Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

When people disagree with you, or ask you to clarify your position, you decide they are being "touchy". Nice attempt to keep yourself from having to actually explain your position, but I don't think it is working.

If platonov didn't have a strawman argument, all he'd have left would be ad hominem.

 

[Planigale]

Come on, ECHR accepts that right to defence counsel can be delayed just when there are "good reasons" for that.

And there is nothing arbitrary nor of routine in Mignini's prohibition to access attorney, that was entirely under legal provisions (art. 104 § 4 cpp), where "specific and exceptional" are defined by the law as a "quid pluris" which basically consists in preventing multiple suspects from attempting to agree to a defensive version.

I think that these are the operative words.

Specific so this has to be a concern to this particular case, Mignini would have to make a case that he had good reason to believe that Knox - resident in Italy for a few weeks would choose a lawyer who would conspire unethically and perhaps illegally with the lawyers of Guede and Sollecito who it is agreed did not know each other. The ECHR will expect documentation of this.

Exceptional, again Mignini would have to have documented the rationale for this. In general this would need to be a national security issue, or perhaps a case of kidnapping where the victim was still at risk. A domestic muder is hardly exceptional.

Do you really believe this is a specific and exceptional case justifying restriction of access to counsel, it is more mundane than many of the cases ECHR has ruled on.

My guess is Italy will fold on the issue, the callunia is unimportant, it adds nothing to Knox's sentence. PL is not an Italian citizen and is not an Italian resident. Italy's best option is to make the case go away, if they go to court and lose it may have an impact on the murder case, if they avoid this they can continue to consider any appeal within the italian legal system.

 

[Machiavelli]

The echr doesn't require coercion to be proved. They just require indications of compulsion, i.e., a situation where the person's will is overcome. No problem finding that here, given the hour, the nature of the questioning, the lack of a lawyer, the inaccuracy of the statement, etc.

You can certainly believe what you like as for what the ECHR will think. Meanwhile, you should say that coercion is not proven. To be even more accurate, it is not even claimed (knox claimed false memory syndrome).
And also, remind that the courts found that it was willful an malicious.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think that these are the operative words.

Specific so this has to be a concern to this particular case, Mignini would have to make a case that he had good reason to believe that Knox - resident in Italy for a few weeks would choose a lawyer who would conspire unethically and perhaps illegally with the lawyers of Guede and Sollecito who it is agreed did not know each other. The ECHR will expect documentation of this.
.

It is not illegal nor unethical for a lawyer to agree defensive elements with other suspects' lawyers. This is in fact what Knox and Sollecito's lawyer did all the time throughout the proceedings. This is something very common and trivial.

 

[Machiavelli]

Exceptional, again Mignini would have to have documented the rationale for this. In general this would need to be a national security issue, or perhaps a case of kidnapping where the victim was still at risk. A domestic muder is hardly exceptional.

Do you really believe this is a specific and exceptional case justifying restriction of access to counsel, it is more mundane than many of the cases ECHR has ruled on. (...)

The meaning of "exceptional" is established by jurisprudence, not by your feeling about what exceptional should mean.

 

[Numbers]

You can certainly believe what you like as for what the ECHR will think. Meanwhile, you should say that coercion is not proven. To be even more accurate, it is not even claimed (knox claimed false memory syndrome).
And also, remind that the courts found that it was willful an malicious.

Ms. Knox claimed coercion in her written statements (Memoriales) of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007, and in her testimony before the court in 2009. This testimony led to her being charged with criminal calunnia against the police (12 in number, IIRC) who interrogated her. She also was sued by the same police for civil calunnia.

The criminal and civil cases against her filed by the police indicate that she was subject to retaliation for bringing forth her claim of coercion. This is a proof that there was coercion, or at least an intentional effort by agents of the State of Italy to prevent her from bringing the claim of coercion and mistreatment to the attention of authorities. The criminal and civil cases for calunnia against the police further support that the ECHR will find that there was a violation of Convention Article 3 in at least its procedural aspect.

ETA: The findings of the domestic courts are not relevant, insofar as the ECHR examines the actual rather than the "legalistic", theoretical, or falsified account of events. ECHR often finds that a government has violated rights and falsified information to hide the violation.

 

[Dougm]

The meaning of "exceptional" is established by jurisprudence, not by your feeling about what exceptional should mean.

From what I can see, the way it works is that the judicial meaning of any concept in Italy is established by the whim of the court. If and when it gets outside that venue, those whims won't mean anything.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exceptional, again Mignini would have to have documented the rationale for this. In general this would need to be a national security issue, or perhaps a case of kidnapping where the victim was still at risk. A domestic muder is hardly exceptional.

Do you really believe this is a specific and exceptional case justifying restriction of access to counsel, it is more mundane than many of the cases ECHR has ruled on. (...)

The meaning of "exceptional" is established by jurisprudence, not by your feeling about what exceptional should mean.

What is exceptional here, Machiavelli, is the way you actually do lay out the wrongful-prosecution Mignini waged, and you just call it business as usual.

Upthread you claimed that Knox of her own free-will implicated Lumumba. Yet you cannot even get that straight, because....

.... before your vacation from ISF, you posted this, about how Knox actually did not want to talk, and how it took Donnino the translator ersatz-mediator, playing amateur psychologist, to pull it out of her:

"But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused."

You see absolutely nothing wrong with Donnino messing up like this.... apparently, neither does Mignini.

You need to get your stories straight.

 

[Numbers]

What is exceptional here, Machiavelli, is the way you actually do lay out the wrongful-prosecution Mignini waged, and you just call it business as usual.

Upthread you claimed that Knox of her own free-will implicated Lumumba. Yet you cannot even get that straight, because....

.... before your vacation from ISF, you posted this, about how Knox actually did not want to talk, and how it took Donnino the translator ersatz-mediator, playing amateur psychologist, to pull it out of her:



You see absolutely nothing wrong with Donnino messing up like this.... apparently, neither does Mignini.

You need to get your stories straight.

One way to look at the role of Donnino was that as a "mediator" she was playing "good cop" to counter all the other "bad cops" in the interrogation room. Her role was not that of a neutral interpreter.

 

[Dougm]

You see absolutely nothing wrong with Donnino messing up like this.... apparently, neither does Mignini.

Bill, the thing is, they don't see anything wrong with it. Mach, Mignini, and the rest of the Perugia crew really have no idea what we are objecting to. Of course Donnino did what she did! Knox didn't want to talk! How else would they have gotten her to tell them what they already knew was the truth?

 

[Dougm]

One way to look at the role of Donnino was that as a "mediator" she was playing "good cop" to counter all the other "bad cops" in the interrogation room. Her role was not that of a neutral interpreter.

Correct, but it seems our Perugian friends don't understand the concept of protecting a suspect's rights by having unbiased people conduct investigations. They don't seem to grasp that if the translator is doing anything other than translating what the suspect is trying to communicate, they are directing and affecting the testimony.

 

[Planigale]

The meaning of "exceptional" is established by jurisprudence, not by your feeling about what exceptional should mean.

Remember it is ECHR jurisprudence that is important not Italian jurisprudence.

It is not illegal nor unethical for a lawyer to agree defensive elements with other suspects' lawyers. This is in fact what Knox and Sollecito's lawyer did all the time throughout the proceedings. This is something very common and trivial.

So do you see the conflict between 'exceptional' and 'very common and trivial'?

 

[Bill Williams]

One way to look at the role of Donnino was that as a "mediator" she was playing "good cop" to counter all the other "bad cops" in the interrogation room. Her role was not that of a neutral interpreter.

Correct, but it seems our Perugian friends don't understand the concept of protecting a suspect's rights by having unbiased people conduct investigations. They don't seem to grasp that if the translator is doing anything other than translating what the suspect is trying to communicate, they are directing and affecting the testimony.

Please note this is a two-way street. That night, Knox was just as dependent on Donnino to translate/interpret the plain meaning of what Ficarra et al. were saying, as was Ficarra et al. dependent on what Donnino was saying Knox was talking about.

Did Donnino do this same sort of mediating with Ficarra? Imagine what Machiavelli said was Donnino's role, but substitute the names....

"But what Donnino says is that Ficarra did not know what to talk about. As a mediator, (Donnino) suggested that maybe Ficarra could have "misunderstood" that Knox was the victim of a traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means it gives Ficarra an opportunity and a safe justification for "allowing Donnino to take over the interrogation as a mediator" and thus for possibly allowing Knox the space to change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Ficarra as confused."

 

[Kauffer]

The meaning of "exceptional" is established by jurisprudence, not by your feeling about what exceptional should mean.

...and while we are on the subject of jurisprudence, do you have any case decision you would like to cite, post Salduz preferably, to support the denial of counsel in this case?

Have you actually done some reading?

 

[Numbers]

Please note this is a two-way street. That night, Knox was just as dependent on Donnino to translate/interpret the plain meaning of what Ficarra et al. were saying, as was Ficarra et al. dependent on what Donnino was saying Knox was talking about.

Did Donnino do this same sort of mediating with Ficarra? Imagine what Machiavelli said was Donnino's role, but substitute the names....

I think that the job of the police, including Donnino, that night was to get an excuse, a paper trail, to arrest Knox and Sollecito. To the corrupt Italian police and the authoritarian judges, as well as the guilters, the police including Donnino fulfilled that role that evening. Thus, at least some of them received honors and medals.

The most alarming aspect of the case is that there is little or no safeguard in Italy to counteract this kind of police and prosecution misconduct and judicial despotism.

 

[Numbers]

Remember it is ECHR jurisprudence that is important not Italian jurisprudence.



So do you see the conflict between 'exceptional' and 'very common and trivial'?

The failure of the guilters to provide any ECHR case-law that by a reasonable, objective reading supports their position is telling.

Their fall-back to "jurisprudence" meaning Italian law is suspect; they do not actually cite CPP provisions that are applicable. But the CPP and even Italian Constitution are subsidiary to the ECHR case-law, which is the major point.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ms. Knox claimed coercion in her written statements (Memoriales) of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007, and in her testimony before the court in 2009. This testimony led to her being charged with criminal calunnia against the police (12 in number, IIRC) who interrogated her. She also was sued by the same police for civil calunnia.

The criminal and civil cases against her filed by the police indicate that she was subject to retaliation for bringing forth her claim of coercion. This is a proof that there was coercion, or at least an intentional effort by agents of the State of Italy to prevent her from bringing the claim of coercion and mistreatment to the attention of authorities. The criminal and civil cases for calunnia against the police further support that the ECHR will find that there was a violation of Convention Article 3 in at least its procedural aspect.

ETA: The findings of the domestic courts are not relevant, insofar as the ECHR examines the actual rather than the "legalistic", theoretical, or falsified account of events. ECHR often finds that a government has violated rights and falsified information to hide the violation.

The calunnia charges are not filed by the police: they are automatically prosecuted by the state. Some police officers decided to become civil parties, but calunnia would have been prosecuted without them. Calunnia is a kind of criminal charge which is not triggered by a complaint, its prosecution is compulsory.

The idea that calunnia charges are proof of police coercion is an original theory which belongs to your mind. And will remain there in the next future, together with severs others.

Amanda Knox did not claim coercion, she claimed she was hit at the back of her head. She did not file a complaint for the alleged incident and her defence lawyers publicly denied the incident.

It is anyway not the same thing of claiming to be coerced (and certainly she was not being hit during her 05:45 statement, or while she was writing the hand written notes in which she commits calunnia again).
If her claims were the same of claiming coercion, she would not have claimed false memory syndrome after all. She claimed false memory syndrome because she had no claim of coercion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Remember it is ECHR jurisprudence that is important not Italian jurisprudence.

I allow myself to observe that such worldview is slightly unrealistic. Almost surreal. You already decide that the entire Italian jurisprudence doesn't matter. And I point out that in previous posts you stated Mignini's order was illegal.

(In fact Italian jurisprudence matters a lot to the ECHR).

So do you see the conflict between 'exceptional' and 'very common and trivial'?

No, I don't see it. They belong to two different levels fo terminology. Exceptional belongs to jurisprudence, common and trivial is in our common speech. Mafia, for example, is a common and trivial phenomenon in Italian life, but it is defined as exceptional as for criminal procedure in jurisprudence. But now, let's come to your consistency instead: Will you fail to acknowledge that plotting an agreed defensive line with other suspects is exactly what the defence lawyers did all the time throughout the trial? Would you try to deny that?

 

[Diocletus]

You can certainly believe what you like as for what the ECHR will think. Meanwhile, you should say that coercion is not proven. To be even more accurate, it is not even claimed (knox claimed false memory syndrome).
And also, remind that the courts found that it was willful an malicious.

Yes, a false memory brought on by the cops slapping her upside the head. Whatever the Italian courts decided, in order to cover their own asses won't matter. What will matter is if the echr decides that there are indications of compulsion. Which, there are.

 

[Machiavelli]

...and while we are on the subject of jurisprudence, do you have any case decision you would like to cite, post Salduz preferably, to support the denial of counsel in this case?

Have you actually done some reading?

I have already quoted ECHR cases that acknowledge how authorities can delay access to counsel when they just deem there are "good reasons".
ECHR only needs "good reasons", that is mostly protecting the investigation.