR, but a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice, that is, the Italian Government? There may be no direct involvement of the judiciary in the ECHR process.

The content of any application at this stage (before communication to the respondent State) is not public; it may not be public after communication either. So all we have to go on is our reading of what Amanda announced on her blog in November, 2013, the Convention, the ECHR case law, and ECHR procedures and Court rules.

You and others certainly are entitled to your own opinions.

One poster on this forum stated that he/she didn't believe that Amanda had filed an application. That is certainly a legitimate opinion; I would call that the application denial position.

Similarly, one could consider the ECHR merely a hoax web site, if one hasn't been to Strasbourg, France to verify its existence. That is another legitimate opinion; I would call that the ECHR denial position.

 

[Dougm]

Do you think Italy or the US will try to manipulate the system?
What do you believe that they would do?
Do you believe that the ECHR judges can be influenced?

I don't think either will try to manipulate the ECHR itself. I believe everyone in the world CAN be influenced, but I don't think either country will try to influence the ECHR.

I am more talking about some potential coercion outside the ECHR. I've seen lots of people who believe this no longer is a criminal proceeding, but a political one (and several of those who feel that way are from Italy).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The Italian judiciary may have a different opinion than mine. But how do you know their opinion? Are you referring to the CSC, with about 400 members, about 200 in the criminal division? Or the panel of 5 (or will it be a United Section of 9) who will hear Amanda's and Raffaele's appeals on March 25?

I don’t know their opinion which is why I fail to understand how anyone can present the caluunia application as a slam-dunk ECHR case.

Are you aware that the judiciary is not directly involved in the ECHR, but a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice, that is, the Italian Government? There may be no direct involvement of the judiciary in the ECHR process.

So that Italian government official could be an ex Italian Supreme Court judge for all you know, like Giovanni Galati, remember him?

The content of any application at this stage (before communication to the respondent State) is not public; it may not be public after communication either. So all we have to go on is our reading of what Amanda announced on her blog in November, 2013, the Convention, the ECHR case law, and ECHR procedures and Court rules.

I know this, but sometimes folks post as though they have read the application, no one here has admitted to that, everything posted here about the caluunia application is educated suppositions.

You and others certainly are entitled to your own opinions.

One poster on this forum stated that he/she didn't believe that Amanda had filed an application. That is certainly a legitimate opinion; I would call that the application denial position.

Similarly, one could consider the ECHR merely a hoax web site, if one hasn't been to Strasbourg, France to verify its existence. That is another legitimate opinion; I would call that the ECHR denial position.

I do not believe the application of the law is binary and like everyone posting here you cannot predict or consider every possible legal argument. I have followed this case via the web going back to SeattlePI blog in 2009 and I am yet to see a slam-dunk.

 

[Wattson]

I don’t know their opinion which is why I fail to understand how anyone can present the caluunia application as a slam-dunk ECHR case.



So that Italian government official could be an ex Italian Supreme Court judge for all you know, like Giovanni Galati, remember him?



I know this, but sometimes folks post as though they have read the application, no one here has admitted to that, everything posted here about the caluunia application is educated suppositions.



I do not believe the application of the law is binary and like everyone posting here you cannot predict or consider every possible legal argument. I have followed this case via the web going back to SeattlePI blog in 2009 and I am yet to see a slam-dunk.

Do you think they're guilty?

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you think they're guilty?

He seems to always stood at this halfway, unwilling to commit, position.
Seems to believe that whatever judges and juries decide is the right course.

 

[AmyStrange]

Thank you Numbers

-

How long do ECHR cases take?

In a superficial examination of the above, I retrieved 14 cases against Italy relating mostly to an alleged violation of Art. 6.3c using HUDOC. The average (mean) length was 4.3 years and the range was 2 to 7 years. The mode (most common value; 5 instances) was 4 years.

This result should be understood as only a crude estimate as a statistical representation of the total data, but has some value in setting practical expectations of how long an ECHR case may take to reach judgment.

-

Good job with your reasoning and sampling data. It's sound and reasonable. Five years is still a long time though, but still better than a couple decades.

Thank you again,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

I don’t know their opinion which is why I fail to understand how anyone can present the caluunia application as a slam-dunk ECHR case.



So that Italian government official could be an ex Italian Supreme Court judge for all you know, like Giovanni Galati, remember him?



I know this, but sometimes folks post as though they have read the application, no one here has admitted to that, everything posted here about the caluunia application is educated suppositions.

I do not believe the application of the law is binary and like everyone posting here you cannot predict or consider every possible legal argument. I have followed this case via the web going back to SeattlePI blog in 2009 and I am yet to see a slam-dunk.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

This is all I know about what might be in Amanda Knox's application; it's from her blog of Nov. 25, 2013:

European Court of Human Rights
by AMANDA posted on NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander conviction with the European Court of Human Rights. My slander conviction was based on comments I made regarding Patrick Lumumba…comments that were coerced during a lengthy interrogation by Perugia police shortly before I was arrested in 2007. The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith’s murder, which was a violation of my human rights. The police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name saying they knew I was going to meet him the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder which was not true. I have stated many times that my original comments about Patrick were coerced by the police and not true.

(Note: The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1998 it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly. The Court is located in Strasbourg, France.)

(Further note: I was originally convicted of slander at my original trial in December 2009. My conviction for slander was upheld during my appeal that resulted in my acquittal of Meredith’s murder. The slander conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March of 2013 and my appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was filed today.)

 

[Numbers]

I don’t know their opinion which is why I fail to understand how anyone can present the caluunia application as a slam-dunk ECHR case.



So that Italian government official could be an ex Italian Supreme Court judge for all you know, like Giovanni Galati, remember him?



I know this, but sometimes folks post as though they have read the application, no one here has admitted to that, everything posted here about the caluunia application is educated suppositions.



I do not believe the application of the law is binary and like everyone posting here you cannot predict or consider every possible legal argument. I have followed this case via the web going back to SeattlePI blog in 2009 and I am yet to see a slam-dunk.

Some of us have been looking into the case-law of the ECHR, which is available through their database site HUDOC. The European Convention of Human Rights is interpreted and extended through the common law system, by means of applying case-law precedent. The judgments of the ECHR are written in clear English, or in French, and can be readily understood. (Some judgments have been translated into other languages of the Council of Europe States.) There are also Guide booklets available online at the ECHR home page. These Guides explain some of the most commonly encountered and important case-law. For example, there is a Guide on Article 6: The Right to a Fair Trial. The intent of all this educational material from ECHR is to allow citizens, particularly of the CoE States, to understand their rights and how to apply to the ECHR. By assuming that the statements made in Amanda's Nov. 25 blog and her other public statements are contained in her application as complaints alleged against the Italian Republic, and search ECHR case-law for similar complaints, one can form a reasonable understanding of the likely course of the presumed application before the ECHR. Anyone who can comfortably read English or French and understands how common law precedent generalities work (and I would say that that is just common sense) can follow this path. Thus one can rely on one's own findings to reach an informed opinion.

 

[Kauffer]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

This is all I know about what might be in Amanda Knox's application; it's from her blog of Nov. 25, 2013:

European Court of Human Rights
by AMANDA posted on NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander conviction with the European Court of Human Rights. My slander conviction was based on comments I made regarding Patrick Lumumba…comments that were coerced during a lengthy interrogation by Perugia police shortly before I was arrested in 2007. The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith’s murder, which was a violation of my human rights. The police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name saying they knew I was going to meet him the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder which was not true. I have stated many times that my original comments about Patrick were coerced by the police and not true.

(Note: The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1998 it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly. The Court is located in Strasbourg, France.)

(Further note: I was originally convicted of slander at my original trial in December 2009. My conviction for slander was upheld during my appeal that resulted in my acquittal of Meredith’s murder. The slander conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March of 2013 and my appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was filed today.)

It is interesting she brings up the issue of the interrogation "in a language I barely spoke". This would refer to the 9:30pm - 12:30am session when the interpreter was not there. That's a violation of 6(e). Then you have a further violation because Donnino testifies she interfered in the interrogation when she started work.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is interesting she brings up the issue of the interrogation "in a language I barely spoke". This would refer to the 9:30pm - 12:30am session when the interpreter was not there. That's a violation of 6(e). Then you have a further violation because Donnino testifies she interfered in the interrogation when she started work.

I believe that Ficarra went out into the hall to question Knox about her phone at 11:30 pm. AK had just been talking with Filomena on the phone about the uncertainty of their living arrangement...

Where does "9:30 pm" come from?

 

[Kauffer]

Jackie's OCD

The "PMF" General Counsel, "Jackie", has, as Diocletus and others have noted, gone obsessive over the issue of custody. He argues that Ms Knox's procedural rights become live only if you can apply an "objective test of custody". He's been citing some US case law on the subject.

Jackie - baby - I'm gonna help you a bit because you see this is not a US case.

Under the Convention, your right to a lawyer kicks in when:

1) Your position is significantly affected

- In Shabelnik v Ukraine, it was held by the ECHR that the right to legal assistance arose at the point that the person’s position was significantly affected, even though that person was not formally placed in custody as a suspect.

2) Suspicion is seriously investigated.

- In the same case, the ECHR clarified that a person’s position will be significantly affected as soon as the suspicion against him is seriously investigated. In this case, the applicant was questioned as a witness, not as a suspect or as someone accused of a crime. Sound familiar, Jackie?!!

Also:

3) The ECHR does not rely on formal designations of status:

- Again in Shabelnik, the ECHR found violations of Articles 6(1) and (3) of the convention on the grounds that the point at which the right to legal assistance arises does not depend on formal designation. The Court found similar violations in Brusco v France when a person who was interviewed as a witness confessed to a crime! Sound familiar, Jackie?!!

Does this help you? You see the thing is, you need to read widely but relevantly and develop some ability to synthesise. The essence of things, Jackie - that's the ticket! There's a nice bit of Latin I could quote you at this point, but actually, I think you probably know it already. Look up the cases I've cited, Jackie and give it a go. Then, if you like, you can start reading up some of the other post Salduz judgements - there are lots of them. Salduz sets the direction the court now takes - Hugo's picked up on that; read on from there. Have a look at Zaichenko, in particular. But remember, from Salduz, rights must be "practical and effective".

Now, I'll be expecting the quality of your advice significantly to improve and I will be checking in from time to time to make sure.

 

[Samson]

I believe that Ficarra went out into the hall to question Knox about her phone at 11:30 pm. AK had just been talking with Filomena on the phone about the uncertainty of their living arrangement...

Where does "9:30 pm" come from?

Crucial is the (naming) of Rudy Guede).
There are three mammoths in the interrogation room

1.Rudy Guede.
2. Raffaele Sollecito.
3. Patrick Lumumba.

Until the modal logicians weigh in to connect the venn diagramms that explain how all these mammoths are woven into "the gift"....

(platonov I am truly sorry to plagiarise your method)

 

[Kauffer]

I believe that Ficarra went out into the hall to question Knox about her phone at 11:30 pm. AK had just been talking with Filomena on the phone about the uncertainty of their living arrangement...

Where does "9:30 pm" come from?

I mis-typed - sorry. It's 10:30 approx isn't it? The cops summoned Mr Sollecito at about 10. Maybe Ms Knox was called in later. Perhaps someone will clarify.

 

[JREF2010]

Most of the applications to the ECHR from Italy are from Italian citizens (at least their names seem Italian - see HUDOC and look for cases against Italy); I don't believe those relatively few from non-Italians make much difference. There are so many from Italians that Amanda Knox's application will in a sense be hardly noticed.

Similarly, most cases against any of the ECHR CoE States are from their own nationals.


http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_eng.pdf

Italy
Applications pending before the
court on 04/07/2014

Total pending Applications 23347
Applications pending before a judicial
formation: 15497
Single Judge 480
Committee (3 Judges) 4406
Chamber (7 Judges) 10610
Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 1

If a judge is unaware of this case, I would wonder what planet he is on, or how much LSD he used in the 1960's.

 

[LondonJohn]

The "PMF" General Counsel, "Jackie", has, as Diocletus and others have noted, gone obsessive over the issue of custody. He argues that Ms Knox's procedural rights become live only if you can apply an "objective test of custody". He's been citing some US case law on the subject.

Jackie - baby - I'm gonna help you a bit because you see this is not a US case.

Under the Convention, your right to a lawyer kicks in when:

1) Your position is significantly affected

- In Shabelnik v Ukraine, it was held by the ECHR that the right to legal assistance arose at the point that the person’s position was significantly affected, even though that person was not formally placed in custody as a suspect.

2) Suspicion is seriously investigated.

- In the same case, the ECHR clarified that a person’s position will be significantly affected as soon as the suspicion against him is seriously investigated. In this case, the applicant was questioned as a witness, not as a suspect or as someone accused of a crime. Sound familiar, Jackie?!!

Also:

3) The ECHR does not rely on formal designations of status:

- Again in Shabelnik, the ECHR found violations of Articles 6(1) and (3) of the convention on the grounds that the point at which the right to legal assistance arises does not depend on formal designation. The Court found similar violations in Brusco v France when a person who was interviewed as a witness confessed to a crime! Sound familiar, Jackie?!!

Does this help you? You see the thing is, you need to read widely but relevantly and develop some ability to synthesise. The essence of things, Jackie - that's the ticket! There's a nice bit of Latin I could quote you at this point, but actually, I think you probably know it already. Look up the cases I've cited, Jackie and give it a go. Then, if you like, you can start reading up some of the other post Salduz judgements - there are lots of them. Salduz sets the direction the court now takes - Hugo's picked up on that; read on from there. Have a look at Zaichenko, in particular. But remember, from Salduz, rights must be "practical and effective".

Now, I'll be expecting the quality of your advice significantly to improve and I will be checking in from time to time to make sure.

It's a shame that "Jackie" will not come here to engage in debate in a neutral, non-partisan, well-moderated forum. Oh wait, he was banned for being unable to act in a civil manner! Quelle Surprise!

"Jackie" also seems weirdly obsessed (as a quick gander at his epistles elsewhere shows) with his latest (in his mind) gotcha. He is rather excited about catching "Knox supporters" in a double bind. How, he wonders, can "Knox supporters" claim on the one hand that there was no credible evidence linking Knox to the murder, while on the other hand claiming that Knox should have been declared a suspect on the evening/night of 5/6 November (given that the police need proper grounds to suspect someone). He garnishes this "argument" with a provocative reference to Knox "cut(ting) Meredith's throat wide open".

Well, all I can say is that it's a good job for suspects everywhere that "Jackie" was struck off (what for, I wonder.....?). You see, the police did have reasonable grounds to suspect Knox of a criminal offence well before Knox made her infamous oral "confession/accusation" on 5/6 November. At the very least, the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that Knox had lied to them in order to obstruct justice, since Sollecito had just (albeit confusedly) admitted that Knox might have left his apartment on the night of the murder. Furthermore, the police had reasonable (but, as it turns out, misplaced) grounds to believe that Knox had lied to them about the full existence, content and meaning of the text exchange that she had had with Lumumba on the night of the murder. Indeed, we can be very highly confident (per Knox's account, which chimes perfectly with Donnino's court testimony and de Felice's remarks to the media the following day) that the police suspected that Knox had met up with Lumumba and gone with him to the cottage, and that they had decent evidence to support this suspicion.

"Jackie" strangely seems unable to grasp the concept that a) having reasonable grounds to suspect someone, and b) having sufficient evidence to charge someone, let alone secure their conviction in court, are entirely different tests. The police clearly had (or at least thought they had) reasonable grounds to suspect Knox of a criminal offence - whether that offence was obstruction of justice or actual participation in the murder - as soon as Sollecito had opened the door for Knox leaving his apartment that night, and as soon as they had (mistakenly) interpreted Knox's text message to Lumumba as indication of an imminent meeting that night. It's more than clear that the police were interrogating Knox as a suspect within minutes of the start of her 5/6 Nov interrogation. They were, provably, accusing her of meeting up with Lumumba and going to the cottage with him, and of lying to them previously when she "claimed" she'd been at Sollecito's apartment all evening and night.

 

[Samson]

It's a shame that "Jackie" will not come here to engage in debate in a neutral, non-partisan, well-moderated forum. Oh wait, he was banned for being unable to act in a civil manner! Quelle Surprise!"Jackie" also seems weirdly obsessed (as a quick gander at his epistles elsewhere shows) with his latest (in his mind) gotcha. He is rather excited about catching "Knox supporters" in a double bind. How, he wonders, can "Knox supporters" claim on the one hand that there was no credible evidence linking Knox to the murder, while on the other hand claiming that Knox should have been declared a suspect on the evening/night of 5/6 November (given that the police need proper grounds to suspect someone). He garnishes this "argument" with a provocative reference to Knox "cut(ting) Meredith's throat wide open".

Well, all I can say is that it's a good job for suspects everywhere that "Jackie" was struck off (what for, I wonder.....?). You see, the police did have reasonable grounds to suspect Knox of a criminal offence well before Knox made her infamous oral "confession/accusation" on 5/6 November. At the very least, the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that Knox had lied to them in order to obstruct justice, since Sollecito had just (albeit confusedly) admitted that Knox might have left his apartment on the night of the murder. Furthermore, the police had reasonable (but, as it turns out, misplaced) grounds to believe that Knox had lied to them about the full existence, content and meaning of the text exchange that she had had with Lumumba on the night of the murder. Indeed, we can be very highly confident (per Knox's account, which chimes perfectly with Donnino's court testimony and de Felice's remarks to the media the following day) that the police suspected that Knox had met up with Lumumba and gone with him to the cottage, and that they had decent evidence to support this suspicion.

"Jackie" strangely seems unable to grasp the concept that a) having reasonable grounds to suspect someone, and b) having sufficient evidence to charge someone, let alone secure their conviction in court, are entirely different tests. The police clearly had (or at least thought they had) reasonable grounds to suspect Knox of a criminal offence - whether that offence was obstruction of justice or actual participation in the murder - as soon as Sollecito had opened the door for Knox leaving his apartment that night, and as soon as they had (mistakenly) interpreted Knox's text message to Lumumba as indication of an imminent meeting that night. It's more than clear that the police were interrogating Knox as a suspect within minutes of the start of her 5/6 Nov interrogation. They were, provably, accusing her of meeting up with Lumumba and going to the cottage with him, and of lying to them previously when she "claimed" she'd been at Sollecito's apartment all evening and night.

I wish noone was banned.
RandyN is an army autopsist, yet his banning was triggered by a reference to a t shirt, and his annoyance escalated to a banning.

 

[Kauffer]

It's a shame that "Jackie" will not come here to engage in debate in a neutral, non-partisan, well-moderated forum. Oh wait, he was banned for being unable to act in a civil manner! Quelle Surprise!

"Jackie" also seems weirdly obsessed (as a quick gander at his epistles elsewhere shows) with his latest (in his mind) gotcha. He is rather excited about catching "Knox supporters" in a double bind. How, he wonders, can "Knox supporters" claim on the one hand that there was no credible evidence linking Knox to the murder, while on the other hand claiming that Knox should have been declared a suspect on the evening/night of 5/6 November (given that the police need proper grounds to suspect someone). He garnishes this "argument" with a provocative reference to Knox "cut(ting) Meredith's throat wide open".

Well, all I can say is that it's a good job for suspects everywhere that "Jackie" was struck off (what for, I wonder.....?). You see, the police did have reasonable grounds to suspect Knox of a criminal offence well before Knox made her infamous oral "confession/accusation" on 5/6 November. At the very least, the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that Knox had lied to them in order to obstruct justice, since Sollecito had just (albeit confusedly) admitted that Knox might have left his apartment on the night of the murder. Furthermore, the police had reasonable (but, as it turns out, misplaced) grounds to believe that Knox had lied to them about the full existence, content and meaning of the text exchange that she had had with Lumumba on the night of the murder. Indeed, we can be very highly confident (per Knox's account, which chimes perfectly with Donnino's court testimony and de Felice's remarks to the media the following day) that the police suspected that Knox had met up with Lumumba and gone with him to the cottage, and that they had decent evidence to support this suspicion.

"Jackie" strangely seems unable to grasp the concept that a) having reasonable grounds to suspect someone, and b) having sufficient evidence to charge someone, let alone secure their conviction in court, are entirely different tests. The police clearly had (or at least thought they had) reasonable grounds to suspect Knox of a criminal offence - whether that offence was obstruction of justice or actual participation in the murder - as soon as Sollecito had opened the door for Knox leaving his apartment that night, and as soon as they had (mistakenly) interpreted Knox's text message to Lumumba as indication of an imminent meeting that night. It's more than clear that the police were interrogating Knox as a suspect within minutes of the start of her 5/6 Nov interrogation. They were, provably, accusing her of meeting up with Lumumba and going to the cottage with him, and of lying to them previously when she "claimed" she'd been at Sollecito's apartment all evening and night.

One can't nullify the rights violations by arguing ex post facto that the police had no reasonable grounds for suspicion - you shouldn't have been a suspect and therefore cannot enjoy the protections afforded them!? That would be ludicrous. The concept of reasonable suspicion is meant to regulate the actions of the police not restrict the rights of people who come into contact with them.

 

[anglolawyer]

One can't nullify the rights violations by arguing ex post facto that the police had no reasonable grounds for suspicion - you shouldn't have been a suspect and therefore cannot enjoy the protections afforded them!? That would be ludicrous. The concept of reasonable suspicion is meant to regulate the actions of the police not restrict the rights of people who come into contact with them.

Thanks for directing me to Amanda's account of Napoleone's evidence yesterday. You reminded me of the Guilters' Dilemma (maybe it should be a Paradox, not sure). That is to reconcile the belief that she was not a suspect as of 10.30 p.m. on 5th Nov with all her deeply suspicious behaviour and the clear and obvious pointers to her guilt all of which were fully evident before the 5th.