Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I have been discussing this problem with someone recently. One suggestion is to work with reference samples and evidence samples in separate facilities.

We have to accept that there will always be some doubt but we need to minimize the potential of convicting an innocent person as much as possible. No matter how good we get however, there is always going to be wrongful convictions. It cannot paralysis the legal system however.

 

[codyjuneau]

Another example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324244

From your link (highlighting mine), "The following day, the same pair of scissors had been used to cut the nails of the second murder victim. Although the scissors had been cleaned between uses, I couldn't help but wonder whether sufficient genetic material had survived the cleaning process to transfer onto the second victim's nails and then produce a DNA profile in the subsequent analysis."

.
But since that's only speculation and not proof of contamination, an Italian court would be obligated to reject the first victim's alibi that she was dead at the time of the second victim's killing, and posthumously convict her of murder.

Cody
.

 

[carbonjam72]

.
But since that's only speculation and not proof of contamination, an Italian court would be obligated to reject the first victim's alibi that she was dead at the time of the second victim's killing, and posthumously convict her of murder.

Cody
.

Yes, but the fact that the perpetrator was dead while committing the crime would have to be considered a mitigating factor.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
But since that's only speculation and not proof of contamination, an Italian court would be obligated to reject the first victim's alibi that she was dead at the time of the second victim's killing, and posthumously convict her of murder.

Cody
.

Yes, but the fact that the perpetrator was dead while committing the crime would have to be considered a mitigating factor.

.
But only if Mignini exhumes her body, determines it really is her, and that there has not been another Narducci style double body swap.

Cody
.

 

[carbonjam72]

.
But only if Mignini exhumes her body, determines it really is her, and that there has not been another Narducci style double body swap.

Cody
.

And don't forget that the lay judges with their eighth grade diplomas took it as an indication of guilt, that the guilty dead refused to speak and deny the allegations.

"If they're so innocent, what was there to hide?" asked one incredulous juror.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, but the fact that the perpetrator was dead while committing the crime would have to be considered a mitigating factor.

Are you kidding. What good reason would a dead person have for killing somebody? It would obviously be a crime for no good reason, which is an aggravating factor.

 

[carbonjam72]

Are you kidding. What good reason would a dead person have for killing somebody? It would obviously be a crime for no good reason, which is an aggravating factor.

Oh please, any decent defense attorney would be arguing diminished capacity.

But they would however have to be kept in preventive detention, having demonstrated a clear flight risk.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh please, any decent defense attorney would be arguing diminished capacity.

But they would however have to be kept in preventive detention, having demonstrated a clear flight risk.

I feel sorry for the others in the prison due to the smell risk

 

[Planigale]

I feel sorry for the others in the prison due to the smell risk

Yes i guess like with Knox poor body hygeine would be used as further proof of guilt.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes i guess like with Knox poor body hygeine would be used as further proof of guilt.

Wait a minute. I thought the Italians had identified her odor as "sex". Now it's "poor body hygiene"? What the heck does Italian sex smell like? No wonder they have a low birth rate.

 

[Diocletus]

Witness or Suspect?

Here’s an interesting new case about some youths who were taken into a police station, and without counsel and under duress made false statements about the death of a man who had in fact been killed by the police. In part of the case, the government argued that the applicants were just witnesses (i.e., had no procedural rights), as opposed to “suspects,” who would be entitled to procedural rights. Here’s what the courts said:

123. In any event, having regard to the police reports which state that the applicants were “apprehended” (see paragraphs 24 above), the nature of the statements taken from them (see paragraphs 27-28 above), and the fact that swabs were taken from one of them with a view to establishing whether or not he had gunpowder residue on his hands (see paragraph 23 above), coupled with the fact that a prosecutor started an investigation against the second applicant (see paragraph 35 above), the Court considers that the applicants were detained at the police station as suspects.

24. According to another police report drawn up the same morning, six teenagers, including the two applicants, “who had been apprehended in connection with the incident” were “placed in the custody of the police” and taken to Beyoğlu police station at 5.30 a.m. with a view to being transferred to a special police station for minors.

27. In the statements, the applicants were reported to have told the two police officers that they had been walking along the street with a number of their friends when they had seen A.Ö. They had noticed that he was drunk, and had attempted to rob him. However, he had produced a pistol and they had unsuccessfully tried to take it from him. During the scuffle, the pistol had gone off and their friend B.S. had been shot.

28. One of their friends had then pursued the armed man and started hitting him. When his pistol had fallen to the ground, their friend had taken it and shot him in the head. They had then taken B.S. to hospital and had been arrested there by the police.

23. The report also stated that hand swabs had been taken from four individuals with a view to establishing whether or not they had gunpowder residue on their hands. The four individuals included the first applicant who, according to the report, “had been taken in by the police in connection with the incident”.

35. An investigation which had been started by a prosecutor against the second applicant and his neighbour B.S. for the “attempted robbery” of A.Ö. was discontinued on 3 December 2002, because the prosecutor observed that the applicants’ neighbour had been killed by the police officer, and there was no evidence implicating the second applicant in the incident.

Let’s compare this to the situation with Knox:

As to para. 24, Knox maybe wasn’t “apprehended and brought to the police station,” although an order had been given for her apprehension (Giobbi) and she was taken in to an interrogation that she did not volunteer for. Also, she had already been wiretapped and her alibi was under attack.

As to para. 27, just as in Ugur, the police wrote for Knox a false story, which became her statement.

As to para. 23, Knox had previously been fingerprinted. In addition, the police were questioning her alibi and had seized the co-defendants shoes and knife with an aim to matching them to the forensics. The police seized and searched Knox’s cell phone, for which they had previously obtained the records.

As to para. 35, note again that the police were questioning Sollecito about his and Knox’s alibi, and seized his shoes and knife, and utilized all of these things to justify his arrest. Also note that Knox was charged with callunnia . . . which it appears was not a pressure applied to the applicants in Ugur, above.

Oh, and there's also this fun statement in paragraph 120:

In this connection, the Court must also emphasise that the characterisation or lack of characterisation given by a State to a factual situation cannot decisively affect the Court’s conclusion as to the existence of a deprivation of liberty (see Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 92, 23 February 2012). Thus, the fact that both the national authorities and subsequently the respondent Government considered that the applicants had not been arrested but had been kept in a police station as “statement makers” or as witnesses does not automatically mean that they were not deprived of their liberty since, regardless of its purpose, the deprivation of liberty must be lawful.

 

[sept79]

Urgency? It’s not like Raffaele could be placed on death row. Amanda is across the pond and then some, so neither would be in imminent danger. I agree there would be a clear link between the caluunia application and any possible ECHR application stemming from a confirmation by the Italian Cassation, which is why I believe the caluunia application will be dead in the water.

Haven't read any more posts from CoulsdonUK since this epic of a few days ago. Where are you CoulsdonUK?

 

[Numbers]

Here’s an interesting new case about some youths who were taken into a police station, and without counsel and under duress made false statements about the death of a man who had in fact been killed by the police. In part of the case, the government argued that the applicants were just witnesses (i.e., had no procedural rights), as opposed to “suspects,” who would be entitled to procedural rights. Here’s what the courts said:



Let’s compare this to the situation with Knox:

As to para. 24, Knox maybe wasn’t “apprehended and brought to the police station,” although an order had been given for her apprehension (Giobbi) and she was taken in to an interrogation that she did not volunteer for. Also, she had already been wiretapped and her alibi was under attack.

As to para. 27, just as in Ugur, the police wrote for Knox a false story, which became her statement.

As to para. 23, Knox had previously been fingerprinted. In addition, the police were questioning her alibi and had seized the co-defendants shoes and knife with an aim to matching them to the forensics. The police seized and searched Knox’s cell phone, for which they had previously obtained the records.

As to para. 35, note again that the police were questioning Sollecito about his and Knox’s alibi, and seized his shoes and knife, and utilized all of these things to justify his arrest. Also note that Knox was charged with callunnia . . . which it appears was not a pressure applied to the applicants in Ugur, above.

Oh, and there's also this fun statement in paragraph 120:

Very good catch, Diocletus!

The case is:

CASE OF UĞUR v. TURKEY 37308/05 13/01/2015

published today (Strasbourg time).

The one disappointing issue is that it was lodged with the ECHR 28 September 2005 and a Chamber judgment was only published 13 January 2015.

18. In their observations, the Government summarised the investigation documents (also summarised below in paragraphs 21 to 74), and submitted that the applicants had been taken to Beyoğlu police station with a view to being questioned as witnesses of a serious crime, namely the killing of B.S. The applicants, who were minors at the time, were taken to the station at 6.30 a.m. with a view to being referred to a special police station for minors. No custody reports were drawn up because the applicants had not been arrested, just taken in as witnesses.

The ECHR looked at the substance of what had occurred, not the "official" version of events, and found that statements by the police were indeed contrary to fact:

130. The Court considers that parallels can be drawn between the cases referred to above in which the unlawful nature of the detention contributed to those detainees’ subsequent enforced disappearances in the hands of the military, and the present application. In the present case it cannot be excluded that the incommunicado nature of the applicants’ detention contributed to their ill-treatment by the police. It is noteworthy in this connection that a number of defendant police officers defended themselves by denying that the applicants had been detained at their police station, and thus attempted to benefit from their own act of detaining the applicants unlawfully.

There are strong parallels here to the Knox-Sollecito case, in which one or both persons are at a police station supposedly as "witness(es)" but become "suspect(es)" as a result of interrogation by police.

It is also of interest that in Ugur v Turkey that violation of Convention Article 3 in substantive and procedural branches were found.

 

[Numbers]

Here's another quote from Ugur v Turkey. It was written in context of the police who were accused of mistreating the applicant and others, but it could also apply to a prosecutor like Mignini, who was the defendant in a case in which he was charged with misconduct (abuse of power) during the pre-trial and first trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

108. At this juncture the Court also reiterates the importance of the suspension from duty of an agent under investigation or on trial, as well as his dismissal if he is convicted, (see, inter alia, Abdülsamet Yaman, cited above, § 55). The importance of doing so is well evidenced in the present application, where the police officers who ill-treated the applicants – in particular police chief K.Ş.S. – used their powers to stall the investigation by failing to reply to the prosecutor’s requests for a long period of time and by putting pressure on the applicants.

This is one more solid argument why Amanda Knox will not be extradited to Italy, if there should ever be a request for extradition.

The ECHR statement also applies to the police officers who interrogated Amanda Knox and who she claimed mistreated her.

 

[Bob001]

I long ago gave up trying to follow this thread, but I am curious about the basic issues: What is the status of this case? Is Raffaele free or in jail? If free, can he travel outside Italy? If Amanda travels outside the U.S., is she in danger of arrest? Is there an international warrant or the equivalent in effect? Has Italy formally demanded her extradition? Are new hearings or a trial coming up? When is a "final" decision expected (which I assume can probably be appealed by the losing side)? Etc.

Also, when I think about this case, I wonder if there was anything in particular going on in U.S.-Italian relations in 2007 that would have inclined Italians to hang an American just on general principles? That was the middle of the U.S. war in Iraq; were Italians mad about that? Any other special inspirations for anti-American feeling? There have always been various scandals in Italian politics; was the Knox thing a distraction? I wonder if the people who convicted her really believe -- in the face of all the evidence -- that she really is guilty, or if the prosecution had/has other motivations?

 

[Bob001]

The reference above to the Reid technique is a reminder once again that if the cops ever interrogate you, say "I wanna lawyer" and shut up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique

 

[Samson]

Haven't read any more posts from CoulsdonUK since this epic of a few days ago. Where are you CoulsdonUK?

On the other hand CoulsdonUK has expressed relief that it was not his daughter who got killed. It maybe that sons don't matter.

 

[Bill Williams]

I long ago gave up trying to follow this thread,

It is a tough slog, and I do not understand everything posted here.

but I am curious about the basic issues: What is the status of this case? Is Raffaele free or in jail? If free, can he travel outside Italy?

Judge Nencini in convicting the pair was required (I believe) to make a ruling as to their liberty. Unlike Judge Massei who also convicted them, Nencini saw no reason to detain them, or order their detention.

Raffaele was just across the border into Austria when he heard of the re-conviction in Jan 2014. He returned to Italy and booked himself into a villa of some sort. The next morning the Carabinieri came by to implement Nencini's directives, and seized his passport and EU travel stuff. Raffaele has not been out of Italy since, but has since got his degree.

He would not be free to travel outside Italy. Prior to the re-conviction (but during the Florence trial in the fall of 2013) an airplane he was on headed out of Italy was briefly detained, but left Italy when it was determined that there was (then) nothing preventing him from leaving the country. Not so now.

If Amanda travels outside the U.S., is she in danger of arrest? Is there an international warrant or the equivalent in effect?

Judge Nencini said about Amanda in Jan 2014 that she was legally abroad. I would think this means that she is free to travel - but perhaps if she went to Italy, they might try to take some action (equivalent to that taken against Raffaele) to prevent her from leaving.

That is one of the intriguing things about all this. Amanda and Raffaele were supposed to have been such dangerous people, flight risks and perhaps willing to "tamper with evidence" that both of them spent 2 years in jail before they'd been convicted the first time.

Yet Nencini saw no risk in Jan 2014, even as he reconvicted them.

Has Italy formally demanded her extradition?

No. That only happens if the Supreme Court signs off on the convictions. That is something which would shift to the political arena in both the US and in Italy. It is unclear if Italian politicians will stand behind its own judiciary. (Although, admittedly on the face of it, there's no reason why they wouldn't)

Are new hearings or a trial coming up? When is a "final" decision expected (which I assume can probably be appealed by the losing side)? Etc.

The Italian Supreme Court is scheduled to sign off on/throw back the Nencini conviction on March 25th of this year. Raffaele's appeals document has asked for a United Sections hearing, rather than the normal Section hearing of the Supreme Court. It is unclear if granted, how long this process in front of the United Sections would take - maybe a year?

My own view is that it probably will not be granted and that the Section 5 it has been assigned to will simply do the easy thing and sign-off of Nencini's conviction. There's a small chance that the Supreme Court will order a third 2nd-grade trial.... Nencini's reasons for conviction, and denial of rights to Knox/Sollecito is fairly blatant, and his motivations report is filled with ludicrous stuff. He has, for instance, said that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife - no one, no prosecutor or police or DNA lab has ever said that. Nencini just invented about three or four items of evidence which he says is indicative of guilt.

Also, when I think about this case, I wonder if there was anything in particular going on in U.S.-Italian relations in 2007 that would have inclined Italians to hang an American just on general principles? That was the middle of the U.S. war in Iraq; were Italians mad about that? Any other special inspirations for anti-American feeling? There have always been various scandals in Italian politics; was the Knox thing a distraction? I wonder if the people who convicted her really believe -- in the face of all the evidence -- that she really is guilty, or if the prosecution had/has other motivations?

I see nothing in the larger US/Italy relationship which has influenced this. By all accounts, Mignini was an upcountry prosecutor who had tried to make a name for himself with his misguided Monster of Florence prosecutions. Remember, he himself stood provisionally convicted of crimes himself at the time he prosecuted the case against Knox/Sollecito. He's since been cleared, on what I regard as a technicality, but guilters would argue with that.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reference above to the Reid technique is a reminder once again that if the cops ever interrogate you, say "I wanna lawyer" and shut up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique

As much as I respect cops and the work the do day in and day out, at interrogation they are not your friend. The goal of interrogation is always a confession - a confession around the basic set of facts the cops think they know, prior to the interrogation.

Some courts have ruled it is fair game for cops to lie to get an interrogation. In Canada, the Supreme Court has just in 2014 put severe limits on the "Mr. Big" sting that cops use to incriminate a suspect. It's the Wold West out there when it comes to interrogations.

The old good cop/bad cop routine is to get a suspect talking..... the one thing they DOn'T want at interrogation is for a suspect to remain silent. There are 100s of tricks to get someone to loosen their lips.

 

[Desert Fox]

Also, when I think about this case, I wonder if there was anything in particular going on in U.S.-Italian relations in 2007 that would have inclined Italians to hang an American just on general principles? That was the middle of the U.S. war in Iraq; were Italians mad about that? Any other special inspirations for anti-American feeling? There have always been various scandals in Italian politics; was the Knox thing a distraction? I wonder if the people who convicted her really believe -- in the face of all the evidence -- that she really is guilty, or if the prosecution had/has other motivations?

There was some tension related to Nicola Calipari was killed by US Army Specialist Mario Lozano. Italy wanted to extradite him, the US said "hell no." He was going to be tried in absentia but on October 25, 2007, an Italian court dismissed the charges against Lozano after determining that multinational forces in Iraq were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the country that sent them