Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Again, there is a logical error. Donnino or any of the other police personnel can testify as to what Ms. Knox said. But those statements were made by the subject of an interrogation without a lawyer. They are simply not useable to convict someone, whether written down or witnessed. (...)

You are making the error, because you are making an argument of immunity. Usability is about documents, but you talk about actions, and you claim immunity from actions.

 

[Strozzi]

The witness who stated for the police that he had passed by Le Chic the night of the murder and stated that it was closed was "found" by the police when they needed such a witness to flesh out the case against Lumumba. His testimony was never presented in court where it would have been subject to cross-examination, although it might have been presented at a pre-trial detention hearing before a judge to justify holding Lumumba those first days or two weeks.

If the witness was interrogated later about how he came to his claim or was formally charged with calunia, he might reveal a connection to the police. How did the police locate him? What was he told (fed)? Was his statement shaped by the police? Had he had run-ins with the polce before? Had the policei done him a favor? Did he owe them a favor? Was he a police informant? Personal friend or relative of a police officer? Serial-witness used in earlier cases?

To investigate him for providing false testimony is not in the police's interest.

Based upon Machiavelli's explanations about the responsibilities of prosecutors and judges, it seems that Prosecutor Mignini or a judge should have opened or ordered an investigation of this possible crime (false testimony that Le Chic was closed) once they learned of it?

 

[Numbers]

To organize a press conference to read out an article of the Constitution would also be quite ridiculous. What's there to report about?

The proper statement would be, for example:
"X, Y, and Z were arrested yesterday on the suspicion of robbing bank A"

NOT

"X, Y, and Z were arrested yesterday for robbing bank A".

Or reference is made to the "alleged crime" or "the authorities allege that X, Y, and Z robbed bank A".

There is a difference between using words like "suspicion" or "alleged" and leaving such words out. The ECHR is aware of this issue; it is discussed in the Guide on Article 6: the Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb), which is available at the ECHR homesite:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home&c=

 

[Bill Williams]

Nothing at all, because there is no need to say anything: the photos were published with a tag from Barcroft Media, as part of a stock, something which itself blows down any journalist statement about "police releasing photos" to the level of mere speculation. We know the photos were certainly not released to the journalist, since they bought them from Barcroft Media.

It is then absolutely ridiculous to assert that those were not part of the investigation file - and this seems to me a disingenuous confusion based on a wording change, a willful confusion between investigation file and case file.

I'll give you this, that this time you are not relying on assertions.

But you are being nonsensical and splitting hairs where there are none to split.

 

[Numbers]

You are making the error, because you are making an argument of immunity. Usability is about documents, but you talk about actions, and you claim immunity from actions.

No. You are misunderstanding. The issue is about ECHR case-law and statements made under interrogation without a lawyer. See my earlier posts quoting Salduz, with bold emphasis.

Or read the relevant texts until you see the words; for example:


CASE OF SALDUZ v. TURKEY (Application no. 36391/02)

ETA: Post 1860 has the relevant text.
ETA2: "incriminating statement" may also mean incriminating some other person than the speaker.

 

[Desert Fox]

No. You are misunderstanding. The issue is about ECHR case-law and statements made under interrogation without a lawyer. See my earlier posts quoting Salduz, with bold emphasis.

To use a more extreme example to show a point, imagine yourself being tortured to name other witches. Just because you name other names under torture does not mean you are to blame for them being tortured in turn. It is the fault of the torturers.

Interestingly, using the witch hunts, there was what was called "showing the instruments" where they showed the torture devices and many confessed at that point. Unless Machiavellian believes they really were witches, these had to be false confessions.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

To organize a press conference to read out an article of the Constitution would also be quite ridiculous. What's there to report about?

-

True and if Italy did a press conference for every possible inaccuracy from the press, they wouldn't have the time or money to do anything else. You could literally hold any country hostage by just constantly releasing erroneous reports they have to respond to constantly.

The media just has to take some responsibility here, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

True and if Italy did a press conference for every possible inaccuracy from the press, they wouldn't have the time or money to do anything else. You could literally hold any country hostage by just constantly releasing erroneous reports they have to respond to constantly.

If you look at the West Memphis Three case, sure the media had a part to play but do not let the justice system off the hook.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

If you look at the West Memphis Three case, sure the media had a part to play but do not let the justice system off the hook.

-


Thank you d. That was well said.

In response, not only do I believe that the media is responsible for being truthful, but the public is also responsible for critically analyzing what the press reports

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

-
Thank you d. That was well said.

In response, not only do I believe that the media is responsible for being truthful, but the public is also responsible for critically analyzing what the press reports,

We all have our own prejudice, I know I tend to accept what conservative politicians do easier than I should.

Interesting, I usually assume that other country's legal systems (especially Western Europe) are better than the United States and Italy actually has really disappointed me.

I wish I could set a test for the pro guilt side though where everything is flipped and it is an Italian in the US getting the same treatment. I suspect that many would howl.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

We all have our own prejudice, I know I tend to accept what conservative politicians do easier than I should.

Interesting, I usually assume that other country's legal systems (especially Western Europe) are better than the United States and Italy actually has really disappointed me.

I wish I could set a test for the pro guilt side though where everything is flipped and it is an Italian in the US getting the same treatment. I suspect that many would howl.

-

I like to think of them as preconceptions rather than prejudices, but what I would like to discuss with you (besides evolution vs creationism, for example) would be OT, but politics hmm... let's see if we can connect this... I might need some help here DF... please... and thank you in advance.

I'm a lib-dem myself who has maybe smoked a little bit too much of the 420 tonight (if you catch my drift), but I have seen both sides of the political spectrum do the same dance for the same reasons.

Unemployment numbers are a good example. Both sides can statistically shift the numbers to make either side look good. For example, the "unreported unemployed" numbers become a big time battlefield, and both sides are able to take either side of the debate depending on who is perceived to be in power at the time, and who could ultimately benefit... you can see the same kind of psychology going on here, if you know where and what to look for.

The psychology of politics is a fascinating study, in my opinion.

But I do agree, it's kinda like what you wrote, sometimes the horror needs to hit home before you can really see the horror for what it really is and how easily it can be turned on you, before you even realize how horrifying and powerful and unfair it really is,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the guy with the Nikon D50

No, we're not. Dan-O has even posted pictures showing a 'short fat perp' taking pictures of the bathroom in the aftermath of that chemical being used on the walls which gave the impression it was a blood-soaked mess.

Kaosium,

Here is a link to one such comment and photo.

 

[Numbers]

To use a more extreme example to show a point, imagine yourself being tortured to name other witches. Just because you name other names under torture does not mean you are to blame for them being tortured in turn. It is the fault of the torturers.

Interestingly, using the witch hunts, there was what was called "showing the instruments" where they showed the torture devices and many confessed at that point. Unless Machiavellian believes they really were witches, these had to be false confessions.

DF,

Here's another thought.
In the crime of calunnia, one is falsely accusing someone (else) who is innocent of a crime.
Let's consider the (new) crime of self-calunnia, where is falsely accusing one's self, who is innocent, of a crime. That "self-calunnia" is what happens in the usual false confession. If the police find that your false confession is indeed false, rather than releasing the subject, that person is tried and convicted of falsely naming an innocent: self-calunnia.

Regular calunnia is thus much the same, as you point out with your example of witch hunts: under coercion, perhaps even torture, people name others as criminals based on the interrogators' (inquisitors') suggestions. The person who has done this cannot then be held responsible for the crime of falsely naming someone, anymore than the person who falsely confesses.

The people who support the concept of prosecuting a "calunnia" that results from an interrogation without a lawyer are essentially denying that false confessions exist.

 

[anglolawyer]

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?

Vulpano Pasquale was his name and they found him really fast. They only had from the early hours of the 6th through to the early part of the 8th to track this guy down. It took a year to find most of the witnesses for the trial itself. It was a remarkable achievement.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

Here is a link to one such comment and photo.

Ah, thank you! I'd forgotten which thread that was in.

 

[LondonJohn]

We also know Barcroft Media didn't take the pictures, the police did. The reporter says the police released the photos, which figures being as they were the ones who had them.

It's perfectly plausible (and indeed probable in my view) that the person within the police/PM's office who leaked these photos used a photo agency as an intermediary. After all, suppose that an Italian public official working on this case - let's call him Moroni - realises that there is a salacious appetite for the lurid details of this case among the UK tabloid press in particular. Moroni realises he can make a tidy bit of baksheesh selling lurid-looking photos to which he has access, plus he realises he can also help poison UK public opinion in his department's favour by doing so.

So what does Moroni do? He doesn't know the photo editors on the various UK newspapers. Moreover, he very probably wants to insulate himself from any direct negotiations - it might be embarrassing (to say the very least) if he were directly linked to the sale. So Moroni contacts a UK photo agency and says he has some juicy photos that he thinks the UK tabloids would be very interested in buying. He negotiates a percentage deal with that agency, and the agency then does the sort of thing it knows very well how to do: it calls round all the UK tabloids and offers the photos for sale. It takes the highest offer - the Mail in this case - and takes the fee, a large chunk of which it passes back to Moroni. Job done.

Again, what possible legitimate forensic use would there be for pictures of the bathroom after it had been exposed to phenolphthalein and allowed to sit? You would get the same reaction in every bathroom, it would all turn the same color.

The only use for those pictures is to give a completely misleading impression to those unaware of the effects of blood tests, which is about all of the population...

Agreed. And if the police/PM truly thought that those K-M aftermath photos were in any way relevant or useful to the investigation, then they are total morons. So, either way, they are somewhat damned, aren't they.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Vulpano Pasquale was his name and they found him really fast. They only had from the early hours of the 6th through to the early part of the 8th to track this guy down. It took a year to find most of the witnesses for the trial itself. It was a remarkable achievement.

And it's also apparently incredibly disingenuous for Machiavelli and others to be claiming that the police/PM were equally (if not more) assiduous in locating and questioning Roman Mero, the Swiss professor who ended up providing a watertight alibi for Lumumba.

According to Darkness Descending (and its account is so specific and detailed as to make it very hard to believe it was an invention in a UK-published book), Mero was first alerted not by the police, but by an Italian friend. Mero realised that he could account for Lumumba's whereabouts and activities, since he (Mero) had been talking with Lumumba in his bar all through the critical time period.

According to the account in DD, Mero called the Perugia police, was at first told that there was nobody around to talk with him, but persisted and finally talked with someone on the investigating team. The account says that he was somewhat rebuffed, and that in reaction to this indifference, he decided to travel to Perugia on his own initiative (and expense) to talk directly to the police, since he knew that his information was crucial to the investigation against Lumumba.

Compare and contrast with the accounts given by those linked with the authorities (including, if I'm not mistaken, Mignini himself), where the impression is given that the police/PM went out of their way to track down Mero, locate him, bring him to Perugia and hear his testimony..........

 

[Machiavelli]

The proper statement would be, for example:
"X, Y, and Z were arrested yesterday on the suspicion of robbing bank A"

NOT

"X, Y, and Z were arrested yesterday for robbing bank A".

Or reference is made to the "alleged crime" or "the authorities allege that X, Y, and Z robbed bank A".

There is a difference between using words like "suspicion" or "alleged" and leaving such words out. The ECHR is aware of this issue; it is discussed in the Guide on Article 6: the Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb), which is available at the ECHR homesite:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home&c=

The proper statement versus what? You don't even have a clue about who said what. Don't even forget that the defence have lawyer who speak to the press and represent them too. And all this is pointless: if the suspect was innocent and felt his/her reputation was damaged by ineffective or improper police communication, then file a request of damages, after acquittal, and that's all.

 

[Machiavelli]

To use a more extreme example to show a point, imagine yourself being tortured to name other witches. Just because you name other names under torture does not mean you are to blame for them being tortured in turn. It is the fault of the torturers.

Interestingly, using the witch hunts, there was what was called "showing the instruments" where they showed the torture devices and many confessed at that point. Unless Machiavellian believes they really were witches, these had to be false confessions.

Torture is a crime, and a crime must be proven, not just speculated about. This also goes for threats of torture. There needs to be a claim of lying under torture, and it must be clear, consistent and believable.
Here we have Knox repeating multiple times her accusation even in papers which she claim she write voluntarily, we have a failure to claim any factual torture, we have another suspect accusing her, have her failure to answer questions about her false accusation, we have her claim she didn't lie but that she actually remembered those things, we have Donnino's testimony and a Magistrate, we have Knix's being intrinsically and independently non credible and a liar, before and after the questionings. We have her prolonged behavior as a false accuser and a false witness.

 

[Desert Fox]

Torture is a crime, and a crime must be proven, not just speculated about. This also goes for threats of torture. There needs to be a claim of lying under torture, and it must be clear, consistent and believable.
Here we have Knox repeating multiple times her accusation even in papers which she claim she write voluntarily, we have a failure to claim any factual torture, we have another suspect accusing her, have her failure to answer questions about her false accusation, we have her claim she didn't lie but that she actually remembered those things, we have Donnino's testimony and a Magistrate, we have Knix's being intrinsically and independently non credible and a liar, before and after the questionings. We have her prolonged behavior as a false accuser and a false witness.

Other than using pot, is there any evidence of lying from Amanda prior to this case? Not saying that she never lied but nothing serious.

Deception is part of the tactics used by police forces not just in the United States but in just about every country where I can get enough information to track cases down.

As well, I spoke to a prosecutor on another board who is driven crazy by the fact that he has cops who lie on the stand to sweeten their position and will not release exculpatory evidence to the defense. To be honest, any police who try to state that they do not use high pressure tactics are lying.

Police interrogation by its very nature is a form of mental torture. Even people who were cleared after interrogation state that it is a form of mental torture.

Now what are the hallmarks of a false confession - They get the crime scene wrong and they implicate people who were not there. There people are almost always people that the police think are guilty. Can see this with the West Memphis Three, Norfolk Four, Michael Crow implicating his friends, etc.

Now, it is not as if I think you will pay any attention to any of my arguments.