Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Grinder, please, no offense, but I believe there is a mix-up here between "suspect" and "arrestable person". It's an operational definition.

A person brought into an interrogation room for a high-pressure interrogation means that person is a suspect. The police may believe that they do not have enough credible information against the person to arrest them. That's why they are resorting to the high-pressure interrogation.

Once the police get the person being interrogated to sign some paper with an incriminating statement, whether true or false, the police incorporate that statement into the "reasonable suspicion" (which is the phrase naming the official details explaining why the person should be arrested, and may or may not be truly reasonable). The police do this to make sure that the court will accept the arrest. This makes an especially important difference in Italy, because for a crime with a long sentence, such as murder, the police and prosecutor get to have the person arrested imprisoned for one year before the trial even starts.

What I am trying to say here is that Raffaele and Amanda were effectively in custody when each entered their respective interrogation rooms.

They (certainly Amanda) had become suspects in the minds of the police and prosecution from Nov. 2 or Nov. 3, 2007, based on Mignini's public comments on staging of the break-in (which I know only through hearsay) and the requisite time to organize the overnight interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007.

Here are excerpts from Brusco v France 1466/07 (Google Translated):

45. The Court also recalls that the person held in custody has the right to be assisted by a lawyer from the beginning of this measure and during interrogation, and even more so when it has not been informed by the authorities of his right to remain silent (see the principles established in particular in cases Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no 36391/02, §§ 50-62, 27 November 2008, Dayanan v. Turkey, No. 7377/03 , §§ 30-34, 13 October 2009, Boz v. Turkey, No. 2039/04, §§ 33-36, 9 February 2010, and Adamkiewicz v. Poland, No. 54729/00 §§ 82-92, March 2, 2010 ).

47....The argument that the applicant was heard as a witness is irrelevant, as purely formal, since the judicial and police authorities had kind as to suspect him of involvement in the offense.

{Emphasis added.}

 

[Numbers]

Numbers people here have been aware in quite some detail of the system was supposed to work and how it did work. I don't think you appreciate that most all of get it.

I repeat for the last time that I wasn't discussing technical Italian law or Sri Lankan law or international conventions of law, I was giving my opinion that the PLE had reason enough in their own minds with what they thought they knew at the time to arrest the two. I'm saying they thought they were involved from the variety of things I've described before. I'm saying she was a suspect and should have been given that designation but under Italian law she wasn't one using your logic of what the evidence they had showed.

1. Your argument that there wasn't enough to arrest them under law is exactly what the PLE maintained in saying she wasn't a suspect and therefore didn't deserve a lawyer and all the safeguards. 2. Because they treated as a person with information they were not required to give her those safeguards. They agree with you. I on the other hand think they did have enough to arrest her or at least make her a suspect.

It isn't a matter of me or others not understanding and mixing up terms it is you not getting the subject. Anglo disagrees that they had enough for arrest I believe in the sense that they were squirreling the evidence. I think that came later.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

1. No, you are misrepresenting my position. She was a suspect. So was Raffaele. They were effectively detained and subjected to high-pressure interrogation. You - and, more importantly for the case, the PLE (no offense to you) - are mixing up theory (legal formalisms) and practical reality (what the ECHR looks at, such as whether questioning is an "interview" or an "interrogation"). (A hint on the difference: people don't cry during interviews, they do during interrogations.)

2. No, they (PLE etc.) are misrepresenting ECHR case-law. See Brusco v France.

ETA: Excerpt, Brusco v France:
47....The argument that the applicant was heard as a witness is irrelevant, as purely formal, since the judicial and police authorities had kind as to suspect him of involvement in the offense.

 

[Grinder]

I would add that my argument extends to situations where news outlets themselves publish incorrect or misleading articles about Knox or Sollecito. Really: who cares if the Mail (or radar, or wherever) publishes a piece that's less than fair about Knox or Sollecito? If it's sufficiently unfair as to constitute defamation, Knox and Sollecito are free to take legal action if they so desire. Why the hell should we unconnected commentators care?

I felt this quite strongly, for example, about the complaints to the BBC following the airing of the Vogt "documentary" on BBC3. I thought the programme was misleading, wrong and biased in many respects. But I was deeply opposed at the whole idea of petitioning the BBC to complain about the programme. Vogt's "documentary" clearly stayed within lawfully-acceptable boundaries, and it was - at the end of the day - an opinion piece. I just don't know why some people feel that it's necessary to go in to fight (on Knox's and Sollecito's behalf) against the BBC on things like this.

You and I both recently brought over entertaining comments from the other side. Are you suggesting that no longer should be done?

I have rarely commented on articles but I have no issue for those that want to and certainly don't care a wit what Bruce wants.

Now if Big Dave gives an order...

 

[Bill Williams]

You and I both recently brought over entertaining comments from the other side. Are you suggesting that no longer should be done?

I have rarely commented on articles but I have no issue for those that want to and certainly don't care a wit what Bruce wants.

Now if Big Dave gives an order...

The real issue is if Bruce can refrain! Truly, this is over.......

 

[Strozzi]

Is it demonstrated that Filomena retained professional representation to advise her in her dealings with the police about the murder? Or was the advice just about mundane things like the tenancy and release of property? Whichever, having seen what happened in this case nobody should ever go to or remain in Italy above one minute without a lawyer on tap

Anglolawyer, would you recommend that a visitor to Italy have a 'solicitor' or 'barrister' in tap?
Strozzi

 

[Numbers]

I am with Grinder in not understanding what you are saying. Perhaps you are using too many words. A person may be reasonably or unreasonably suspected. In either case, they have the same rights to be cautioned, to know the particulars of the suspected offence and to have legal assistance.

Let me offer a hypothetical not too different than some of the ECHR cases I have read about in Eastern Europe and perhaps in Turkey.

A crime, "A", is committed. The police look for suspects. A convenient suspect is found - someone that the police may or may not view as having committed the crime, but let us say, does not have an iron-clad alibi. (This has also happened even with some who have had very good alibis!)

The police bring this person in for questioning (it is a kind of arrest without a warrant - perhaps for an "administrative" crime "B" such as insulting a police officer - which is a crime in some places.)

While detained for questioning, the person is subjected to certain techniques. As a result of the techniques, the person confesses to committing the crime "A". The person is not provided with a lawyer, but may have signed a document stating that he has been informed of the right to remain silent, has declined a lawyer, and also signs the confession. Then all the formalities of the arrest and perhaps even an arrest hearing for the person is pursued based on the confession. At the arrest hearing or at trial, and provided with a lawyer, the person states that he signed the confession and other documents against his will, under duress, and states that he is totally innocent. Despite that, and the lack of other credible evidence against the person, he is convicted. He applies to the ECHR, which finds that the circumstances of his custody and questioning and conviction on the basis of his confession derived in an interrogation without a lawyer were violations of the Convention. He may request to be retried, with all his rights under the Convention respected - meaning the confession would be inadmissible.

The circumstances of the present case differ, but have elements of bad faith by the authorities, just as does the hypothetical. One difference that is important is that there has been no final conviction, but rather a final acquittal, in this case, for the murder/rape charges, but there has been a final conviction for the calunnia charge. This itself suggests strongly that the reasons for arrest were not supported by the evidence.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would add that my argument extends to situations where news outlets themselves publish incorrect or misleading articles about Knox or Sollecito. Really: who cares if the Mail (or radar, or wherever) publishes a piece that's less than fair about Knox or Sollecito? If it's sufficiently unfair as to constitute defamation, Knox and Sollecito are free to take legal action if they so desire. Why the hell should we unconnected commentators care?

I felt this quite strongly, for example, about the complaints to the BBC following the airing of the Vogt "documentary" on BBC3. I thought the programme was misleading, wrong and biased in many respects. But I was deeply opposed at the whole idea of petitioning the BBC to complain about the programme. Vogt's "documentary" clearly stayed within lawfully-acceptable boundaries, and it was - at the end of the day - an opinion piece. I just don't know why some people feel that it's necessary to go in to fight (on Knox's and Sollecito's behalf) against the BBC on things like this.

I don't know about the wisdom of any of it, but I have found trying to engage guilters to be a learning experience.

They are not all of one kind, but appear in many variations. They look the same at first, because many stick to the same script that they get from their preferred hate sites.

But after one or two exchanges, that uniformity seems to quickly fall away. Some will even appear to reason a bit, and be open to discussion. Though what I have found pretty consistently, is that even those who are open to discussion, will revert back to toeing the line once they are securely among their own.

I think its just like a bullying click at high school, where they encourage each other to new heights of mean-ness. Really, law enforcement should step in and break up the hate party.

However, it seems that the conversation seems to just run in circles, even when points of fact appear to be accepted, they just revert back to their familiar canards.

I have found it educational in trying to understand the nature of this phenomenon. I wanted to try to understand where the crazy comes from, and it is fascinating. Blanket rules on what to do, or how to respond or not respond. I imagine at some point, people will just tire of them, and ignore them.

I'm not seeing much point, in making a point of it, one way or the other. just MOO.

 

[Strozzi]

Staged break-in

What consideration was given by the PLE to the possibility that someone who did not then reside in the upstairs flat had a key to the flat and could have entered and been burglarizing the premises when Kercher returned home? A former tenant? A former tenant's boyfriend? A handyman? A relative or employee of the property owner or real estate agent? A locksmith?

Any of them, possessing a key for entry, could conceivably divert suspicion by staging a breaking.

Since the PLE, using their intuition rather than physical evidence, wrongly assumed the breakin was staged, what did the PLE bouton do about that? Anything?

 

[anglolawyer]

There is in your statement perhaps an assumption that I mean something different than what I have stated.

A suspect brought into police custody, or brought in to a custodial situation for an interrogation where the police are expecting to confirm their suspicions, must be cautioned. That caution must include notice that the person may remain silent and may request a lawyer.

If the suspect does say something in a witness interview (that is, the person is not truly in police custody) that indicates a confirmation of suspicion, but had not been cautioned, the questioning must stop for the caution. That is my understanding of the US procedure.

The police, at least in the US, may consider someone a "suspect" but may treat that person as a witness until such time as they are ready to proceed with a custodial interrogation. Custodial may mean the suspect is under arrest. Perhaps this is a looser definition of "suspect" than in Europe.

In the US:

For the police to make a lawful arrest, the arresting officer(s) must have either (1) probable cause to arrest, or (2) a valid arrest warrant.

A valid arrest warrant is one

1. containing an adequate showing of probable cause
2. issued by a neutral and detached magistrate
3. issued on the basis of a police affidavit that does not contain known or reckless falsehoods
4. particularly describing the person to be arrested

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant

For additional information on the US, see:
http://www.videojug.com/interview/getting-arrested

I don't believe that ECHR requires someone who is suspected by the police in a CoE State to be cautioned, simply because and at one moment the police come to the conclusion "Aha! X is a suspect". But in proceeding with respect to that suspect, the police will at some point bring that person in to be interrogated, and the suspect must be fully cautioned at that point - immediately. The caution includes being informed of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.

Thus, if what I have written above is correct, the police were not remiss in not notifying Amanda and Raffaele they were suspects, until such time as they entered the station for interrogation. And it was the police who determined the time and place of interrogation; if they had not wanted to interrogate Amanda, they would not have done so. To obey Italian procedural law and the ECHR case-law, they should have cautioned Raffaele and Amanda each at the start of his or her interrogation.

Now for the arrest warrant, reasons must be given to be reviewed by the hearing magistrate or judge. In the US, these reasons are called "probable cause", in Europe "reasonable suspicion". In the US, as Wikipedia notes, material falsehoods in the reasons invalidates those particular reasons that are false and may, depending on the strength and validity of the remaining reasons, lead to invalidation of the entire arrest warrant.

I believe that ECHR would consider an arrest where there were falsehoods entered as reasons in the arrest warrant, or in which the reasons were derived from violations of Convention Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), as in bad faith and thus a violation of Article 5.1 (no deprivation of liberty except by law). I hope that Italian courts, operating to the letter of Italian law and constitution, would also not allow such an arrest.

I hope I have cleared up any confusion my posts may have generated. Again, there is a difference between being a suspect - and there is no specific public information (AFAIK) about when the police first considered Amanda and Raffaele suspects - and being a suspect brought in for interrogation. And a difference again in being a person arrested based on "reasonable suspicion" (which may or may not be reasonable to an objective person; if not reasonable, the arrest is a violation of the ECHR case-law for Article 5.1).

Again, too many words. Who is claiming this?

The caution must be administered to a suspect, whether the suspect is under arrest or not, at any point where the suspect is at risk of self-incrimination in the course of questioning.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let me offer a hypothetical not too different than some of the ECHR cases I have read about in Eastern Europe and perhaps in Turkey.

A crime, "A", is committed. The police look for suspects. A convenient suspect is found - someone that the police may or may not view as having committed the crime, but let us say, does not have an iron-clad alibi. (This has also happened even with some who have had very good alibis!)

The police bring this person in for questioning (it is a kind of arrest without a warrant - perhaps for an "administrative" crime "B" such as insulting a police officer - which is a crime in some places.)

While detained for questioning, the person is subjected to certain techniques. As a result of the techniques, the person confesses to committing the crime "A". The person is not provided with a lawyer, but may have signed a document stating that he has been informed of the right to remain silent, has declined a lawyer, and also signs the confession. Then all the formalities of the arrest and perhaps even an arrest hearing for the person is pursued based on the confession. At the arrest hearing or at trial, and provided with a lawyer, the person states that he signed the confession and other documents against his will, under duress, and states that he is totally innocent. Despite that, and the lack of other credible evidence against the person, he is convicted. He applies to the ECHR, which finds that the circumstances of his custody and questioning and conviction on the basis of his confession derived in an interrogation without a lawyer were violations of the Convention. He may request to be retried, with all his rights under the Convention respected - meaning the confession would be inadmissible.

The circumstances of the present case differ, but have elements of bad faith by the authorities, just as does the hypothetical. One difference that is important is that there has been no final conviction, but rather a final acquittal, in this case, for the murder/rape charges, but there has been a final conviction for the calunnia charge. This itself suggests strongly that the reasons for arrest were not supported by the evidence.

If this is your point (and if it isn't then I give up) then I don't agree with it. A trial is almost always an uncertain business. It does not follow at all that defeat somehow proves that all prior decisions (to arrest, to charge etc) were wrong. The crown prosecution service here in the UK has only a 50% merits test for prosecution decisions. That is, the assessment must be that a successful prosecution has a better than even chance.

There are many reasons why the interrogations were unlawful and the arrests wrong but the final acquittal per se is not one of them.

 

[katy_did]

But then why was Amanda called into an interrogation room? And interrogated under very high-pressure tactics?

And at the same time (you call side-by-side) does not mean that one person's interrogation needs to start at exactly the same time as the others. Overlapping times of interrogation works just as well.

Again, why did 36 police officers sign the Notice of Arrest for Amanda Knox, a 20-year-old American college student with no history of violent or criminal behavior (unless you wish to call her noise ticket criminal - but it only was punishable by a fine).

Amanda wasn't called into the interrogation room initially, she was questioned in the waiting area. She said herself they told her she shouldn't have come to the station, and wanted her to go back to Raffaele's or to wait for him in the car.

I think all the cops wanted in on the action once they realised what was happening, they all wanted to take some credit for it. Just look at how they all lined up for the press conference afterwards, It doesn't follow that there must have been 36 police officers just waiting to interrogate Amanda.

In the end nothing you've said rules out a situation where the police hadn't worked out a detailed theory of the crime in advance, but instead reacted to things they thought they were discovering that night.

 

[anglolawyer]

Amanda wasn't called into the interrogation room initially, she was questioned in the waiting area. She said herself they told her she shouldn't have come to the station, and wanted her to go back to Raffaele's or to wait for him in the car.

I think all the cops wanted in on the action once they realised what was happening, they all wanted to take some credit for it. Just look at how they all lined up for the press conference afterwards, It doesn't follow that there must have been 36 police officers just waiting to interrogate Amanda.

In the end nothing you've said rules out a situation where the police hadn't worked out a detailed theory of the crime in advance, but instead reacted to things they thought they were discovering that night.

One thing (at least) rules it out: the unlawful entry into Raffaele's apartment at around 10.00 p.m. Or are you saying that is consistent with routine police enquiries

 

[katy_did]

One thing (at least) rules it out: the unlawful entry into Raffaele's apartment at around 10.00 p.m. Or are you saying that is consistent with routine police enquiries

Do you have a link for that one? I'm sure I remember it being discussed ages ago and it turned out to be wrong, it happened the next day or something like that. When did Raffaele give them the key to his apartment?

 

[anglolawyer]

Do you have a link for that one? I'm sure I remember it being discussed ages ago and it turned out to be wrong, it happened the next day or something like that. When did Raffaele give them the key to his apartment?

No, no link, but concrete evidence in the form of a defence expert's report Raffaele filed IIRC in the Nencini hearing that proved there had been manual interaction with his computer just after 10.00 p.m. the night of the 5th. Someone will doubtless show up with a link to the report. The well-connected Machiavelli had nothing to say about it when it came up here. I regard it as a profound discovery.

ETA It's the Milani report, here.

While Raffaele Sollecito was under interrogation, there was with certainty an access activity to the computer under examination. This activity is proven both by the ENCASE files produced for the Postal Police expert report and by the windowserver.log file recording the activities on the keyboard, and also by the log files of the Internet provider.

Sure enough, the keyboard, which previously deactivated at 4.34 pm on November 5, 2007, suddenly reactivated at 10.04 pm, going again into standby mode at 10.14 pm

 

[katy_did]

No, no link, but concrete evidence in the form of a defence expert's report Raffaele filed IIRC in the Nencini hearing that proved there had been manual interaction with his computer just after 10.00 p.m. the night of the 5th. Someone will doubtless show up with a link to the report. The well-connected Machiavelli had nothing to say about it when it came up here. I regard it as a profound discovery.

Hmmm, seems kinda weak Anglo. Couldn't it have been an automatic interaction given that the machine was still on? How did the cops get into Raffaele's apartment if he didn't give them the key? Can't exactly see Mignini climbing the wall.

I looked at Raffaele's book, and he says he was the one to take the cops to his apartment and show them his computer:

At some point during my interrogation, I told the officers the best way to find out what I was doing on the night of the murder was to go to my house and check the activity log on my laptop computer. Now the police wanted to take me up on this. I could have insisted on their obtaining a search warrant, but somehow I still had faith that they would switch out of their misguided line of inquiry as soon as I showed them proof of their mistake. [...]

Only belatedly did the police show an interest in my computer. I suggested they turn it off and close the keyboard before carting it off, but they didn’t listen. They pulled the plug out of the wall socket and carried it away still open. I’m convinced to this day that the computer could have exonerated me completely, and probably Amanda too, if it had been handled properly. But almost all of that evidence would soon be destroyed.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hmmm, seems kinda weak Anglo. Couldn't it have been an automatic interaction given that the machine was still on? How did the cops get into Raffaele's apartment if he didn't give them the key? Can't exactly see Mignini climbing the wall.

I looked at Raffaele's book, and he says he was the one to take the cops to his apartment and show them his computer:

Well, see my edit, read the report and get back to us after that.

 

[katy_did]

Well, see my edit, read the report and get back to us after that.

I am reading it. So how do you think the cops got in?

ETA: oh, so it was the keyboard log that showed this? Isn't that the same thing which showed the computer was being used almost continuously on the night between 1/2 November?

If so then I've always been a little dubious about that - seems unlikely there was continuous interaction the whole night.

 

[Numbers]

If this is your point (and if it isn't then I give up) then I don't agree with it. A trial is almost always an uncertain business. It does not follow at all that defeat somehow proves that all prior decisions (to arrest, to charge etc) were wrong. The crown prosecution service here in the UK has only a 50% merits test for prosecution decisions. That is, the assessment must be that a successful prosecution has a better than even chance.

There are many reasons why the interrogations were unlawful and the arrests wrong but the final acquittal per se is not one of them.

I have the feeling we are somehow not connecting in these posts.

My last statement is not meant as a general one. That is, I am not stating that an acquittal in a criminal case certainly and in each case means that the arrest was not justified.

I am saying something about the AK-RS case in particular. The CSC final acquittal motivation report is, of course, not yet published. I am assuming it will somewhat resemble the MR from the Hellmann court. If that turns out to be true, the MR will IMO refute the reasoning and alleged facts of the Arrest Warrant written out in 2007 by Mignini.

My personal opinion, in line with my hypothetical case, is that Amanda Knox was a "convenient suspect" for Mignini and the leaders of the Italian police. That does not mean that the possibility of some of the police sincerely believing that there were reasons for suspicion is excluded. But Mignini's history of wrongful prosecutions in the MOF cases does not suggest good faith to me.

From an operational or practical viewpoint, IMO, AK and RS were suspects when RS received the Nov. 5 call requesting (ordering) him to come to the station at 9:30 pm. He was being called in to be interrogated so as to incriminate Amanda. She was made a suspect by that interrogation, as well. Furthermore, she was a suspect in the practical (custodial) sense when she was requested (ordered) to enter the interrogation room at the police station Nov. 5. She had already been interviewed for many hours, so the value of any additional witness statement would be minimal. And the methods the police used Nov. 5/6 were not those used for witnesses. The police failure to produce verbatim records, written or audio, of the interrogations, is also telling.

The ECHR, in their review of AK's calunnia conviction, will necessarily first look at all the publicly known documentation of the proceedings and perhaps request any other documentation that Italy may have.

 

[Numbers]

Amanda wasn't called into the interrogation room initially, she was questioned in the waiting area. She said herself they told her she shouldn't have come to the station, and wanted her to go back to Raffaele's or to wait for him in the car.

I think all the cops wanted in on the action once they realised what was happening, they all wanted to take some credit for it. Just look at how they all lined up for the press conference afterwards, It doesn't follow that there must have been 36 police officers just waiting to interrogate Amanda.

In the end nothing you've said rules out a situation where the police hadn't worked out a detailed theory of the crime in advance, but instead reacted to things they thought they were discovering that night.

But why was Raffaele called by the police to come to the station at 9:30? When he got there he was interrogated about Amanda's alibi. But the police had already established in witness interviews that she was with him at the relevant time.

Amanda went to the police station of her own volition. However, while she had been told to wait outside, the police decided to invite her into an interrogation room and conduct a high-pressure interrogation. Why?

The late night interrogations do require planning, some police need to be scheduled for that shift. There were Perugian police and SCO police (Giobbi's staff) from Rome sharing the shift. Both VQA Giobbi and VQA Profazio, IIRC, were there to control the activity (based upon Giobbi's testimony) and Giobbi claimed in his testimony to have organized the double interrogation. Giobbi, a high-ranking police officer, was important help sent to Perugia, and his statements should not be taken for granted. I believe all these elements are suggestive, if not conclusive, that the late-night interrogations had been planned.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am reading it. So how do you think the cops got in?

With a skeleton key? I have no idea. Do you think there aren't ways and means?

ETA: oh, so it was the keyboard log that showed this? Isn't that the same thing which showed the computer was being used almost continuously on the night between 1/2 November?

If so then I've always been a little dubious about that - seems unlikely there was continuous interaction the whole night.

The report does not suggest there was activity all night. Whatever, he is a computer expert, I am not. He says there is certain manual interaction from 10.04 to 10.14 and that it is verified by three data sources, one of them external. If you have a reason for disputing the evidence of:

Professor Alfredo MILANI in collaboration with Doctor Antonio d’Ambrosio, Doctor Engineer Andrea Chiancone, Doctor Paolo Bernardi, Doctor Emanuele Florindi, Doctor Marina Latini and Doctor Engineer Valentino Santucci.,

hopefully supported by any relevant credentials you may possess, I'm all ears. Yes, mine is an argument from authority. It trumps yours from incredulity I think