Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

Don't forget to say there is no proof and no claim.

 

[Planigale]

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).



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?

\\

No the question is whether the ECHR will view that as reason to deprive a suspect of counsel. I do not know whether the counsel of co-defendants agreed a defensive line. My assumption is that Guede's counsel and neither Knox's nor Sollecito's counsel agreed a defensive line. You tell me it is neither unethical nor illegal if Kox's and Sollecito's counsel conferred on defence strategy. Since this is the case and they would have done this subsequently why was depriving Sollecito and Knox of access to counsel initially necessary and thus justified?

 

[platonov]

Strange but true?

...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?

Yes Machiavelli, I'm afraid that you need to brush up on the case details and the legal aspects.

For example, did you know that RS didn’t withdraw AK’s alibi on Nov5/6th.
For, if he had, he would have used that to his advantage in the subsequent murder trial.

You need to get reading – One comes across the most fascinating stuff

 

[Machiavelli]

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....

(...)
You need to get your stories straight.

Bill,

1. It is not me claiming Knox willfully and maliciously accused an innocent, it is the courts who found so in the merits.
2. The Supreme Court called Knox calunnia a prolonged and repeated behavior, absolutely not exhausted within what Knox said in the police interrogation.
3. You apparently always forget that Knox did not commit a calunnia just during the 01:45 interrogation, but several times in severs statements in different situations.

 

[Numbers]

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.

{Highlighting added to both quotes.}

We are agreed that the criminal charges of calunnia against the police filed against Ms. Knox were indeed filed by the prosecution. And the police filed a civil case against Ms. Knox for calunnia coincident with the criminal charges. My original statement was somewhat compressed and may have not adequately expressed these details.

Note that the prosecutors that had the responsibility for investigating Ms. Knox's allegation of police misconduct were the same persons bringing criminal charges against her for calunnia and also prosecuting her for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. This combination was an obvious conflict of interest. I understand that both the prosecution of Ms. Knox for calunnia against the police and the investigation of her allegations of police misconduct are continuing in Italy, although perhaps neither case is proceeding quickly.

Otherwise, I believe and assert that we are in total disagreement. Ms. Knox claimed coercion (of which the slaps were one element) and utterance of a false memory due to the coercion and pressure of the police (as noted in somewhat different wording by the Hellmann court motivation report) and the suggestion of the interpreter and "mediator" Anna Donnino.

In Ms. Knox's Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007, she warns that her statements with respect to Patrick Lumumba were not reliable. She clearly states in Memoriale 2 that she was indeed not at the cottage but at Raffaele Sollecito's apartment at the relevant time, and thus could not have observed the attack on Meredith Kercher.

ETA: Perhaps you do not know the legal definition of coercion. The threats made by police that were alleged by Ms. Knox constitute coercion according to the legal definition. These threats were reported in for, for example, her Memoriale 1. She repeated these allegations in court. That suffices for the ECHR to judge coercion, although for ECHR merely not being provided a lawyer during the interrogation followed by conviction based upon statements made during interrogation is sufficient to judge a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

[Machiavelli]

\\

No the question is whether the ECHR will view that as reason to deprive a suspect of counsel. I do not know whether the counsel of co-defendants agreed a defensive line. My assumption is that Guede's counsel and neither Knox's nor Sollecito's counsel agreed a defensive line. You tell me it is neither unethical nor illegal if Kox's and Sollecito's counsel conferred on defence strategy. Since this is the case and they would have done this subsequently why was depriving Sollecito and Knox of access to counsel initially necessary and thus justified?

Because it is dangerous if it's done at the early stages of the investigation. It can destroy or pollute evidence. The law - including ECHR principles - acknowledges that there are individual rights to protect, but also public interests to protect, such is the need to protect ongoing investigation from defensive actions.

 

[Samson]

Don't forget to say there is no proof and no claim.

Proof of the cuffs to the head is impossible if there is unspoken collusion to deny.
The claim exists in the court testimony, she said to Massei she was hit, boom, and exclaimed Mamma mia.
It is irrelevant what her lawyers say except it proves a corrupt system.

 

[Numbers]

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).



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?

The ECHR may note that Italian law and constitution were not followed, and/or that Italian law or constitution is not consistent with the Convention. Otherwise, merely following Italian law or not is not important to the ECHR - that is, it is not a defense to the State - if a violation of the Convention occurs.

In other cases where there were more than one defendant, the ECHR did not find that a concern of lawyers discussing a common defense strategy was a reason to override the Convention human right for an interrogated subject to have lawyer from the first questioning. This applied to cases from, for example, Azerbaijan.

 

[Desert Fox]

Don't forget to say there is no proof and no claim.

I am sure that there is no actual evidence that Detective Glenn Ford did not threaten the Norfolk Four with the death penalty but everybody knows he did it. . . .Everybody knows that the Italian police used improper tactics - not limited to striking Amanda - in her interrogation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Absolutely not. First, the basic underlying fact is that Knox didn't file any complaint for alleged police misconduct. And this was, chronologically, the issue #1, because it is the first event in the timeline. It happens a year and a half before the statements that triggers an investigation for calunnia against the police.

Now, the prosecution doesn't have any duty to investigate allegation of beating by the police during interrogation. Not only they have no duty: they can't.
The charge of beating is an offence that is responsibility of the victim to prosecute. Without complaint, no investigation can start. The calunnia instead is a charge that is prosecuted automatically by the state, even without complaint.
Those charges have thus a very different status under the penal code, and their prosecution is not the responsibility of the same subjects. The public prosecution would never take the initiative of investigate a beating, the initiative must be taken by the victim.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,

1. It is not me claiming Knox willfully and maliciously accused an innocent, it is the courts who found so in the merits.
2. The Supreme Court called Knox calunnia a prolonged and repeated behavior, absolutely not exhausted within what Knox said in the police interrogation.
3. You apparently always forget that Knox did not commit a calunnia just during the 01:45 interrogation, but several times in severs statements in different situations.

Yet you are the one claiming it here.... in this thread, with your own version of what the courts ruled.

I suggest you read and re-read Numbers' response to you.

 

[Planigale]

Because it is dangerous if it's done at the early stages of the investigation. It can destroy or pollute evidence. The law - including ECHR principles - acknowledges that there are individual rights to protect, but also public interests to protect, such is the need to protect ongoing investigation from defensive actions.

So any case that involves more than a single defendant justifies deprivation of counsel in Italy? Strange that it does not in the UK or the rest or Europe, or Australia, Canada, NZ, or the US. Do Italian lawyers really go out and destroy evidence? This would be a crime in most places, and certainly grounds for disbarment.

 

[Numbers]

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.

This is not in accordance with the case-law, as for example, Ibrahim.

The Azeri cases:

ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN 3653/05 14729/05 16519/06...

and

HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN 35485/05 35680/05 36085/05

show that your opinion of the ECHR case-law regarding failure to provide a lawyer for each of several co-defendants interrogated separately is not correct. These cases were all found to be violations of the Convention under Articles 6.3c with 6.1.

 

[Diocletus]

Absolutely not. First, the basic underlying fact is that Knox didn't file any complaint for alleged police misconduct. And this was, chronologically, the issue #1, because it is the first event in the timeline. It happens a year and a half before the statements that triggers an investigation for calunnia against the police.

Now, the prosecution doesn't have any duty to investigate allegation of beating by the police during interrogation. Not only they have no duty: they can't.
The charge of beating is an offence that is responsibility of the victim to prosecute. Without complaint, no investigation can start. The calunnia instead is a charge that is prosecuted automatically by the state, even without complaint.
Those charges have thus a very different status under the penal code, and their prosecution is not the responsibility of the same subjects. The public prosecution would never take the initiative of investigate a beating, the initiative must be taken by the victim.

I hope that Italy makes this ridiculous argument in the echr proceedings. That would be awesome.

 

[Numbers]

Absolutely not. First, the basic underlying fact is that Knox didn't file any complaint for alleged police misconduct. And this was, chronologically, the issue #1, because it is the first event in the timeline. It happens a year and a half before the statements that triggers an investigation for calunnia against the police.

Now, the prosecution doesn't have any duty to investigate allegation of beating by the police during interrogation. Not only they have no duty: they can't.
The charge of beating is an offence that is responsibility of the victim to prosecute. Without complaint, no investigation can start. The calunnia instead is a charge that is prosecuted automatically by the state, even without complaint.
Those charges have thus a very different status under the penal code, and their prosecution is not the responsibility of the same subjects. The public prosecution would never take the initiative of investigate a beating, the initiative must be taken by the victim.

Your statement is contrary to the Italian Constitution. Prosecutors have a Constitutional obligation to prosecute when they become aware of a crime.

See:
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

Art. 112
The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings.

 

[Planigale]

So any case that involves more than a single defendant justifies deprivation of counsel in Italy? Strange that it does not in the UK or the rest or Europe, or Australia, Canada, NZ, or the US. Do Italian lawyers really go out and destroy evidence? This would be a crime in most places, and certainly grounds for disbarment.

Mach, I have re-read this I appear a bit sarcastic, I apologise. I am not a lawyer. You know far more about Italian law than I do. I genuinely have a problem that "specific and exceptional' seems to me to require particular requirements. If it is usual for counsel of co-defendants to confer this would not be exceptional. As neither Knox nor Sollecito had chosen counsel it cannot be that these unchosen counsel were specifically thought to destroy evidence. I genuinely do not understand.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What?

Because it is dangerous if it's done at the early stages of the investigation. It can destroy or pollute evidence. The law - including ECHR principles - acknowledges that there are individual rights to protect, but also public interests to protect, such is the need to protect ongoing investigation from defensive actions.

Machiavelli,

What investigation would that be?

 

[anglolawyer]

Er, Mach ...

Why isn't being struck about the head (and threatened with 30 years imprisonment) coercion?

 

[Numbers]

Mach, I have re-read this I appear a bit sarcastic, I apologise. I am not a lawyer. You know far more about Italian law than I do. I genuinely have a problem that "specific and exceptional' seems to me to require particular requirements. If it is usual for counsel of co-defendants to confer this would not be exceptional. As neither Knox nor Sollecito had chosen counsel it cannot be that these unchosen counsel were specifically thought to destroy evidence. I genuinely do not understand.

Planigale,

If denying Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito lawyers during their interrogation would have resulted in the lawyers collaborating and this would have disturbed the investigation, why would that not be an issue after the remand hearing, which was the first time they had met with their lawyers. In fact, there was no collaboration between the lawyers that would have disrupted the investigation. There was no Mafia gang or band of terrorists. The only other suspect was Mr. Lumumba, who the police could and did easily arrest.

However, the presence of lawyers would have disrupted the coercive interrogation techniques that the police used. That is why the police intentionally deprived all three suspects, including Mr. Lumumba after his arrest, of lawyers during interrogation. After all, Patrick Lumumba was the last of the "conspirators" that the police had invented in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. And the police certainly would not want a lawyer present while they were threatening Mr. Lumumba, beating him, and otherwise practicing abuse.

 

[Dougm]

Er, Mach ...

Why isn't being struck about the head (and threatened with 30 years imprisonment) coercion?

DON'T YOU GET IT? It was the responsibility of the 20 year old girl, who had no idea that she was even suspected of a crime, did not understand the language or the legal system, did not have legal council, and had never been interrogated by police in her whole life, to bring the charges??

Oh, and once she even dared to mention that some of this happened, she was slapped with a suit by the police, who conveniently did not turn on the tape recorder so there is no record of what happened.

I'm sure the ECHR will find this fair. It's her fault. If they don't understand that, they should ask Machiavelli.