Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Giobbi also said it was himself and Profazio who thought - at a certain point - that given the contradictions that emerged from the questionings and their latest declarations, the informants should not be regarded as witness any longer, and thus Giobbi and Profazio decided to suspend the interrogations and to call the Prosecutor. (they acted so precautionally, not formally; I point out the police cannot declare someone a suspect, only the Prosecutor or another Magistrate can do so.)

This is what Giobbi's said to Giulia:

GB:
At which point you said “I said that the minutes/written record should be halted and I called the Public Prosecutor”?
EG:
Exactly.
GB:
So you represented to the Public Prosecutor that there was a need for a lawyer.EG:
Absolutely. I maybe did not represent it to him, because it was maybe offensive to tell him that, in the sense that he knows it better than me.
So where's the lawyer?

Furthermore, this nonsense of witness becoming suspect during the final interrogation, notwithstanding the fact that she didn't get a lawyer at the point you claim, has really got to stop. Here's Giobbi again:

EG:
No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.LG:
You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.
EG:
I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.LG:
You took the question out of my mouth, that of hearing/questioning them together was a choice.
EG:
Absolutely, yes. I believe it was the only time that they were heard/questioned concurrently.
So the police arrange late night interrogations deploying technical tactics (hearing them concurrently) with witnesses they do not believe are involved in the crime, despite having tapped their phones and despite certain officers maintaining, in testimony, that they were, in fact, already suspects and became so, within a matter of hours of the discovery of the body.

How do you think this scenario might play out at the ECHR.....?

 

[Numbers]

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.

Found the mini-essay sooner than I thought I would. I copied it from IIP Forum.

The alleged unfairness resulting from subjecting Amanda Knox to inhuman and degrading treatment to obtain statements from Amanda Knox incriminating to Amanda Knox and to another person, Patrick Lumumba.

The use in criminal proceedings of statements obtained as a result of a violation of Article 3 – irrespective of the classification of the treatment as torture, inhuman or degrading treatment – renders the proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, in breach of Article 6. This also holds true for the use of real evidence obtained as a direct result of acts of torture. The admission of such evidence obtained as a result of an act classified as inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3, but falling short of torture, will only breach Article 6, however, if it has been shown that the breach of Article 3 had a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings against the defendant, that is, had an impact on his or her conviction or sentence.

The Court [ECHR] has considered treatment to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering. Treatment has been held to be “degrading” when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or psychological resistance, or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience.

Thus, the police interrogation which resulted in Amanda Knox signing two statements contrary to fact and achieved by humiliating and debasing her through coercive interrogation and breaking her psychological resistance, and thus driving her to sign the statements against her will and conscience, was a violation of Convention Article 3, prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. The violation was in both the substantive and procedural aspects, because the Italian authorities did not investigate her allegations of mistreatment by the police, which she had made in a note given to the authorities on November 6, 2007, and subsequently in her court testimony. The evidence of the degrading treatment is detailed in the preceding section and the evidence included the two statements that she signed November 6 at 1:45 am and 5:45 am, and the two writings (Memoriales 1 and 2) she composed and gave to authorities on November 6 and 7, respectively.

The procedural violation is evidenced by the lack of any activity to effectively investigate the allegation of mistreatment, and the initiation of civil suits against Amanda Knox for calunnia against the police who interrogated her and of her parents for repeating her allegations to a newspaper reporter. These civil suits may be interpreted as attempts at retaliation in furtherance of maintaining the lack of an effective investigation. No doubt such civil suits may be considered an attempt by the authorities to discourage others who may seek to allege mistreatment at the hands of the police from making such allegations public.

Because the evidence used for her conviction for calunnia was solely derived from evidence derived from a violation of Convention Article 3, prohibition of degrading treatment, the conviction must be considered unfair and a violation of Convention Article 6.1.

Case-law for this analysis includes Gäfgen v. Germany [GC] 22978/05 § 89, 166-167, 178; Lyapin v. Russia 46956/09 § 114; El Haski v. Belgium 649/08 § 85; Jalloh v. Germany [GC] 54810/00 § 105; Labita v. Italy 26772/95 § 119-121 (and citations therein).

 

[Kauffer]

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.

mmmm..interesting. Is there anything that should be excised from the events of the interrogation that would only be excised by an Art 3 violation and not by an Art 6 violation? in other words: What does Art 3 give Ms Knox that Art 6 does not give her?

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

The logical fallacy here, as others have pointed out, is that any such recordings may differ substantially from the police versions as offered by themselves, and as presented to Amanda in a language she didn't understand and was obliged to sign.

Also MAch, do you know if something is happening tomorrow with Raf and Gumbel's defamation case by Mignini? I thought they were due back in court, just wondering how that process will play out. Will they actually get to question Mignini on the witness stand?

What can you tell us of the time frame and process that will unfold? How long will it take to get a verdict? And I assume that verdict must also be confirmed on appeal and at cassation? Thanks -

 

[carbonjam72]

Channeling Inspector Jacques Clouseau

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

No you fool! That is precisely the point! No one would expect a conversation to be recorded in the hallway, which is why we do it. Since everyone expects conversations to be recorded in interrogations, we never record interrogations. Its quite simple, really. You must constantly keep your adversary off of their guard, never let yourself be taken by surprise. Such precautions may seem extreme to you, but I assure they can be a matter of life and death!

 

[carbonjam72]

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?

What sorts of damages are you referring to? I was under the impression that the damages available were absolutely minimal.

(I also thought that lawyers fees were covered, meaning the fees in the ECHR but also in the home country for being forced to fight a case unfairly - in which case Amanda and Raf's legal fees are certainly measured in millions of euros, no?)

But damages for spending years in jail unjustly, I had thought were at about a few thousand euros per year, something of that order of magnitude.

 

[Strozzi]

No you fool! That is precisely the point! No one would expect a conversation to be recorded in the hallway, which is why we do it. Since everyone expects conversations to be recorded in interrogations, we never record interrogations. Its quite simple, really. You must constantly keep your adversary off of their guard, never let yourself be taken by surprise. Such precautions may seem extreme to you, but I assure they can be a matter of life and death!

Carbonjam, you omitted explaining that the police also did not record the interrogations in the interrogation rooms because hard-drive storage space is so expensive. There wasn't money in the budget for that kind of lavish expense.

 

[Strozzi]

What sorts of damages are you referring to? I was under the impression that the damages available were absolutely minimal.

(I also thought that lawyers fees were covered, meaning the fees in the ECHR but also in the home country for being forced to fight a case unfairly - in which case Amanda and Raf's legal fees are certainly measured in millions of euros, no?)

But damages for spending years in jail unjustly, I had thought were at about a few thousand euros per year, something of that order of magnitude.

Is that the price? I'll pay a few thousand euros per year to keep a few of the police, prosecutors, and judges in prison for a year. If we pass the hat or hold a bake sale, I'll bet people will contribute. Let's see how much people will donate to buy Mignini 20 years in the slammer!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Amanda did not tell about having suffered any physical pain. And anyway it is not what Donnino's testimony, nor Giobbi's testimony say.

...

When she tells about something, you claim she is lying. When she doesn't tell about something, it didn't happen because she didn't say so. You can't have it both ways. If she is a lying liar, you can't point to the fact that she didn't say something as significant.

As far as Donnino and Giobbi, well, they are lying liars so you can't go by anything they state.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is what Giobbi's said to Giulia:

GB:
At which point you said “I said that the minutes/written record should be halted and I called the Public Prosecutor”?
EG:
Exactly.
GB:
So you represented to the Public Prosecutor that there was a need for a lawyer.EG:
Absolutely. I maybe did not represent it to him, because it was maybe offensive to tell him that, in the sense that he knows it better than me.
So where's the lawyer?

Furthermore, this nonsense of witness becoming suspect during the final interrogation, notwithstanding the fact that she didn't get a lawyer at the point you claim, has really got to stop. Here's Giobbi again:

EG:
No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.LG:
You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.
EG:
I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.LG:
You took the question out of my mouth, that of hearing/questioning them together was a choice.
EG:
Absolutely, yes. I believe it was the only time that they were heard/questioned concurrently.
So the police arrange late night interrogations deploying technical tactics (hearing them concurrently) with witnesses they do not believe are involved in the crime, despite having tapped their phones and despite certain officers maintaining, in testimony, that they were, in fact, already suspects and became so, within a matter of hours of the discovery of the body.

How do you think this scenario might play out at the ECHR.....?

Exactly. All of this testimony (and many other indicators as well) points pretty conclusively to two inescapable conclusions:

1) the police (and PM) clearly considered Knox and Sollecito to be far more than "witnesses" by the early evening of 5th November - in fact they clearly considered them to be suspects of some form of crime (whether deliberately lying to the police to protect the killer(s), or direct participation in the murder itself and/or its aftermath);

2) the police (probably with the PM's understanding and authority) carefully orchestrated a plan for interrogating Sollecito and Knox on the night of 5/6 November, with the clear objective of firstly forcing Sollecito to "admit" that Knox had left his apartment that night, and secondly to confront Knox with this and with the Lumumba text exchange, and force her to "admit" her involvement.

And as I've suggested before (as have others), I believe that there was a very deliberate decision made regarding the non-recording of these interrogations. I think the police (and PM) knew very well that things might get "messy", with things being said and done by the police that they would prefer not to be recorded for posterity. I believe that all this is very probably a well-honed police/PM tactic in Italy: extract a "confession" using *unorthodox* techniques, then state subsequently that the individual concerned simply blurted out the confession (thus obviating all those pesky difficulties related to "suspect" vs "witness"). I think that the artfully-extracted "spontaneous declaration" is a well-choreographed and very deliberate addition to this tactic, in an attempt to get "confessions" easily admissible in court. I suspect that the police and PMs have become well used to courts buying these sorts of tactics without any fear of push-back, given the unhealthy and improper closeness that the courts seem to have to prosecutors and the police.

 

[Kauffer]

What sorts of damages are you referring to? I was under the impression that the damages available were absolutely minimal.

(I also thought that lawyers fees were covered, meaning the fees in the ECHR but also in the home country for being forced to fight a case unfairly - in which case Amanda and Raf's legal fees are certainly measured in millions of euros, no?)

But damages for spending years in jail unjustly, I had thought were at about a few thousand euros per year, something of that order of magnitude.

A small misunderstanding. I am referring to the damages which would become payable under Italian law by Italy, not the "just satisfaction" available to be awarded by the ECHR under Article 41 of the Convention.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Who told you she is only involved in genetics? You are making stuff up. Vecchiotti is a Coroner, not a geneticist. She used to perform autopsies. That's her CV and her expertise.

 

[Kauffer]

Exactly. All of this testimony (and many other indicators as well) points pretty conclusively to two inescapable conclusions:

1) the police (and PM) clearly considered Knox and Sollecito to be far more than "witnesses" by the early evening of 5th November - in fact they clearly considered them to be suspects of some form of crime (whether deliberately lying to the police to protect the killer(s), or direct participation in the murder itself and/or its aftermath);

2) the police (probably with the PM's understanding and authority) carefully orchestrated a plan for interrogating Sollecito and Knox on the night of 5/6 November, with the clear objective of firstly forcing Sollecito to "admit" that Knox had left his apartment that night, and secondly to confront Knox with this and with the Lumumba text exchange, and force her to "admit" her involvement.

And as I've suggested before (as have others), I believe that there was a very deliberate decision made regarding the non-recording of these interrogations. I think the police (and PM) knew very well that things might get "messy", with things being said and done by the police that they would prefer not to be recorded for posterity. I believe that all this is very probably a well-honed police/PM tactic in Italy: extract a "confession" using *unorthodox* techniques, then state subsequently that the individual concerned simply blurted out the confession (thus obviating all those pesky difficulties related to "suspect" vs "witness"). I think that the artfully-extracted "spontaneous declaration" is a well-choreographed and very deliberate addition to this tactic, in an attempt to get "confessions" easily admissible in court. I suspect that the police and PMs have become well used to courts buying these sorts of tactics without any fear of push-back, given the unhealthy and improper closeness that the courts seem to have to prosecutors and the police.

I believe you are substantially correct. You have always argued this point eloquently and powerfully when it has come up.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

We already talked about how this doesn't describe reality. The police found several witnesses, two or three testified that the bar was open, only one said it was closed, albeit at an earlier hour, that didn't fit the police "need". Those saying the bar was open however only covered limited time frames or couldn't tell if Lumumba was there. So again you don't represent reality in your statements.

 

[Kauffer]

Who told you she is only involved in genetics? You are making stuff up. Vecchiotti is a Coroner, not a geneticist. She used to perform autopsies. That's her CV and her expertise.

Really! Let's see, shall we?

1) 2010 to present: Associate professor of forensic medicine and Director of the laboratory of forensic genetics; teaching activities.

2) 2007 to 2010: Associate professor of forensic medicine; teaching activities

Other than that, she has been, since 1976, variously, a laboratory tutor at University L'Aquila, Assistant professor at Sapienza dealing with forensic laboratory techniques and forensic haematology at the school of specialisation in forensic medicine at Sapienza, a seminar teacher for 2nd level Master in Criminal forensic sciences (she also leading a training course on domestic violence) and a seminar teacher for 2nd level master in security sciences: forensic haematology. Additionally, until 2007, she was also a researcher (at Sapienza).

When and where was she a coroner exactly?

Care to reconsider your statement?

 

[platonov]

But that is the whole point. I simplified, but the basic premise is that our friend, like almost every pro-guilt person I have talked to, cannot get past the idea that "they lied". I mean, why would innocent people be twisting their stories? Why would they tell the cops a version of the story that turned out not to be true? Why would they kiss in front of the crime scene if they are not guilty? That is the logic at work here.

I have no interest in speaking for anyone, but after a series of cryptic posts referring back to the night of the 5th/6th, and indicating that there is HUGE importance in Raffaele's statement (which none of us has ever seen, BTW), I can only deduce that "they lied" is the root of all deductions there.

Done with that topic. Should have left it alone to begin with.

What - RS’s Nov 5th statement (a version of - from the Telegraph IIRC) has been available for years.
Last time we discussed this I noted that the Knox crew had released images of the victims naked body but not this statement. That’s not to say that it wasn’t out there.

And now apparently it’s come to the attention of cartwheel world as a result of the recent document dump. So given that it’s now available to you I’d be interested to hear your explanation for his statement.

Now, be aware, the standard is pretty high on this issue – ‘utterly irrelevant’ will be hard to top.
And ‘It’s irrelevant’ has also been deployed – actually that argument was interesting

But give it your best shot.

On this – Nope.
I have explained several times already – my current interest in RS’s Nov5th disavowal stems from his recent statements and the clues it provides to his possible actions after March25th.

Do you see?

 

[platonov]

Amanda did not tell about having suffered any physical pain. And anyway it is not what Donnino's testimony, nor Giobbi's testimony say.

The described theatrical behaviour of screaming (and specifically when in relation with thinking back at Meredith's murder or telling about Lumumba) is actually consistent with several other episodes by Amanda Knox, she already had another telling off when she saw the knives at the cottage (covering her ears in that occasion), then later when she released her statement to Mignini (she covered her ears and shaked her head) and she burst out in tears and cries even in her Dec. 17. interrogation.

It’s even better than that Mach.
AK on the stand, in response to her own lawyers Q’s, sought to explain why she stopped the Dec 17 interview with Mignini by claiming it was just like that night [Nov5th] in the Questra!

Obviously in the real world this put a dent in the waterboarding/torture storyline.
Not so in cartwheel world it seems

 

[Diocletus]

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.

This is what always happens with victims of coercive and illegal interrogations: they have to argue that the interrogation can't be admitted for its truth, yet at the same time prove coercion.

 

[Diocletus]

Then they will cover their ears on the rest and shake their heads, correct?

No. They'll just say "well, we have a decision from cassation that says that a statement was taken in deprivation if the right to a lawyer, and a confirmed decision by Hellman that they coerced the witness. So, why couldn't these idiots figure out that the statements weren't usable?" Probably one if their easier cases.

 

[Machiavelli]

Really! Let's see, shall we?

1) 2010 to present: Associate professor of forensic medicine and Director of the laboratory of forensic genetics; teaching activities.

2) 2007 to 2010: Associate professor of forensic medicine; teaching activities

Other than that, she has been, since 1976, variously, a laboratory tutor at University L'Aquila, Assistant professor at Sapienza dealing with forensic laboratory techniques and forensic haematology at the school of specialisation in forensic medicine at Sapienza, a seminar teacher for 2nd level Master in Criminal forensic sciences (she also leading a training course on domestic violence) and a seminar teacher for 2nd level master in security sciences: forensic haematology. Additionally, until 2007, she was also a researcher (at Sapienza).

When and where was she a coroner exactly?

Care to reconsider your statement?

Reconsider my statement?! Vecchiotti is a coroner, and has always worked as such. Medico legale e delle assicurazioni means coroner.