Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Given the way the Italian judges vote, it is possible the amateur judges voting first, voted for guilt on calunnia, making Hellman's view irrelevant. One can think of many reasons why they may have voted for this slightly irrational verdict. The truth is unless they tell us we will not know.

I don't know. I think that even for Hellmann, it was perhaps a step too far to reach a verdict (acquittal on that criminal slander charge) that would automatically imply significant police misconduct (and perhaps even perjury in the trials). A touch of the "Lord Denning" factor at play, maybe?

 

[Samson]

When you realise that there's a group of hard-line nutters who are planning to literally pop champagne corks if the Supreme Court confirms the convictions of two people whom they don't know, for the murder of another person whom they never knew, you realise that something is very wrong indeed with such individuals' psychiatry. I think many of them have been personally affected by violent crime in the past, and that this case is a way for them to pour out all their bitterness and vengeance (with the added attractions of groupthink and group acceptance).

I feel confident in suggesting that the Kercher family themselves will not be cheering and "sipping champers" if the SC confirms the verdicts. Put it this way: if they are planning to do that sort of thing, I would be very surprised and very disappointed.

The Machine and his champers are remarkable enough, but there seem to be others planning to gloat and sip. What is going on?

 

[Diocletus]

The Machine and his champers are remarkable enough, but there seem to be others planning to gloat and sip. What is going on?

I guess they don't realize that it's premature to celebrate. On the other hand, it's always the right time for champagne.

In some ways, I'll be glad for a confirmation, because the case will get so much more interesting. Of course, I'll feel bad for the victims of this travesty.

 

[Diocletus]

Amanda Knox: Yes , I told him (Dalla Vedova) they beat me and he said: "What? They didn’t tell me that." And I: “Well, they did."
Edda Mellas: You just have to be careful about this because if we say ... We can say that the police threatened you but if we say that you were beaten, then, technically, we have to file a complaint against the police, which at this time would only make things worse. And especially because you have no visible signs...Amanda Knox: I know
Edda Mellas: It would then be difficult to prove it is true... The Consulate will take care of this later, so we have to work with the lawyer to understand when weare to talk about it. Amanda Knox: Yes , when I was with the police, the woman who beat me after I said what I believed was the truth, I said, "No, really! I don’t think that's true, I'm very confused now. I only said that because I thought it could be true," and they said: "No no, you will remember it, you will remember it!". And I ...

Is this not the most extraordinary thing:

1) Italian law requires the filing of a formal complaint in order for this crime (but not others) to be investigated.
2) As evidenced here, Ms Knox's parents have been made acutely aware that filing such a complaint, which is a right, will make matters worse for their daughter - what's known as a "double whammy".
3) The later recitation of the facts of the assault (mentioned here on 13th November - just a week after it happened and so hardly concocted, conveniently, months later) as part of the narrative of events offered as part of a criminal defence, results in charges being levelled against Ms Knox and then her parents for giving an interview to an English, not Italian journalist for an English not Italian newspaper, in which they simply state to him what their daughter has told them about the matter.

Where are we again? Burma? Somalia? N Korea? Saudi Arabia? Italy is supposed to be a modern, European Democracy.

The funny thing is, she gave them a letter on the 6th (when she had no lawyer) that said "you hit me". Sounds like a complaint to me, so where's the investigation? It seems that in Italy you not only have to make a complaint, but you have to do so on a special form, in triplicate, written and handed in by your lawyer.

 

[Bill Williams]

AMANDA: Yes, indeed. I mean, I didn’t have a lawyer with me there (---).
MOTHER: But did you ask for a lawyer in that situation?
AMANDA: No. Because I didn’t know I was suspected. They asked me questions and I responded to the questions. Then they said to me “No, you are a liar!” and me “What?”
MOTHER: Probably in that moment you should have asked for a lawyer!
FATHER: Eh, eh.
AMANDA: Then a lady asked me if I wanted a laywer. I said yes and she started to laugh, because I wanted a lawyer there. And me ... “Ok”
Evidence of these procedural rights violations keeps popping up from different sources and they are all remarkably damning. There's this, there's Hellmann, there's Chiefi etc etc. Frightening.

This is specifically damning in that there is no transcript/videotape/audiotape where any allegation, from anyone, can be either verified or debunked.

Here Amanda is claiming that it was the lady (probably Ficarra) who asked Knox if she wanted a lawyer. This plays to what Knox's own assumptions were - like Raffaele in another room.... why would I need a lawyer if I'm not suspected of anything? Why would I need a lawyer, when this kindly translator is helping me with my memory problems (of memories she never had in the first place...... so much for Donnino being a mediator).

All they've done as far as Knox is concerned, and all she's being accused of to her knowledge is being a liar - Knox is called a liar for "not remembering"; meaning, not remembering the stuff that Knox thinks of as imaginings and which they are encouraging her to make - spurred on by the diplomat/mediator/translator. For reasons of exhaustion, Knox has convinced herself that the cops find her imaginings useful.

"Do you want a lawyer?"

"No, I want some sleep." (Except acc. to this, Knox claims she said yes to the lawyer bit!)

In a control room somewhere else in the Questura sits a gentleman who would later say, "She buckled and told us what we already knew."

But back to the issue at hand - Amanda is saying that (Ficarra?) asked her if she wanted a lawyer. When Amanda said, "yes", she was laughed at.

Which story is correct? Let's check the mandatory videotape/audiotape/transcript..........

 

[Desert Fox]

When you realise that there's a group of hard-line nutters who are planning to literally pop champagne corks if the Supreme Court confirms the convictions of two people whom they don't know, for the murder of another person whom they never knew, you realise that something is very wrong indeed with such individuals' psychiatry. I think many of them have been personally affected by violent crime in the past, and that this case is a way for them to pour out all their bitterness and vengeance (with the added attractions of groupthink and group acceptance).

I feel confident in suggesting that the Kercher family themselves will not be cheering and "sipping champers" if the SC confirms the verdicts. Put it this way: if they are planning to do that sort of thing, I would be very surprised and very disappointed.

There are some families of victims and victims themselves who are pretty vindictive to probable innocent defendants. How about Linda Labrane for example.

 

[Strozzi]

The funny thing is, she gave them a letter on the 6th (when she had no lawyer) that said "you hit me". Sounds like a complaint to me, so where's the investigation? It seems that in Italy you not only have to make a complaint, but you have to do so on a special form, in triplicate, written and handed in by your lawyer.

I too am astounded by this because as soon as Prosecutor Mignini knew of Knox's written statement that she had been hit in interrogation he therefore was informed. At that moment he knew that a violent crime may have occurred.

What official do you present a complaint to if not a prosecutor?

 

[Diocletus]

Well...ok. So then, in the interests of not singling out Italy too much, I'd be really like to hear from you the names of the top three modern, Western democratic states where, in your opinion, we might expect to see repeated this scenario of a suspect, who is allegedly assaulted by the cops and ends up being charged by them for saying so as part of a defence to criminal charges in which her arrest was occasioned by statements compelled during an illegal interrogation during which the alleged assault (which would be a criminal offence), took place. Which legislatures have instituted "formal systems" to protect police officers from the consequences of committing criminal offences whilst carrying out their professional duties?

It is an absurd and unsustainable system, and no one can think for a minute that the ECHR is ever going to give it a stamp of approval.

There seem to be two ways that these custodial assault cases can be raised.

First, there are a number of cases directly alleging an article 3 violation (torture/inhuman treatment). Most of these article 3 cases do seem to start off with a complaint to the police, which usually turns out to have been inadequately investigated. There seems to be some possibility that a local route for making a complaint must be exhausted before a case such as this could be brought to the ECtHR, although I have also seen cases that discuss an absolute article 3 exclusionary rule, which suggests that article 3 misconduct can be brought up in defending against criminal charges.

Second, there are article 6 cases, where the defendant alleges that the violation of procedural rights renders ensuing statements unusable for purposes of convicting. There is no logical reason why a collateral complaint process should be followed, simply to obtain the exclusion of illegally-gathered evidence, indeed, this would seem to be a core function of the direct criminal proceedings. I haven't seen any cases that require this.

The above doesn't even take into consideration the issue of what the ECHR will consider to be an effective "complaint" (a statement to the authorities that "you hit me"?), whether the complaint process would have been futile (as it clearly would have been in this case), and whether "complaints" should be privileged against further prosecution (which would seem the only sensible possibility, otherwise retribution in the form of additional charges and harassment is guaranteed).

I think the ECHR still has a lot to figure out here, but this case might be helpful to it.

 

[Diocletus]

Sometimes, the rules are the rules:

Confession of teen, 16, who 'raped his math teacher and slashed her throat before dragging her body into woods' cannot be used at trial because cops 'coerced' it from him

 

[JREF2010]

AMANDA: Yes, indeed. I mean, I didn’t have a lawyer with me there (---).
MOTHER: But did you ask for a lawyer in that situation?
AMANDA: No. Because I didn’t know I was suspected. They asked me questions and I responded to the questions. Then they said to me “No, you are a liar!” and me “What?”
MOTHER: Probably in that moment you should have asked for a lawyer!
FATHER: Eh, eh.
AMANDA: Then a lady asked me if I wanted a laywer. I said yes and she started to laugh, because I wanted a lawyer there. And me ... “Ok”
Evidence of these procedural rights violations keeps popping up from different sources and they are all remarkably damning. There's this, there's Hellmann, there's Chiefi etc etc. Frightening.

The tap translation is interesting.
Who will know is Nencini and his jury of fake judges read it?
I wonder if the Kerchers have read it? Or the obstinate guiltards?
Did Nencini and his fake-judges know Migninni said the interrogation wasnt filmed because of budget cuts....yet all these recordings are now public.?

Could any human have truly read all the documentation and facts of this case? Probably not.
Should anyone who doesnt fully understand the case and complexity's be performing veridicts?
Probably not.

Is Migninni, and the perugia fake-cops swine?
Probably.

 

[sept79]

Amanda Knox: Yes , I told him (Dalla Vedova) they beat me and he said: "What? They didn’t tell me that." And I: “Well, they did."
Edda Mellas: You just have to be careful about this because if we say ... We can say that the police threatened you but if we say that you were beaten, then, technically, we have to file a complaint against the police, which at this time would only make things worse. And especially because you have no visible signs...
Amanda Knox: I know
Edda Mellas: It would then be difficult to prove it is true... The Consulate will take care of this later, so we have to work with the lawyer to understand when we are to talk about it.
Amanda Knox: Yes , when I was with the police, the woman who beat me after I said what I believed was the truth, I said, "No, really! I don’t think that's true, I'm very confused now. I only said that because I thought it could be true," and they said: "No no, you will remember it, you will remember it!". And I ...

Is this not the most extraordinary thing:

1) Italian law requires the filing of a formal complaint in order for this crime (but not others) to be investigated.
2) As evidenced here, Ms Knox's parents have been made acutely aware that filing such a complaint, which is a right, will make matters worse for their daughter - what's known as a "double whammy".
3) The later recitation of the facts of the assault (mentioned here on 13th November - just a week after it happened and so hardly concocted, conveniently, months later) as part of the narrative of events offered as part of a criminal defence, results in charges being levelled against Ms Knox and then her parents for giving an interview to an English, not Italian journalist for an English not Italian newspaper, in which they simply state to him what their daughter has told them about the matter.

Where are we again? Burma? Somalia? N Korea? Saudi Arabia? Italy is supposed to be a modern, European Democracy.

This certainly didn't materialize as desired. Wonder what the Consulate did do, if anything . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

I too am astounded by this because as soon as Prosecutor Mignini knew of Knox's written statement that she had been hit in interrogation he therefore was informed. At that moment he knew that a violent crime may have occurred.

What official do you present a complaint to if not a prosecutor?

And given that Knox had her own lawyer withheld from her until the 8th, wouldn't it have been Mignini's job to walk her through the complaint process?

Sometimes it becomes apparent how all this fits together.... an osmosis.

 

[Diocletus]

Amanda Knox: Yes , I told him (Dalla Vedova) they beat me and he said: "What? They didn’t tell me that." And I: “Well, they did."

LOL.

 

[Strozzi]

This is specifically damning in that there is no transcript/videotape/audiotape where any allegation, from anyone, can be either verified or debunked.

Here Amanda is claiming that it was the lady (probably Ficarra) who asked Knox if she wanted a lawyer. This plays to what Knox's own assumptions were - like Raffaele in another room.... why would I need a lawyer if I'm not suspected of anything? Why would I need a lawyer, when this kindly translator is helping me with my memory problems (of memories she never had in the first place...... so much for Donnino being a mediator).

All they've done as far as Knox is concerned, and all she's being accused of to her knowledge is being a liar - Knox is called a liar for "not remembering"; meaning, not remembering the stuff that Knox thinks of as imaginings and which they are encouraging her to make - spurred on by the diplomat/mediator/translator. For reasons of exhaustion, Knox has convinced herself that the cops find her imaginings useful.

"Do you want a lawyer?"

"No, I want some sleep." (Except acc. to this, Knox claims she said yes to the lawyer bit!)

In a control room somewhere else in the Questura sits a gentleman who would later say, "She buckled and told us what we already knew."
But back to the issue at hand - Amanda is saying that (Ficarra?) asked her if she wanted a lawyer. When Amanda said, "yes", she was laughed at.

Which story is correct? Let's check the mandatory videotape/audiotape/transcript..........

IIRC, Machiavelli explained that the "control room" was an available room where the police officers met.

The police chief and Giobbi were together in the control room for much of the time. This is presumably where police officers involved in interrogating Raffaele in one room and Amanda in another would go to confer, coordinate, and receive instructions.

I don't know if it came up in testimony, but I assume that when interpreter Donnino arrived at police headquarters at about 1 am the night of the interrogation she did not go straight from the front door to interrogation room X. She would have gone to meet someone (report in), be told what was going on, be told what had allegedly been said, and what the interrogators wanted of her.

Didn't Giobbi say that when Mignini arrived later that night Giobbi saw him? Upon arriving, Mignini may have gone to be briefed in the control room. That would seem normal to me. The interrogations were being supervised from the control room.

 

[Numbers]

IIRC, Machiavelli explained that the "control room" was an available room where the police officers met.

The police chief and Giobbi were together in the control room for much of the time. This is presumably where police officers involved in interrogating Raffaele in one room and Amanda in another would go to confer, coordinate, and receive instructions.

I don't know if it came up in testimony, but I assume that when interpreter Donnino arrived at police headquarters at about 1 am the night of the interrogation she did not go straight from the front door to interrogation room X. She would have gone to meet someone (report in), be told what was going on, be told what had allegedly been said, and what the interrogators wanted of her.

Didn't Giobbi say that when Mignini arrived later that night Giobbi saw him? Upon arriving, Mignini may have gone to be briefed in the control room. That would seem normal to me. The interrogations were being supervised from the control room.

My speculation is that there were audio feeds from the interrogation rooms to the control room. I'm not aware that there is distinct evidence of this, but it would make sense.

 

[Strozzi]

The tap translation is interesting.Who will know is Nencini and his jury of fake judges read it?
I wonder if the Kerchers have read it? Or the obstinate guiltards?
Did Nencini and his fake-judges know Migninni said the interrogation wasnt filmed because of budget cuts....yet all these recordings are now public.?
Could any human have truly read all the documentation and facts of this case? Probably not.
Should anyone who doesnt fully understand the case and complexity's be performing veridicts?
Probably not.

Is Migninni, and the perugia fake-cops swine?
Probably.

Prosecutor Mignini stated that the late night interrogations at police headquarters were not recorded, which he explained was due to budget limitations. Conversations between Amanda and her attorneys were recorded. There was money for that.

 

[Desert Fox]

Prosecutor Mignini stated that the late night interrogations at police headquarters were not recorded, which he explained was due to budget limitations. Conversations between Amanda and her attorneys were recorded. There was money for that.

And they recorded hours of cell phone intercepts as well

The funny thing is that there are pictures of Prosecutor Mignini carrying a handheld recorder and laptops of that generation all had the ability to record audio.

Basically, the argument is garbage no matter how you cut it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Prosecutor Mignini stated that the late night interrogations at police headquarters were not recorded, which he explained was due to budget limitations. Conversations between Amanda and her attorneys were recorded. There was money for that.

And they recorded hours of cell phone intercepts as well

The funny thing is that there are pictures of Prosecutor Mignini carrying a handheld recorder and laptops of that generation all had the ability to record audio.

Basically, the argument is garbage no matter how you cut it.

And for the defence to complaint that their client's rights had been violated, they would have to **prove** that Mignini did this with some sort of deceitful intent.

That's how the reversal of the burden of proof works in Italy.

 

[Strozzi]

My speculation is that there were audio feeds from the interrogation rooms to the control room. I'm not aware that there is distinct evidence of this, but it would make sense.

That has been discussed here before. From the way Giobbi and others referred to it, I believe the room where they waited (coordinated) the interrogations is located near the interrogation rooms where Knox and Soloecito were being interrogated separately. (Giobbi said he could hear Knox's screams.) The room may have been the office (or near the office) from where interrogation room activity is overseen and from where the on/off switches and modern recording machines (computers) are located.

The police headquarters is a very modern police building with cameras and concealed microphones built-in interrogation rooms and hallway waiting areas. Such devices would be controlled from a control room.

A year ago, while googling various information, I came across information on an Italian firm that cited their role in installing the recording systems in Perugia police headquarters.

 

[Desert Fox]

And for the defence to complaint that their client's rights had been violated, they would have to **prove** that Mignini did this with some sort of deceitful intent.

That's how the reversal of the burden of proof works in Italy.

When you have what is in effect murder case which will involve international politics, you want to do everything by the number. While somebody from Mexico (or another Latin American country) may get a bit of short treatment in the US, a smart US prosecutor is going to try to make sure that they do everything properly with somebody from Europe, Australia, and to a lesser extent Canada.*

After they thought Amanda was guilty, the Italian justice system should have made sure that they really had the right person instead of just playing normal games.

*List is not meant to be exhaustive.