Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

I see where your reading of the first "suicide, not an accident" may be correct. But what about the following statement in the article:

"... the Court canceled the conspiracy (aimed at exchanging corpse to hide, according allegations, the bonds of the doctor with the monster) but has reopened the mystery. That starts with the letter in which Narducci says goodbye."

The CSC (the article, as translated, claims) apparently ruled against the existence of a conspiracy. This would suggest a death by suicide or an accident, and not a murder of Doctor Narducci.

The Supreme Court

1) did not rule in the merits the existence or non-existence of a criminal charge, it merely accepted that the dropping of one of the charges by the preliminary judge was legitimate, and specifies that this was in point of law.
2) the charge of which the SC finalized the dropping was criminal association, not "conspiracy". The criminal association is not a simple conspiracy, it is a much more structured charge. It means that there was mafia association with criminal purposes that was pre-existing to a specific deed. A simple conspiracy is not enough to prove the existence of a criminal association. A consiracy actually did take place; but in point of law a criminal association didn't exist.
3) the charge that was dropped in the merits was only this 1, out of 22 counts of various charges against various people.
4) the SC itself calls Narducci "murdered" and assumes his body was "concealed"

 

[Welshman]

Machiavelli,

I said nothing about smuggling; that is your invention. Here is one description of two articles written by Richard Owen: "On November 19, 2007, Richard Owen reported for the UK Times that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. The information was specific: one alleged purchase was made at 8:30, and a second was made at 9:15. No receipts were ever found. Then, in a November 25, 2007, report, Owen quoted an apparently official source as saying that the entire cottage, except for Meredith’s room and the bathroom she shared with Amanda, had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach.”"

In Continuation part 5 anglolawyer wrote, "I have definitely seen the Richard Owen article. It was published on or about 17 Nov and it attributes the bleach story to 'police sources'. He does not claim to have seen receipts but he records the times of the purchases, made 45 minutes apart early on 02 Nov.

Barbie Badeau writes in her book that bleach was purchased on 04 Nov and used to clean their shoes."

Ian Morris commented elsewhere, " The prosecution did lie about bleach receipts. An unnamed police source told Richard Owen of the Times that bleach receipts were found on the morning of the murder. The information provided by the police was specific. One purchase was made at 8.30 am and the second was made at 9.15 am. The police and prosecution failed to provide these receipts. There was no record of bleach purchases on the till were the bleach was supposedly purchased. The police clearly lied."

I am the one who uses Ian Morris as a user name on the comments sections of Amanda's blog. Injustice in Perugia had a chapter on police misconduct and the chapter had a list of ties told by the police. Some of these lies are listed in the lies and misinformation section on the IIP website. The lies told by the prosecution are listed in this chapter and the blech receipt was among these lies. The hypocrisy of Machiavelli and other PGP on the issue of lying has been clearly demonostrated. Machiavelli constantly accuses Amanda of lying but slavishly defends corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies. If the prosecution had such a slam dunk case, why did they have to resort to lying?

Machiavelli claims the lies told by the police never happened. If this was the case, why did Mignini who hands out lawsuits like confetti not take legal action against Bruce Fisher? The members on the TJMK/PMF sites have a virulent hatred of Amanda and Raffaele's supporters and have viciously attacked supporters. If any of Amanda and Raffaele's supporters made false accusations that the prosecution lied, can you imagine the ammunation this would give to members of the TJMK/PMF hate sites. To the best of my knowledge it has never been claimed on the TJMK/PMF sites that Amanda and Raffaele's supporters have made false claims about the prosecution lying. When the Injustice in Perugia book came out there were the inevitable vitriolic 1 star reviews. None of these reviews said anything about the list of prosecution lies in the book being false.

Machiavelli claims the police and prosecution were not behind leaking the bloody bathroom photo. If this was the case, why did the prosecution not make it clear they were not responsible for the release of this photograph and that the bathroom only looked extremely bloody after being sprayed by a chemical when the photograph appeared in the media?

 

[Samson]

{Bumping this.}

Mach,
Regarding the sentence I highlighted in your statement, I have some questions.
Which of the following do you mean, or do you mean something else?



Now, let's make clear that 1. the Italian government will never annul a conviction, because it doesn't have a power to do so.

2. A final conviction anyway cannot be annulled. Under no circumstance.

3. At best, a final conviction could be reviewd, meaning that the Supreme Court could rule that a new trial should be granted (but it is not a trial ex-novo, it is the review of an old trial). That trial wold have, in theory, a potential to result in an acquittal for insufficient evidence for calunnia. But this is only theoretical, in practice I regard such event as unrealistic in the case of Knox, even in the (already unrealistic) event that some violation of Knox's rights was found by the ECHR.

Mach, are you happy with this wiki definition of calunnia in English?

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone

 

[Numbers]

{Bumping this.}

Mach,
Regarding the sentence I highlighted in your statement, I have some questions.
Which of the following do you mean, or do you mean something else?



Now, let's make clear that 1. the Italian government will never annul a conviction, because it doesn't have a power to do so.

2. A final conviction anyway cannot be annulled. Under no circumstance.

3. At best, a final conviction could be reviewd, meaning that the Supreme Court could rule that a new trial should be granted (but it is not a trial ex-novo, it is the review of an old trial). That trial wold have, in theory, a potential to result in an acquittal for insufficient evidence for calunnia. But this is only theoretical, in practice I regard such event as unrealistic in the case of Knox, even in the (already unrealistic) event that some violation of Knox's rights was found by the ECHR.

Mach,
Thanks for your response.

So the CSC would order a retrial (review) of a conviction that was held to be in violation of Article 6 by the ECHR. Questions:

1. How does the CSC become officially aware of the ECHR ruling? Does the Ministry of Justice notify it, or does the Ministry of Justice notify a prosecutor? (AFAIK, the government sits on the Committee of Ministers and has one or more agents representing it at the ECHR, and the judiciary does not.)

2. What would be the course of events if the charge is out of time (statute of limitations was passed) before a retrial (review)? What is the length of the time limit for statute of limitations for simple calunnia?

 

[carbonjam72]

The Supreme Court

1) did not rule in the merits the existence or non-existence of a criminal charge, it merely accepted that the dropping of one of the charges by the preliminary judge was legitimate, and specifies that this was in point of law.
2) the charge of which the SC finalized the dropping was criminal association, not "conspiracy". The criminal association is not a simple conspiracy, it is a much more structured charge. It means that there was mafia association with criminal purposes that was pre-existing to a specific deed. A simple conspiracy is not enough to prove the existence of a criminal association. A consiracy actually did take place; but in point of law a criminal association didn't exist.
3) the charge that was dropped in the merits was only this 1, out of 22 counts of various charges against various people.
4) the SC itself calls Narducci "murdered" and assumes his body was "concealed"

1st highlight - Is that a reference to the a "satanic sect"? So cassation has ruled they were not associated in a satanic sect stealing womens sex organs for black masses, as Giuttari and Mignini maintained?

2nd highlite - Where does cassation say Narducci was murdered? Any links or anyting you can pint to? I'm reading the article differently, along the lines of Number's interpretation.

 

[Machiavelli]

1st highlight - Is that a reference to the a "satanic sect"? So cassation has ruled they were not associated in a satanic sect stealing womens sex organs for black masses, as Giuttari and Mignini maintained?

2nd highlite - Where does cassation say Narducci was murdered? Any links or anyting you can pint to? I'm reading the article differently, along the lines of Number's interpretation.

To be more correct: the SC doesn't say Narducci was "murdered", it only says that his body "was concealed" (by someone) for some days before the body was fished.

There is no reference to a satanic sect nowhere, not even in Mignini's arguments nor in his recourse.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,
Thanks for your response.

So the CSC would order a retrial (review) of a conviction that was held to be in violation of Article 6 by the

No. There is nothing automatic not even in this first step. The SC may well even reject a demand to review the case, even if there was a violation (almost always happens so).

1. How does the CSC become officially aware of the ECHR ruling? Does the Ministry of Justice notify it, or does the Ministry of Justice notify a prosecutor? (AFAIK, the government sits on the Committee of Ministers and has one or more agents representing it at the ECHR, and the judiciary does not.)

Frankly I don't know which authority is notified first. But neither a prosecutor nor another authority may initiate a review at the Supreme Court: the review process can be initiated only on demand by the interested person or private party. It is not granted that the SC would even accept the demand; there is nothing such an automatically granted process of review: the probability of outcome must be assessed by the Supreme Court before. And a trial review would not start from a presumption of innocence, it starts from a presumption of guilt.

2. What would be the course of events if the charge is out of time (statute of limitations was passed) before a retrial (review)? What is the length of the time limit for statute of limitations for simple calunnia?

It's completely irrelevant. Statute of limitation is only about the penalty, it does not affect the findings of facts. It may affects the findings of facts only when it runs out of time while the proceedings are still at the preliminary stage (like in the Narducci case). But once a trial is set, it will only be about the penalty and not about the findings.

 

[Diocletus]

{Bumping this.}

Mach,
Regarding the sentence I highlighted in your statement, I have some questions.
Which of the following do you mean, or do you mean something else?



Now, let's make clear that 1. the Italian government will never annul a conviction, because it doesn't have a power to do so.

2. A final conviction anyway cannot be annulled. Under no circumstance.

3. At best, a final conviction could be reviewd, meaning that the Supreme Court could rule that a new trial should be granted (but it is not a trial ex-novo, it is the review of an old trial). That trial wold have, in theory, a potential to result in an acquittal for insufficient evidence for calunnia. But this is only theoretical, in practice I regard such event as unrealistic in the case of Knox, even in the (already unrealistic) event that some violation of Knox's rights was found by the ECHR.

Yes, it would be challenging to convict somebody of Calunnia without being able to use their statements. But I'm sure nencini could do it.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

But it can't be a reasonable inference, given that:

1) the photo was bought by the tabloid from a press photo agency
2) the tabloid actually did not by the specific photo, but the the whole batch of crime scene photos the photo agency had; and the agency had a whole batch, not the specific photo alone, and sold them together.
The two first points alone should prove there is no direct connection between the publiching of the photo and "the police".
3) the police would have no power to tell a tabloid about what to write on a photo caption
4) orchestrating the publication of a photo on a British tabloid would make no sense in terms of influencing the course of a trial, since judges and Perugians don't read British tabloids
5) the photo was not published in Italy
6) orchestrating the publication of that particular photo with that caption would make no sense, but to sell copies of the lurid tabloids; it would make no sense if the purpose was to influence the course of the trial or persuade the public opinion, since it was known and available information within the investigation papers that the photo was not blood.
7) it would make no sense to publish the photo in order to influence the preliminary judges or the court, since judges have seen all photos already.
8) it would make no sense for "the police" to disseminate stories for the public in the first place, they have nothing to gain from that
9) "the police" is not an entity that commits wrongdoings, those are committed by individuals.
10) multiple subjects may access investigation files in the Italian system, they include lawyers from all parties and various bearocrats and clerks; as a result, photos and information are always leaked as a rule.

For the above said reasons, it is not reasonable, it is rather idiotic to assume the police orchestrated the publishing of a photo in a British tabloid.

Was there an official investigation of this leak? It was a potential violation of Convention Article 6.2, Right to Presumption of Innocence.

The fact that the presumption of innocence is often routinely violated in practice in Italy is not a defense for the State of Italy before the ECHR.

Machiavelli,

Until and unless you can document 1 and 2, it is only your assertion that an agency had anything to do with this. 5 is misleading; the photo appeared in Frank Sfarzo's blog. 6 is nonsense; intelligent people who saw the photo thought it was blood. 10 is innuendo. Why would the defense lawyers release this photo? If it were a "clerk" then he or she is still an agent of the government.

Are we supposed to accept your unbridled speculation as fact? I do not think so. Are we supposed to forget that a photograph of someone who is part of the investigation shows him holding a small camera? I do not think so.

-
Thank you Mach. That was a very lucid explanation as to why it wasn't a reasonable inference and I have to side with your interpretation here.

I just wish the PLE would have said something, but I can also understand how enormous a task that would have been, but ya know Mach, I'm an idealist at heart and things like that bother me.

Like someone passing someone who is hurt and ignores them, or someone trying to make a good point and all they get is snarkiness.

It just doesn't make any sense to me to keep doing that anymore.

At my age (58), real honesty is just so refreshing (and rare), ya know,

-

I have to agree with Mach on some points (correct me if I'm wrong Mach), because if you assume it's not against the law in Italy (anyone knowledgeable in this area feel free to correct me) to releasing crime data (they do it in the US for Chrissake), then what the media does with this stuff is out of the hands of the PLE.

Because once you release this information, how can you dictate how it is used. How many media outlets were focusing on this story at the time? That's a tremendous task, and I personally don't see any proof that the PLE told the journalist what to print about the photos.

And another point, as honest and truthful as the media pretends to be (there are limits of course, money and morality being two of them), the best (and the most accessible) crime news (hands down) comes from the prosecution's side and journalist tend to side with authority in order to get that inside scoop.

Mach's assertions are most definitely feasible, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

-








-

I have to agree with Mach on two points (correct me if I'm wrong Mach),assuming it's not against the law in Italy (anyone knowledgeable in this area feel free to correct me) to release crime data (they do it in the US for Chrissake), then what the media does with this stuff is out of the hands of the PLE.

Plus, once you release this information, how can you dictate how it is used. I don't see any proof that the PLE told the journalist what to print about the photos.

And another thought, as honest as media tries to be (there are limits of course, money and morality being two of them), hands down, the best crime news (and the most accessible) comes from the prosecution's side and journalist tend to side with authority in order to get that inside scoop.

Mach's assertions are most definitely feasible, in my opinion,

d

-

The point goes beyond the one picture of the bathroom.

It is a violation of the Convention for officials to proclaim someone guilty before they are finally convicted. They must be careful to state that the person is alleged to have committed a crime.

For officials to proclaim "guilt" or indicate in the media is considered a violation of the right to presumption of innocence (Article 6.2). There was a press conference by the Chief of Police of Perugia which arguably did exactly this, plus the fast-track trial of Guede, and its appeal judgment, likewise. Those are actually more serious potential violations.

The bathroom photo is arguably part of the "virulent press campaign" (this would be the ECHR language, from other ECHR cases) that would be part of the violation of the right to presumption of innocence. The question may be how media quoted officials, and if the officials corrected any of their statements that proclaimed guilt, rather than stated "alleged to have committed...". It is actually a relatively small part of a much larger arguable ECHR violation by Italy. It doesn't matter to finding a violation whether or not Italian law was broken or not; it is the Convention and ECHR case-law that is the basis of judgment.

 

[Numbers]

Mach, are you happy with this wiki definition of calunnia in English?

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone

Here is a Google Translation of Art. 368 of the Italian CP (Criminal Code); emphasis added:

Art. 368 - Slander {Calunnia}

Anyone with denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, or other direct all'Autorita'giudiziaria Autorita'che that have obligation to report, blames anybody for a crime that he knows innocent, that simulates against him the traces of a crime, e'punito with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty e'aumentata es'incolpa if anybody of a crime through which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum ten years, or another penalty piu'grave. Imprisonment E'da four to twelve years, if the act results in a prison sentence up to five years; E'da six to twenty years, if the act results in a life sentence; and apply life imprisonment, if the act results in a life sentence.

ETA: The Italian for CP 368 is from: http://www.codice-penale.it/articoli_codice_penale/libro_secondo/titolo_viii/art_368.html
Note the CP (codice penale = criminal code) is not the CCP (aka CPP) (codice procedura penale = code of criminal procedure)

 

[Samson]

Here is a Google Translation of Art. 368 of the Italian CP (Criminal Code); emphasis added:

Art. 368 - Slander {Calunnia}

Anyone with denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, or other direct all'Autorita'giudiziaria Autorita'che that have obligation to report, blames anybody for a crime that he knows innocent, that simulates against him the traces of a crime, e'punito with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty e'aumentata es'incolpa if anybody of a crime through which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum ten years, or another penalty piu'grave. Imprisonment E'da four to twelve years, if the act results in a prison sentence up to five years; E'da six to twenty years, if the act results in a life sentence; and apply life imprisonment, if the act results in a life sentence.

This really does make the Hellmann conviction for calunnia a wrongful conviction. It is tragic that he felt he needed to throw scraps to the hounds. This is appeasement. Does anyone have a citation for Hellmann saying he regretted entering that conviction? It will be very clear to the ECHR that Hellmann made an error in law by declaring Amanda absent from the crime scene, yet declaring she knew Lumumba was innocent.
This is all so obvious, a child could understand it.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The point goes beyond the one picture of the bathroom.

It is a violation of the Convention for officials to proclaim someone guilty before they are finally convicted. They must be careful to state that the person is alleged to have committed a crime.

For officials to proclaim "guilt" or indicate in the media is considered a violation of the right to presumption of innocence (Article 6.2). There was a press conference by the Chief of Police of Perugia which arguably did exactly this, plus the fast-track trial of Guede, and its appeal judgment, likewise. Those are actually more serious potential violations.

The bathroom photo is arguably part of the "virulent press campaign" (this would be the ECHR language, from other ECHR cases) that would be part of the violation of the right to presumption of innocence. The question may be how media quoted officials, and if the officials corrected any of their statements that proclaimed guilt, rather than stated "alleged to have committed...". It is actually a relatively small part of a much larger arguable ECHR violation by Italy. It doesn't matter to finding a violation whether or not Italian law was broken or not; it is the Convention and ECHR case-law that is the basis of judgment.

-

Agreed, but it would still be a tremendous job for the police to make sure journalist printed "alleged" with all the articles that were printed about the case at the time, that would be a mind boggling job, in my opinion.

And how exactly would they control media from outside Italy? I really am curious about your thoughts on that.

In short (and in my opinion), it's ultimately the journalist's (and not LE's) job to make sure "alleged" is included in any article written and published about a case that has not been concluded yet,

d

-

 

[Strozzi]

I love the fact that the police located a witness who claimed that Lumumba's bar, Le Chic, was closed the evening when the police needed to claim it was closed. It was later proven to be open. A Swiss professor was questioned by the police or prosecutor for many hours (was it 8 hours?) before they accepted the fact that Lumumba was in his bar that evening talking with the professor for several hours.

Whatever happened to the witness who testified to what the police wanted him to say? Who are the police who "found" him? What is the relationship between the witness and the police officers who "located" him? (Machiavelli, no matter what you think of guilt or innocence, as an Italian citizen you should be concerned about this smelly aspect of the case!)

Are these police part of the same police squad who stopped searching outdoors for the murder knife once senior police took a big, "clean" knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer?

 

[Strozzi]

-


-

Agreed, but it would still be a tremendous job for the police to make sure journalist printed "alleged" with all the articles that were printed about the case at the time, that would be a mind boggling job, in my opinion.

d

-

There is actually a very simple way for the police to do it.

The chief calls a press conference in front of the Questura with his detectives and flying squad leadership lined up alongside him (that is not without precedent) and proclaims to the public and the media that the defendants may or may not be guilty and should be regarded as innocent unless determined guilty by several courts and the Italian Supreme Court. (Italian Constitution, Art. 27.)

I'm also waiting for hell to freeze over!

 

[Numbers]

-


-

Agreed, but it would still be a tremendous job for the police to make sure journalist printed "alleged" with all the articles that were printed about the case at the time, that would be a mind boggling job, in my opinion.

And how exactly would they control media from outside Italy? I really am curious about your thoughts on that.

In short (and in my opinion), it's ultimately the journalist's (and not LE's) job to make sure "alleged" is included in any article written and published about a case that has not been concluded yet,

d

-

This all depends on what the actual statements by the officials were. Usually there are press releases from the authorities, not merely lunch time conversations.

There are one or two cases (from Russia, IIRC) where the prosecutor and/or other official went on TV and said in effect, "X is guilty. It's only a matter of how long the sentence will be." And those TV shows were recorded, apparently. Violation of the presumption of innocence, since the trial was not finalized (in fact, had not begun).

The Italian Constitution does state that an accused person (defendant) is presumed innocent until finally sentenced (Art. 27):

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been
passed.
Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.
Death penalty is prohibited (1).

 

[Numbers]

This really does make the Hellmann conviction for calunnia a wrongful conviction. It is tragic that he felt he needed to throw scraps to the hounds. This is appeasement. Does anyone have a citation for Hellmann saying he regretted entering that conviction? It will be very clear to the ECHR that Hellmann made an error in law by declaring Amanda absent from the crime scene, yet declaring she knew Lumumba was innocent.
This is all so obvious, a child could understand it.

It was probably an intentional wrongful conviction.

Hellmann listed a long series of reasons why the interrogation was a problem, including the lack of a lawyer.

Then he stated that since Lumumba did not know Meredith Kercher (IIRC), Amanda Knox would have known him to be innocent. And the stress of the interrogation had somehow worn off or wasn't great enough to make her statements be against her will (IIRC). Therefore, the Hellmann court convicted on the calunnia charge and the CSC finalized (but they objected to the logic, primarily because Hellmann had listed all the extenuating circumstances, and also because she was guilty of the murder (with Guede, implied or stated) and he should therefore have found her guilty of aggravated calunnia.

Hellmann after retiring made a statement (IIRC) that the calunnia conviction was an error, but he could not really find that the police were lying.

The simple calunnia conviction, IMO, is a kind of gift to Amanda Knox; it was finalized so she was able to lodge an application claiming a violation of her Convention rights with the ECHR relatively early, and she spent no additional time in prison for the conviction. There is no certainty when the remainder of the case against Knox and Sollecito will be finalized; it could be in a few months or a few years.

 

[Desert Fox]

I love the fact that the police located a witness who claimed that Lumumba's bar, Le Chic, was closed the evening when the police needed to claim it was closed. It was later proven to be open. A Swiss professor was questioned by the police or prosecutor for many hours (was it 8 hours?) before they accepted the fact that Lumumba was in his bar that evening talking with the professor for several hours.

Whatever happened to the witness who testified to what the police wanted him to say? Who are the police who "found" him? What is the relationship between the witness and the police officers who "located" him? (Machiavelli, no matter what you think of guilt or innocence, as an Italian citizen you should be concerned about this smelly aspect of the case!)
Are these police part of the same police squad who stopped searching outdoors for the murder knife once senior police took a big, "clean" knife from Raffaele's kitchen drawer?

Why wasn't that witness tried for calunnia?

 

[Desert Fox]

It was probably an intentional wrongful conviction.

Hellmann listed a long series of reasons why the interrogation was a problem, including the lack of a lawyer.

Then he stated that since Lumumba did not know Meredith Kercher (IIRC), Amanda Knox would have known him to be innocent. And the stress of the interrogation had somehow worn off or wasn't great enough to make her statements be against her will (IIRC). Therefore, the Hellmann court convicted on the calunnia charge and the CSC finalized (but they objected to the logic, primarily because Hellmann had listed all the extenuating circumstances, and also because she was guilty of the murder (with Guede, implied or stated) and he should therefore have found her guilty of aggravated calunnia.

Hellmann after retiring made a statement (IIRC) that the calunnia conviction was an error, but he could not really find that the police were lying.

The simple calunnia conviction, IMO, is a kind of gift to Amanda Knox; it was finalized so she was able to lodge an application claiming a violation of her Convention rights with the ECHR relatively early, and she spent no additional time in prison for the conviction. There is no certainty when the remainder of the case against Knox and Sollecito will be finalized; it could be in a few months or a few years.

In fact, one might argue that kicking it back down might make it so everybody forgets about it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, it would be challenging to convict somebody of Calunnia without being able to use their statements. But I'm sure nencini could do it.

No, it would be very easy to convict Knox based only on Donnino's testimony.
It would be also possible to convict her on her hand written notes alone, which, as she confirmed at the trial years later, she wrote "voluntarily" on her own initiative, and she gave voluntarily on her own initiative to the police.
But there is no reason anyway to assume that even the other statements are non-usable: they are all usable as evidence for the crime of calunnia, because she was not a suspect of that crime at the time and the crime itself didn't exist (so the other crimes were not even related to it).
There is no "Salduz principle" that would grant immunity from an action like Knox's calunnia; the Salduz principle is only about usability of self incriminating statement, it does not grant immunity from crimes.