Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The relevant portion of the "Police Report":
Translation:

So the "Police Report" is nothing more than speculation, but the "newspaper articles" about the calls "before and after the murder" are "evidence"?

Personally, I convinced that this document was and is a total forgery. I'VA NEVER SEEN AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT in the Comic San font. That this was just another example of sleazy tactics of those trying to smear Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you aware that the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were conducted without the presence of counsel, and at least in the case of Amanda, resulted in an incriminating statement, placing her at the crime scene during the murder?

But that's not why they are used against her. The problem with Amanda's tatement is not that it was a self-incriminating statement.
The problem is that the statement was false, and it was a false testimony incriminating another person, which was unfortunately malicious (as her subsequent behaviour shows).
So the problem is not in that she released incriminating statements, but in that she committed a crime.

And that Italian laws, including but not limited to CPP 63 and CPP 64 were not followed in this situation?

A false allegation. No judge ever ruled anything of the kind.

 

[acbytesla]

Building straw men is a very relaxing hobby, isn't it?

You're a fine one to talk. You are covered in straw.

 

[acbytesla]

It's in the court records of Federico's trial.
Knox's is not the only trial in the world.

Bull! Total lies.

 

[christianahannah]

Personally, I convinced that this document was and is a total forgery. I'VA NEVER SEEN AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT in the Comic San font. That this was just another example of sleazy tactics of those trying to smear Knox.

There are other documents in the case file in this same font.

 

[Bill Williams]

So why has Machiavelli been continually posting about this nonsense, if not to slut shame and sling mud at AK? It has no relevance to the trial or to whether someone would have a propensity to murder. If anything, AK was less worldly than Meredith Kercher, but both sounded pretty average to me. Students commonly take drugs and have sex, it really has no relevance

As the "Foxy Knoxy" myth subsides, and as the implications within Italy for Sollecito are considered, the slut-shaming is losing its effect. In my view, this is what Machiavelli is trying to cling to.

People should see Winterbottom's film when it comes out. In it the protagonist says, "You're telling me that a 20-year old girl is guilt of murder because she had sex?"

Also, Winterbottom exposes the journalists doing even worse... having sex with each other and snorting expensive cocaine, all the while writing lurid tales about Perugian students (focussing on Knox) for the back-home tabloid market.

One only hopes that Cassazione sees through the myth that Machiavelli and his ilk seek to maintain.

 

[Machiavelli]

That long ago? But wasn't it more public last year? Meaning reported in the media? Did you read about it in 2010?

Sorry, I chacked: the article is by Il Giornale dell'Umbria of Jan 14. 2011. Umbria24 and Terni Magazine/UmbriaLeft also have the same story on the same day. The person convicted is not Federico, he's one of the other two (I guess Lorenzo).

This is from Il Giornale dell'Umbria:

Condanna a 2 anni ed 8 mesi di carcere di uno spacciatore di cocaina che avrebbe conosciuto e frequentato Amanda Knox, si domanda se tale circostanza abbia avuto valutazioni nell’inchiesta sul delitto e, soprattutto se, ora, potrebbe avere risvolti nel processo d’appello nei riguardi dell’americana e di Raffaele Sollecito. Al pusher la polizia e’ arrivata attraverso il numero di cellulare rinvenuto nell’elenco memorizzato sul telefono di Amanda. Le chiamate tra le due utenze sarebbero intercorse anche nei giorni precedenti e successivi al delitto di Mez stimolando, pertanto, un approfondimento che ha portato alla scoperta di un giro di droga per studenti universitari e professionisti. Un traffico con protagonisti 3 ragazzi (uno ipotizzato come fornitore ed amante dell’americana) nei confronti dei quali e’ stato aperto un fascicolo processuale. In particolare si riporta un’informativa della polizia allegata al fascicolo in cui si sottolinea ”nel corso dell’attivita’ investigativa in merito al procedimento penale 9066/07 (quello per l’omicidio Kercher, ndr) si appurava che una persona italiana …avrebbe rifornito saltuariamente di sostanza stupefacente Amanda Knox, oltre ad avere presumibilmente avuto con lei dei rapporti di tipo sessuale”. L’attivita’ della polizia effettuata anche tramite intercettazioni telefoniche appurava che i tre rifornivano l’acropoli del capoluogo ed anche parte della periferia di cocaina, in risposta agli ordini dei clienti ed anche per soddisfare la richiesta di maghrebini.
Gli imputati (difesi dai legali Maria Laura Antonini, Aurelio Pugliese e Angelo Frioni), hanno optato per strategie diverse, una richiesta di giudizio in continuazione con altre posizioni penali in sospeso; una richiesta di patteggiamento, rigettata dal giudice ed un rito abbreviato, concluso, appunto con la condanna a 2 anni e 8 mesi.

The news (highlited) report that phone calls between Knox and the dealer have occurred also in the days before and after the murder.

The article points out that the three have chosen different legal strategies. One (Federico, my sources say) had plead guilty, but the judge rejected the plea. Luciano had his charged merged with other charges in a pending trial he already had for other crimes (I tend to think this is one Luciano based on the police reports about him being involved in a number of criminal facts), while I assume the third can only be Lorenzo, who is convicted to 2 years 8 month in a short track trial.
I understand the police reached to Lorenzo through Federico, not directly through Knox's phone records. But it clearly reports that she had repeated phone contacts with Lorenzo even in the days around the murder.

 

[Kauffer]

But that's not why they are used against her. The problem with Amanda's tatement is not that it was a self-incriminating statement.
The problem is that the statement was false, and it was a false testimony incriminating another person, which was unfortunately malicious (as her subsequent behaviour shows).
So the problem is not in that she released incriminating statements, but in that she committed a crime.

It was a compelled statement - that's the point. Brought about by police pressure. She told them what the police in testimony said they already knew to be true. In a lawyerless environment, there are few occasions when there is anything said by the person being interrogated that is reliable - this is not such an occasion.

Your argument seeks to circumvent procedural law. You cannot create a class of crime where procedural law does not apply - not in a member state of the European Convention, though perhaps in Sudan. She has rights. These rights were violated.

 

[Kauffer]

Sorry, I chacked: the article is by Il Giornale dell'Umbria of Jan 14. 2011. Umbria24 and Terni Magazine/UmbriaLeft also have the same story on the same day. The person convicted is not Federico, he's one of the other two (I guess Lorenzo).

This is from Il Giornale dell'Umbria:



The news (highlited) report that phone calls between Knox and the dealer have occurred also in the days before and after the murder.

The article points out that the three have chosen different legal strategies. One (Federico, my sources say) had plead guilty, but the judge rejected the plea. Luciano had his charged merged with other charges in a pending trial he already had for other crimes (I tend to think this is one Luciano based on the police reports about him being involved in a number of criminal facts), while I assume the third can only be Lorenzo, who is convicted to 2 years 8 month in a short track trial.
I understand the police reached to Lorenzo through Federico, not directly through Knox's phone records. But it clearly reports that she had repeated phone contacts with Lorenzo even in the days around the murder.

Please provide case numbers and, where applicable, trial venues, court dates etc etc

 

[Machiavelli]

As the "Foxy Knoxy" myth subsides, and as the implications within Italy for Sollecito are considered, the slut-shaming is losing its effect. In my view, this is what Machiavelli is trying to cling to.

(...)

Let's point out that it wasn't me who brought up the topic. It was Diocletus.

I was answring to this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10536823#post10536823

You mean like when you "pointed out" that Amanda was having sex with drug dealers and Rudy was her pimp? LOL.

 

[christianahannah]

Sorry, I chacked: the article is by Il Giornale dell'Umbria of Jan 14. 2011. Umbria24 and Terni Magazine/UmbriaLeft also have the same story on the same day. The person convicted is not Federico, he's one of the other two (I guess Lorenzo).

This is from Il Giornale dell'Umbria:



The news (highlited) report that phone calls between Knox and the dealer have occurred also in the days before and after the murder.

The article points out that the three have chosen different legal strategies. One (Federico, my sources say) had plead guilty, but the judge rejected the plea. Luciano had his charged merged with other charges in a pending trial he already had for other crimes (I tend to think this is one Luciano based on the police reports about him being involved in a number of criminal facts), while I assume the third can only be Lorenzo, who is convicted to 2 years 8 month in a short track trial.
I understand the police reached to Lorenzo through Federico, not directly through Knox's phone records. But it clearly reports that she had repeated phone contacts with Lorenzo even in the days around the murder.

Thank you. I thought I remembered reading it more recently even than 2011 but maybe it was that long ago.

The phone calls shouldn't be that difficult to find if they occurred. I believe Amanda's records were made public by her and I think by other sources.

ETA: there appear to be SMS to and from Lorenzo both before and after Meredith's murder. This doesn't show his name in the official phone records (they only show numbers) but I guess people have used several sources to connect the dots. I think there was also a document of some of the texts on Amanda's phone with names and numbers. I can't remember if Lorenzo was listed there.

 

[Diocletus]

But that's not why they are used against her. The problem with Amanda's tatement is not that it was a self-incriminating statement.
The problem is that the statement was false, and it was a false testimony incriminating another person, which was unfortunately malicious (as her subsequent behaviour shows).
So the problem is not in that she released incriminating statements, but in that she committed a crime.

There is no echr case that says that a statement elicited in violation of the defendants procedural rights can be used if false (as opposed to true).

 

[Numbers]

But that's not why they are used against her. The problem with Amanda's tatement is not that it was a self-incriminating statement.
The problem is that the statement was false, and it was a false testimony incriminating another person, which was unfortunately malicious (as her subsequent behaviour shows).
So the problem is not in that she released incriminating statements, but in that she committed a crime.



A false allegation. No judge ever ruled anything of the kind.

I have explained previously that a statement which is made under interrogation and which implicates someone else and/or one's self is incriminating, in the English language meaning. If one commits a crime by a verbalization under interrogation without counsel, and then is convicted of that crime, one has obviously incriminated one's self by the verbalization. The Convention and ECHR case-law are in the official languages of English and French, so the meaning of incriminating in English (and/or the French equivalent) is the law. Similarly, the absence of counsel for AK during her custody (up to Nov. 8, 2007) means her Memoriales cannot be used to convict her.

The appeals filed by Amanda Knox and her lawyers included claims that the interrogation statements were taken in violation of CPP Articles 63, 188 and other Italian laws and Constitutional provisions. That the judges did not recognize the validity of the claims in the appeal does not make them any less valid. It does mean that the judge also violated the defendant's Convention rights, which means that the ECHR will eventually find Italy in violation of the Convention in the case of Amanda Knox's conviction for calunnia. It's important to recognize that domestic judges and supreme courts in CoE countries are obligated to follow the ECHR case-law.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was a compelled statement - that's the point. Brought about by police pressure. She told them what the police in testimony said they already knew to be true. In a lawyerless environment, there are few occasions when there is anything said by the person being interrogated that is reliable - this is not such an occasion.

Your argument seeks to circumvent procedural law. You cannot create a class of crime where procedural law does not apply - not in a member state of the European Convention, though perhaps in Sudan. She has rights. These rights were violated.

I don't understand if you try to make a point of procedure, or a point of evidence about facts.

Your first paragraph talks about evidence of facts. Now, it is obvious that on this topic our conclusions are diametrically opposed, on what concerns the evidence that Knox's false testimonies were malicious and not coerced. I believe such evidence exists and is glaring.

Your second paragraph instead makes a point of law, that is totally independent from facts. This allegation of "violation of rights" is false too, in point of law. I say such allegation is baseless. If you believe your version, however, you will keep your conviction, or maybe you can leave it to the ECHR judgement.

What I don't understand is why you try to mix up the second with the first, the point of law with the point of evidence. They should be totally indepedent. Whether rights are violated or not should not be put in direct relation with the question of whether someone is innocent or guilty. Those questions are logically separate.
Even reasonable doubt should be separate from innocence, actually.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have explained previously that a statement which is made under interrogation and which implicates someone else and/or one's self is incriminating, in the English language meaning. If one commits a crime by a verbalization under interrogation without counsel, and then is convicted of that crime, one has obviously incriminated one's self by the verbalization. The Convention and ECHR case-law are in the official languages of English and French, so the meaning of incriminating in English (and/or the French equivalent) is the law. Similarly, the absence of counsel for AK during her custody (up to Nov. 8, 2007) means her Memoriales cannot be used to convict her.

For the crime for which the investigation was about for which she was being heared as a witness, or a connected crime.

Don't forget the clause.

The appeals filed by Amanda Knox and her lawyers included claims that the interrogation statements were taken in violation of CPP Articles 63, 188 and other Italian laws and Constitutional provisions.

The claims had been already rejected at all levels including the Supreme Court, we all know that.

That the judges did not recognize the validity of the claims in the appeal does not make them any less valid.

Well let's say that in fact it does make them look a little less valid.

It does mean that the judge also violated the defendant's Convention rights, which means that the ECHR will eventually find Italy in violation of the Convention in the case of Amanda Knox's conviction for calunnia. It's important to recognize that domestic judges and supreme courts in CoE countries are obligated to follow the ECHR case-law.

You may also recall how the Supreme Court called Amanda Knox's calunnia a "prolonged behaviour", not just a statement. It includes statements she wrote herself outside from any judicial hearing. It includes her silence about Lumumba on Nov. 8. and Dec. 17.

 

[Diocletus]

You may also recall how the Supreme Court called Amanda Knox's calunnia a "prolonged behaviour", not just a statement. It includes statements she wrote herself outside from any judicial hearing. It includes her silence about Lumumba on Nov. 8. and Dec. 17.

Don't be ridiculous. Her silence can't be used against her. That's the law.

 

[Numbers]

There is no echr case that says that a statement elicited in violation of the defendants procedural rights can be used if false (as opposed to true).

In fact, many of such statements are false, and include false confessions and false accusations of others. If false accusations against others are not allowed to be used for conviction in Turkey, why should they be allowed for conviction in Italy?

 

[Machiavelli]

In fact, many of such statements are false, and include false confessions and false accusations of others. If false accusations against others are not allowed to be used for conviction in Turkey, why should they be allowed for conviction in Italy?

You seem to overlook the issue. See it like this: your interpretation of the principle is unreasonable, because it would create an immunity. Anyone could say whatever they like when they talk as police informants, since whatever one says as a police witness will have no consequence to him/her.
This is unreasonable, and nowhere near the Convention principles.
Moreover, as a general rule the ECHR protects rights, but does not create immunities and legal shields.

The question here is not about "using" statements from a witness for conviction, it's about the witness' bearing consequence and responsability from them.

 

[Numbers]

For the crime for which the investigation was about for which she was being heared as a witness, or a connected crime.

Don't forget the clause.



The claims had been already rejected at all levels including the Supreme Court, we all know that.



Well let's say that in fact it does make them look a little less valid.



You may also recall how the Supreme Court called Amanda Knox's calunnia a "prolonged behaviour", not just a statement. It includes statements she wrote herself outside from any judicial hearing. It includes her silence about Lumumba on Nov. 8. and Dec. 17.

You keep pointing out how the Supreme Court (CSC) of Italy has broken Italian and Convention law time and again, yet you earlier objected to my statement that the Italian judiciary displayed "incompentence". Would you prefer that the statement be that the Italian judiciary displayed "gross ignorance" or "gross disregard of human rights"?

The right to silence is an important right of defendants. CPP Article 64, para. 2, states that a person has a right to silence, except to identify himself/herself. The right to silence is also a feature of the ECHR case-law. But in fact, in her Memoriales, Amanda Knox clearly stated that the information that she had given in the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007 was coerced and not reliable. The fact that she could not decide whether it was true or not, and in her first Memoriale thought it could be a true memory, show that the police had violated CPP Art. 188: Methods and techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned. The same words appear as CPP Art. 64, para. 2.

The very fact that Knox was confused as a result of her interrogation and named Lumumba as a murder (which she had in earlier questioning not indicated at all) may be taken as an indication that Italy (by means of its agents, the police) had violated her Convention Article 3 rights, which prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment which makes the person act or speak against their will (Gafgen v Germany [GC] 22978/05, Lyapin v Russia 46956/09).

 

[Numbers]

You seem to overlook the issue. See it like this: your interpretation of the principle is unreasonable, because it would create an immunity. Anyone could say whatever they like when they talk as police informants, since whatever one says as a police witness will have no consequence to him/her.
This is unreasonable, and nowhere near the Convention principles.
Moreover, as a general rule the ECHR protects rights, but does not create immunities and legal shields.

The question here is not about "using" statements from a witness for conviction, it's about the witness' bearing consequence and responsability from them.

You are entitled to your wrongful opinion. But read the ECHR case-law carefully if you wish to inform yourself of the actual state of the law.

It is important to distinguish a statement made without counsel, especially when the person is under police questioning or police custody, and one made voluntarily and clearly by those who are free, such as someone who writes a letter to police, or who comes to the police and says that he/she wants to accuse someone. These latter situations are different from the police custody/questioning situation, and your argument is disingenuous to not acknowledge that difference.