Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Or perhaps those [shoutings] were from head pain from being cuffed by some police person.

This is likely, because Amanda states she was slapped because she was not remembering what she was supposed to, right before she named Lumumba.

 

[Machiavelli]

I cannot say. I do not know if the recording method was analogue or digital. However, I discussed this with several Americans and Europeans who work in the electronic industry and was told that digital recording was standard for years before 2007. That is not to exclude the use of analogue recording for special purposes.

By the way, there is something I find curious the innocentisti overlook when they speculate about recordings. Besides the fact that recordings of police interviews (summary information) or spontaneous statements to investigators would absolutely inadmissible in a trial, may I also remind you that Knox defence dthemselves demanded specifically those statements to be inadmissible.
This should lead you to assume - logically - that Knox's defence are those who wanted least any alleged recordings to be brought up at the trial.
They always, and only attempted to throw those statements out of the trial.
The 'innocentisti' say we should see them, and Knox's defence always said the judges should not.

 

[Machiavelli]

ECHR will request the architectural drawings, or have an investigator (probably a lawyer who knows how to draw and dimension) sketch the layout. They actually did something like that to a police station in Turkey where a 17 year-old Kurdish woman of Turkish nationality was taken by police to be "interrogated" (actually, beaten, tortured, and raped). The ECHR found there were some undisclosed rooms in the basement that corresponded to rooms she had described as a torture chamber and office. There also was no record of this woman being brought to this police station. ECHR investigation found that the number of persons brought to the station in the year in question was much lower than in previous years, and inferred there were unrecorded arrestees.

Yes. At the Perugia police station are said to probably have a dozen of chopped bodies. Suspects who allegedly didn't talk. Some parts are rumored to be in Vecchiotti's refrigerator.

 

[Desert Fox]

By the way, there is something I find curious the innocentisti overlook when they speculate about recordings. Besides the fact that recordings of police interviews (summary information) or spontaneous statements to investigators would absolutely inadmissible in a trial, may I also remind you that Knox defence dthemselves demanded specifically those statements to be inadmissible.
This should lead you to assume - logically - that Knox's defence are those who wanted least any alleged recordings to be brought up at the trial.
They always, and only attempted to throw those statements out of the trial.
The 'innocentisti' say we should see them, and Knox's defence always said the judges should not.

We get told that recordings of prison phone conversations support guilt but when we finally get a chance to read them, we find that they support innocence.

Hey, maybe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. . . . I don't think so but maybe. . . .The trouble is that you have no evidence of it. Speculation is not evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I cannot say. I do not know if the recording method was analogue or digital.

However, I discussed this with several Americans and Europeans who work in the electronic industry and was told that digital recording was standard for years before 2007. That is not to exclude the use of analogue recording for special purposes. I was also told that a professionally-designed digital recording system would automatically save and backup the digital recording. It costs next to nothing to digitally record an event.

ETA: My opinion is that the recording system was deliberately not turned on for the interrogations because the police interrogators knew it was likely to get messy, given that they were rushing to break open the case that night before Knox's mother arrived the following day.

I believe your hypothesis is at very least reasonable in both counts.
One issue is that even if they theoretically did not have this recording system in interview rooms, there were portable means of recorded including emergency jury rigged versions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

stomach contents, a second gastrointestinal indicator

I was watching a Medical Detectives program about the murder of Stefanie Newman Rabinowitz. By the stomach contents, which had very little digestion, it had only been one or two hours since eating that she was murdered. It appears as if stomach contents are accepted as good evidence of time of death.

Desert Fox,

ESTIMATION OF TIME SINCE DEATH BY GASTRIC CONTENTS

Viras Patel, Dharmesh Silajiya, Kalpesh Shah, Anand Menat, Mehul Tandel, Sandip Raloti. IJCRR. 2013; 5(11): 125-129

Abstract
The time of death estimation plays important role in solving both criminal and civil cases. The inspection of the gastric contents must be part of every postmortem examination because if the time of taking last meal is known, the approximate time of death can be made out indirectly. The rate of gastric emptying varies in man from 2.5 to 6 hours. The length of time required to empty the stomach is variable as it depends upon a host of factors like nature and consistency of food, motility of stomach, contents, environment, emotional/psychological factors and residual variations. The aim of this study is to determine approximate time of death by examination of gastric contents in deceased body brought to mortuary at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Present study was conducted on total 100 deceased persons (70 males and 30 females) whose time of death and time of last meal were known. Gastric contents were examined and divided in three categories; semi-digested identifiable food particles, semi-digested un-identifiable food particles, empty stomach. These findings were compared with time interval between last meal and time of death. In present study the identifiable semi-digested food particle were found more commonly in those persons who died 0-2 hours after last meal, un-identifiable semi-digested food particle were found more commonly in those persons who died 2-6 hours after last meal and empty stomach were found more commonly in those persons who died more than 6 hours after last meal. From present study we conclude that indirect estimation of time since death can be possible from examination of gastric content but due to variability of gastric emptying in different individuals we can’t exactly define time since death.

 

[Numbers]

I wouldn't summarize it as "hearing screams". Giobbi actually has some descriptive terms for the "screams"

"gridate" instead of "grida"
"urlate" instead of "urla" (specifically "urlate emotive")



"gridata" or "urlata" is not translatable "scream". It's a behaviour of yelling and shouting.

Scream is "urlo" (plural: "urla"). But with the suffix -ata it becomes something different.

Yet again Machiavelli is wrong

gridate and urlate mean scream

http://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/urlate

Mach,
How do you explain these variances in interpretation or translation between your Italian to English and http://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/urlate?

Should we be writing to those responsible for reverso.net and request that they contact you for the true English equivalents of Italian words in context?

 

[Dan O.]

By the way, there is something I find curious the innocentisti overlook when they speculate about recordings. Besides the fact that recordings of police interviews (summary information) or spontaneous statements to investigators would absolutely inadmissible in a trial, may I also remind you that Knox defence dthemselves demanded specifically those statements to be inadmissible.
This should lead you to assume - logically - that Knox's defence are those who wanted least any alleged recordings to be brought up at the trial.
They always, and only attempted to throw those statements out of the trial.
The 'innocentisti' say we should see them, and Knox's defence always said the judges should not.

You have always avoided confronting the argument. Amanda recorded in writing in the hours and days immediately after what happened during the interrogation. The police in their infinite stupidity have no evidence to support their position. There is nothing to say they didn't just make a bunch of stuff up to take to trial a year later.

 

[Strozzi]

Also, note how Giobbi links the "shouting" only to the specific episode when Amanda tells the name of Lumumba (he describes the episode exactly in the same way Anna Donnino describes it):

Mach, Giobbi was not in the interrogation room when Amanda was being questioned. He was in a room down the hall carrying out his control duties. How would he know what specifically was being discussed at the moments when Amanda screamed or shouted? Was he listening in? Was the microphone on? And during all this neither Profazio nor Giobbi thought to ask or verify if the interrogations were being recorded, as would seem proper?

ETA: Machiavelli, the interrogation - it stinks!

 

[Strozzi]

I believe your hypothesis is at very least reasonable in both counts.
One issue is that even if they theoretically did not have this recording system in interview rooms, there were portable means of recorded including emergency jury rigged versions.

IIRC, a day or two before the police conducted the late night interrogations, the police placed Knox and Sollecito together in a separate room at police headquarters and covertly recorded their conversations. (They heard nothing incriminating.) The police also recorded conversations from a waiting area in a hallway. The microphones are built-in. The interrogation rooms and waiting areas In Perugia police headquarters are wired.

 

[Desert Fox]

IIRC, a day or two before the police conducted the late night interrogations, the police placed Knox and Sollecito together in a separate room at police headquarters and covertly recorded their conversations. (They heard nothing incriminating.) The police also recorded conversations from a waiting area in a hallway. The microphones are built-in. The interrogation rooms and waiting areas In Perugia police headquarters are wired.

Very good point. . . . Trying to argue that they can surreptitiously record conversations in the hallway but not in the interrogation room shreds all credulity.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes. At the Perugia police station are said to probably have a dozen of chopped bodies. Suspects who allegedly didn't talk. Some parts are rumored to be in Vecchiotti's refrigerator.

Of course not.

But I will follow up on this to point out that when the Perugia police needed a witness to testify that Lumumba's bar was closed the evening of the murder, the police squad working this case miraculously found a helpful witness to attest to that.

 

[Strozzi]

You have always avoided confronting the argument. Amanda recorded in writing in the hours and days immediately after what happened during the interrogation. The police in their infinite stupidity have no evidence to support their position. There is nothing to say they didn't just make a bunch of stuff up to take to trial a year later.

I understand your meaning in writing this. But the police were not stupid about failing to record the interrogations. They were wise to not do it, because they knew that their interrogation methods need to be hidden from public or court scrutiny.

There was a serious language barrier with Knox. Anyone trying to acurately understand her would have wanted the Italian, English, or Italian-to-English and English-to-Italian questions, answers, and statements recorded for quality control purposes. But not in this case, for a recording would reveal the manipulative and deceitful methods the police would use to create a case.

When Giobbi heard Amanda screaming, do you think he thought he should order the record button pushed to create a recording so that the court or defense attorneys or public could hear what was being done to her? If anything, Giobbi probably checked to make sure the recording system was off.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Article 112 of the Italian Constitution states that: "The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings." According to the Italian lawyer, Professor Astolfo di Amato in "Criminal Law in Italy" (Kluwer Law International 2011), "However, certain offences can only be prosecuted under specific conditions: penal action cannot be taken unless a specific requirement is met."

The assault on Ms Knox it would appear comes into this category of crime and demands a complaint or "querela". The important point, I think the Italians would make in their defence, is that the complainant, as far as I can see is required formally to request the public prosecutor to proceed against the alleged commissioner of the crime. Thus, the mere knowledge of an allegation on the part of the prosecutor, even if this could be demonstrated (for example, which prosecutor, by name would be deemed responsible for the investigation?) is not sufficient to require any action to be taken.

Now whether the ECHR, in considering a complaint under Art 3, in this case, would say that Ms Knox has not exhausted the pursuit of her domestic remedies in that she did not make a querela, and thus refuse to admit such a complaint is a related question, the answer to which, I do not believe is entirely clear.

Here's the really really scary part: Forcible rape comes into this category of crime where the initiative must be taken by the complainant.

 

[Numbers]

Article 112 of the Italian Constitution states that: "The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings." According to the Italian lawyer, Professor Astolfo di Amato in "Criminal Law in Italy" (Kluwer Law International 2011), "However, certain offences can only be prosecuted under specific conditions: penal action cannot be taken unless a specific requirement is met."

The assault on Ms Knox it would appear comes into this category of crime and demands a complaint or "querela". The important point, I think the Italians would make in their defence, is that the complainant, as far as I can see is required formally to request the public prosecutor to proceed against the alleged commissioner of the crime. Thus, the mere knowledge of an allegation on the part of the prosecutor, even if this could be demonstrated (for example, which prosecutor, by name would be deemed responsible for the investigation?) is not sufficient to require any action to be taken.

Now whether the ECHR, in considering a complaint under Art 3, in this case, would say that Ms Knox has not exhausted the pursuit of her domestic remedies in that she did not make a querela, and thus refuse to admit such a complaint is a related question, the answer to which, I do not believe is entirely clear.

Here's the really really scary part: Forcible rape comes into this category of crime where the initiative must be taken by the complainant.

IIRC, in some case-law ECHR has taken complaints raised at trial as sufficient to trigger an investigation of mistreatment by police officials. This may be especially true where the formal remedy is not practically available.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes. At the Perugia police station are said to probably have a dozen of chopped bodies. Suspects who allegedly didn't talk. Some parts are rumored to be in Vecchiotti's refrigerator.

Of course not.

But I will follow up on this to point out that when the Perugia police needed a witness to testify that Lumumba's bar was closed the evening of the murder, the police squad working this case miraculously found a helpful witness to attest to that.

Machiavelli operates on rumour. When it comes to accusations of Stefanoni being incompetent, Machiavelli wants iron clad proof.

But if it is Vecchiotti, rumour is enough.

 

[Numbers]

Machiavelli operates on rumour. When it comes to accusations of Stefanoni being incompetent, Machiavelli wants iron clad proof.

But if it is Vecchiotti, rumour is enough.

I actually believe Mach was attempting satire on the post you quoted.

However, I think he did try to "implicate" Vecchiotti in some problem with treatment of bodies at the organization she is associated with, which is obviously an absurd linkage, since she is only involved in genetics.

 

[Kauffer]

IIRC, in some case-law ECHR has taken complaints raised at trial as sufficient to trigger an investigation of mistreatment by police officials. This may be especially true where the formal remedy is not practically available.

But the remedy, it could be argued by Italy, is the querela and the investigation that would have flowed from it, regardless of its conclusion, unless the ECHR was persuaded that the making of a querela in this case was a futile and possibly dangerous exercise.

Diocletus and you have looked at the case law in more depth than I have and it would appear that whether or not an Art 3 case is admitted in connection with the assault, the allegation of assault can also feature as part of the Art 6 complaint in connection with the denial of procedural rights. So, in other words, the ECHR may be minded not to admit and find, formally, a violation of Art 3, (if indeed Ms Knox has included that in her application), citing non exhaustion of domestic remedies (although from what you say about the case law, they still might accept it, if it has been made) but it may still feature in the Art 6 case in reciting the facts, with the court regarding as relevant the assault allegation made within hours of its having taken place and deciding that it is germane to the consideration of the events during the interrogation.

But the important issues at the ECHR in this case are surely not Art 3, but Art 6 violations. Art 3 violations get you a little money; Art 6 violations get your conviction reversed, your criminal record erased and substantial damages.

What is the appropriate case law to consider here?

 

[Numbers]

But the remedy, it could be argued by Italy, is the querela and the investigation that would have flowed from it, regardless of its conclusion, unless the ECHR was persuaded that the making of a querela in this case was a futile and possibly dangerous exercise.

Diocletus and you have looked at the case law in more depth than I have and it would appear that whether or not an Art 3 case is admitted in connection with the assault, the allegation of assault can also feature as part of the Art 6 complaint in connection with the denial of procedural rights. So, in other words, the ECHR may be minded not to admit and find, formally, a violation of Art 3, (if indeed Ms Knox has included that in her application), citing non exhaustion of domestic remedies (although from what you say about the case law, they still might accept it, if it has been made) but it may still feature in the Art 6 case in reciting the facts, with the court regarding as relevant the assault allegation made within hours of its taken place and deciding that it is germane to the consideration of the events during the interrogation.

But the important issues at the ECHR in this case are surely not Art 3, but Art 6 violations. Art 3 violations get you a little money; Art 6 violations get your conviction reversed, your criminal record erased and substantial damages.

What is the appropriate case law to consider here?

An Article 3 violation is important when it occurs during an interrogation and the statements that are the product of the interrogation are used in a trial to secure a conviction. The product of the interrogation where there has been an Article 3 violation may not be used to obtain a conviction; that is, the statements are the equivalent of inadmissible. This is separate from the absence of counsel for the subject of the interrogation, which also renders the interrogation-derived statements not usable for conviction.

Furthermore, in Gafgen v Germany, the ECHR judged that violating the will of the subject of the interrogation was a violation of Article 3, as inhuman or degrading treatment.

I have written an outline with more details on this topic, which I will post (or repost) here in the very near future.

 

[Dan O.]

...
When Giobbi heard Amanda screaming, do you think he thought he should order the record button pushed to create a recording so that the court or defense attorneys or public could hear what was being done to her? If anything, Giobbi probably checked to make sure the recording system was off.

If Giobbi is not a stupid man he would have an insurance pollicy to cover himself if things go badly. Giobbi is not in the interrogation rooms, he doesn't hit suspects or make up crap for them to sign as their confession. And he doesn't lie to the courts about what he was witness to. An unknown recording popping up could benefit Giobbi if the police started taking heat for these interrogations.