Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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.

Numbers

You said:

'The point I tried to make - and no doubt not well enough - is that a person becomes a suspect in the ECHR human-rights view when that person is in the custody of police and is being interrogated: asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to induce self-incriminating or (in some situations) other-incriminating answers.'

If this is indeed how the ECHR classifies suspects then it seems to me wooly-headed. A person becomes a suspect as soon as they are suspected, due not to the laws of the land but those of grammar. OTOH the rights triggered by suspect status only kick in when the suspect is at risk of unfairness, most obviously when detained and when subject to questioning.

Thus, Amanda was a suspect more or less at once but her rights were not infringed until the night of 5th-6th Nov (I ignore rights of privacy, to family life etc and the like) I continue to wonder where in this conversation the point you are labouring to make fits.

We tend to look at this case with the benefit of hindsight. And, so, since Amanda incriminated herself on the 5th and 6th interrogation night, we consider the effects of her treatment from when she arrived at the questura that night and whether her procedural rights attached at the moment her final interrogation began or somewhat later. And yet it is clear her procedural rights attached days earlier. As you point out Amanda was a suspect "more or less at once". And not merely because the investigation was at an early stage and in some sense it could be said that "everyone is a suspect". That she was meaningfully a suspect is demonstrated by Ficcara and Mignini's statements on the subject. She underwent approximately 40 hours of questioning prior to the 5th and was not simply "at risk of unfairness" but actually treated unfairly. She was required to attend the questura, subjected to lengthy interrogation, such interrogation being hostile in nature. On the 4th November, she was subjected to an eight hour session and as she relates in a bugged conversation with Annie Fuller on the 5th: "It’s a little frustrating because... that is, they are very stressed and become more impatient with me and then... yesterday it’s been very difficult because when I went to the Police Station they questioned me and when I tried to reply they were telling me: " Are you’re lying? Are you sure you’re not lying? Because if you’re lying you are getting yourself in big trouble", and I: "I’m not lying, I’m trying to help you", you know? It bothered me, but at the same time when they brought me... There, they brought me home again and they asked me to examine all the knives to see if any were missing and just the fact of being there (in the house) frightened me to death, not to speak of having to browse through all the knives..." Tragically, the unsullied, naiive and inexperienced Amanda lacks the radar that would have guided her straight to a lawyer's office. Yet, her rights are clearly enunciated in Salduz: " n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police,unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 ... The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55)." That Amanda did not incriminate herself before the 5th November deflects us from paying much attention to her treatment between the 2nd and 5th November when she was being softened up and broken down. Yet, not only would the early presence of a lawyer have protected Amanda for that period of time, it would have ensured that the interrogations of 5/6 November did not take place and arguably would have re-railed a derailed investigation.

 

[carbonjam72]

We tend to look at this case with the benefit of hindsight. And, so, since Amanda incriminated herself on the 5th and 6th interrogation night, we consider the effects of her treatment from when she arrived at the questura that night and whether her procedural rights attached at the moment her final interrogation began or somewhat later.

And yet it is clear her procedural rights attached days earlier. As you point out Amanda was a suspect "more or less at once". And not merely because the investigation was at an early stage and in some sense it could be said that "everyone is a suspect". That she was meaningfully a suspect is demonstrated by Ficcara and Mignini's statements on the subject.

She underwent approximately 40 hours of questioning prior to the 5th and was not simply "at risk of unfairness" but actually treated unfairly. She was required to attend the questura, subjected to lengthy interrogation, such interrogation being hostile in nature. On the 4th November, she was subjected to an eight hour session and as she relates in a bugged conversation with Annie Fuller on the 5th:

"It’s a little frustrating because... that is, they are very stressed and become more impatient with me and then... yesterday it’s been very difficult because when I went to the Police Station they questioned me and when I tried to reply they were telling me: " Are you’re lying? Are you sure you’re not lying? Because if you’re lying you are getting yourself in big trouble", and I: "I’m not lying, I’m trying to help you", you know? It bothered me, but at the same time when they brought me... There, they brought me home again and they asked me to examine all the knives to see if any were missing and just the fact of being there (in the house) frightened me to death, not to speak of having to browse through all the knives..."

Tragically, the unsullied, naiive and inexperienced Amanda lacks the radar that would have guided her straight to a lawyer's office. Yet, her rights are clearly enunciated in Salduz:

" n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police,unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 ... The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55)."

That Amanda did not incriminate herself before the 5th November deflects us from paying much attention to her treatment between the 2nd and 5th November when she was being softened up and broken down. Yet, not only would the early presence of a lawyer have protected Amanda for that period of time, it would have ensured that the interrogations of 5/6 November did not take place and arguably would have re-railed a derailed investigation.

great post.

 

[anglolawyer]

Kauffer

On reflection, I agree with you. Since she was a suspect more or less from the off, she was entitled to receive a caution, access to a lawyer etc well before the 5th. Obvious really and stupid of me to miss it.

Thank you.

 

[RWVBWL]

I have no plan but have always wanted to see more of Raf's location and neighbor situation. My apologies to Locard.

It would be interesting to know if there is video nearby and how the PLE got there (by car) and did they "suit up" before entering his space. If the grand frame job was in action by then why didn't they pour a little bloody water down the drain and add a few hundred picograms of blood to the "murder" knife? Just a wipe from a piece of bloody clothing or some wiped from Mez' floor would have done just fine.

Hi Grinder,
Awhile back I found these vidz that "Somealibi" shot years ago:
Walk from Raffaele's flat to basketball court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71koGRTcr8M

Walk from Amanda's Uni to basketball court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ_KEYIMirg

Walk around the basketball court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVvdntL5-o#t=99

Meredith's probable walk home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1XQbQvuenQ



But you gotta check out the last video I'm linking,
some of the info in this video is classic, like where FBI agent Steve Moore discusses Rudy Guede and The Interrogation of Amanda. Perugia police called Milan police for Rudy's benefit? Or Amanda can't use the restroom during The Interrogation and she's having her ******? Pfffft.

Meet the Real Killer of Meredith Kercher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSTdH3wsDJE

 

[Bill Williams]

We tend to look at this case with the benefit of hindsight. And, so, since Amanda incriminated herself on the 5th and 6th interrogation night, we consider the effects of her treatment from when she arrived at the questura that night and whether her procedural rights attached at the moment her final interrogation began or somewhat later.

And yet it is clear her procedural rights attached days earlier. As you point out Amanda was a suspect "more or less at once". And not merely because the investigation was at an early stage and in some sense it could be said that "everyone is a suspect". That she was meaningfully a suspect is demonstrated by Ficcara and Mignini's statements on the subject.

She underwent approximately 40 hours of questioning prior to the 5th and was not simply "at risk of unfairness" but actually treated unfairly. She was required to attend the questura, subjected to lengthy interrogation, such interrogation being hostile in nature. On the 4th November, she was subjected to an eight hour session and as she relates in a bugged conversation with Annie Fuller on the 5th:

"It’s a little frustrating because... that is, they are very stressed and become more impatient with me and then... yesterday it’s been very difficult because when I went to the Police Station they questioned me and when I tried to reply they were telling me: " Are you’re lying? Are you sure you’re not lying? Because if you’re lying you are getting yourself in big trouble", and I: "I’m not lying, I’m trying to help you", you know? It bothered me, but at the same time when they brought me... There, they brought me home again and they asked me to examine all the knives to see if any were missing and just the fact of being there (in the house) frightened me to death, not to speak of having to browse through all the knives..."

Tragically, the unsullied, naiive and inexperienced Amanda lacks the radar that would have guided her straight to a lawyer's office. Yet, her rights are clearly enunciated in Salduz:

" n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police,unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 ... The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55)."

That Amanda did not incriminate herself before the 5th November deflects us from paying much attention to her treatment between the 2nd and 5th November when she was being softened up and broken down. Yet, not only would the early presence of a lawyer have protected Amanda for that period of time, it would have ensured that the interrogations of 5/6 November did not take place and arguably would have re-railed a derailed investigation.

Help me here. Is the issue, then, that she's a suspect as soon as she is openly accused of lying - bearing false witness?

Is the issue that she's suspected of "something", even if not at that early time the murder itself?

If this is so, the last hangers on, haven't moved/learned much all these years. "She knows something she's not telling us."

 

[Vixen]

It would seem from Hellmann's comments that he was shunned by other judges as well as prosecutors for his court's acquittal. With the exception of one commentator here everyone thought the Calumnia conviction made absolutely no sense even before Hellmann increased the sentence.

My comment expressed my feeling that he would throw something to the state that would at least reduce the financial burden. Since Hellmann lives there, it makes sense that even a retired judge would want to minimize the hostility from the police et al.

ETA - Your first graph makes no sense.

Hellmann would not have known at the time he would be shunned?

If he thought the case was concocted, then integrity would require he acquit on any part that he thought was so.

To increase a sentence on one charge to appease somebody is not how we would expect a judge in his position to act. Surely, the consequences of the verdict should not affect the making of that verdict. The issues of sentence, costs and remedy should come after the fact of the verdict. It should not form part of the sentencing decision.

I get that judges do this anyway. Someone has spent X years on a range of charges. Some of the charges are subsequently dismissed. The judge feels the defendant could be guilty of some or one of them, so reasons that the time served can be adjusted to the upheld charge so that it is a win-win situation.

However, I do not see that Hellmann could assume there would be compensation if his own assumption was that there might be some guilt there; i.e., some grounds for the imprisonment, which in itself would then repudiate any claim to compensation.

 

[Vixen]

Hi Vixen, Welcome to the forum.

Does your post mean you think Amanda "lied" by implicating Patrick?

Or, do you accept that the police are to blame for coercing her statements from the night of November 5, 2007?

Not sure where you're coming from.

Do you have an opinion as to guilt or innocence for Amanda & Raf?

Thanks, carbonjam72! Wow, that's a few loaded questions. How long do you have?

Your first question: it would seem on the face of it that Amanda lied because she thought it was a get-out-of-jail card.

Did the police coerce her statements? They may well have cut corners. Police are nasty, especially in nasty crimes. If they are convinced they have the perpetrator they might well bend over backwards to nail that person. However, there are safeguards and procedures in place. Whilst some cops might breach protocol, we would hope that somewhere along the line is a safeguard or controls that a bad cop cannot succeed in the long term.

Did Amanda complain at the time? If a complaint is not lodged then it can severely limit a court's ability to deal with it later.

Do I have an opinion as to guilt or innocence of Amanda & Raf? I have a healthy scepticism of either position. What formed your view of your position?

I have to say, it did strike me as peculiar Amanda should worry about mopping Raf's floor first thing in the morning, as most fun-loving students are not usually that fastidious.

The other thing I thought suspicious is Meredith Kercher's door being locked. Only Amanda had the key?

Over to you.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder,
Awhile back I found these vidz that "Somealibi" shot years ago:
Walk from Raffaele's flat to basketball court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71koGRTcr8M

Walk from Amanda's Uni to basketball court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ_KEYIMirg

Walk around the basketball court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVvdntL5-o#t=99

Meredith's probable walk home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1XQbQvuenQ



But you gotta check out the last video I'm linking,
some of the info in this video is classic, like where FBI agent Steve Moore discusses Rudy Guede and The Interrogation of Amanda. Perugia police called Milan police for Rudy's benefit? Or Amanda can't use the restroom during The Interrogation and she's having her ******? Pfffft.

Meet the Real Killer of Meredith Kercher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSTdH3wsDJE

Thanks. If the defense interviewed people in and around the apartment and the police entered Raf's at ten that night, I would be surprised no one noticed. One interesting point is that there aren't the crowds of people out the PGP always imply are there at that time of night.

 

[Grinder]

The other thing I thought suspicious is Meredith Kercher's door being locked. Only Amanda had the key?

No, only Mez had the key which was never found?

 

[lonepinealex]

Thanks, carbonjam72! Wow, that's a few loaded questions. How long do you have?

Your first question: it would seem on the face of it that Amanda lied because she thought it was a get-out-of-jail card.

Only if you assume she has something to hide. That's circular reasoning.

Did the police coerce her statements? They may well have cut corners. Police are nasty, especially in nasty crimes. If they are convinced they have the perpetrator they might well bend over backwards to nail that person. However, there are safeguards and procedures in place. Whilst some cops might breach protocol, we would hope that somewhere along the line is a safeguard or controls that a bad cop cannot succeed in the long term.

yes, safeguards and controls like recording interrogations and providing lawyers.

Did Amanda complain at the time? If a complaint is not lodged then it can severely limit a court's ability to deal with it later.

Do I have an opinion as to guilt or innocence of Amanda & Raf? I have a healthy scepticism of either position. What formed your view of your position?

I have to say, it did strike me as peculiar Amanda should worry about mopping Raf's floor first thing in the morning, as most fun-loving students are not usually that fastidious.

The other thing I thought suspicious is Meredith Kercher's door being locked. Only Amanda had the key?

Over to you.

The key was Meredith's, not Amanda's, that's why they had to break the door down.

I personally feel that most people, students or not, would not want to put up with a flooded kitchen for very long. But that is all speculative and irrelevant anyway.


It's good to be sceptical, but you then need to acquaint yourself with the facts to test that scepticism.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen - did you not answer your own question, with the statement which followed it?

Until I understood the nature of the Nov 5/6, 2007, interrogation(s), I was the one who thought the calumny conviction by Hellmann (with regard to Lumumba) made sense. Now I do not. There is reason to believe that if it had been Section 5 of the Supreme Court hearing Hellmann's acquittal back in March 2013, then the ISC would have simply confirmed the acquittals, AND annulled the calunnia conviction.

Grinder is essentially correct: it is now not very far-fetched to think that a judge, even in acquitting, would throw something the way of the cops/prosecutor. In essence Hellmann (back then) gave the cops the benefit of a doubt, that they'd not done anything criminal in extorting a "confession" from Knox. Indeed, in one of the early secret recordings of Knox, her family and lawyers.... they briefly discussed filling out the paperwork to have the cops charged with hitting Knox at interrogation. The counsel came back that in the pro-charge phase of this wrongful-prosecution, the defence did not want to do anything to stir the pot against the police.
All of this is now a consistent story, as Grinder has pointed out. Hellmann is to be admired for speaking out as to how he was treated by peers following coming to a verdict (an acquittal) based on the evidence.

Of all the people vindicated by the March 27, 2015, action of Italy's highest court, Hellmann is near the top of the list.

Bill, I do not get it. If Hellmann had no faith in the calunnia charge and, like the parents, believed in improper police conduct, then he had a duty to say so in his judgment.

ISTM you are second-guessing what went on in his mind. You are saying he must have thought this, that or the other, but if he did not say so how can you possibly know?

The other possiblity is that he upheld the calunnia charge because he was satisfied with the evidence. If he is scared of the police, why acquit at all?

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks. If the defense interviewed people in and around the apartment and the police entered Raf's at ten that night, I would be surprised no one noticed. One interesting point is that there aren't the crowds of people out the PGP always imply are there at that time of night.

Why? This strikes me as a crazy reason, as crazy as the cat, for rejecting the idea that the police entered the flat. What do you know of the neighbourhood that tells you everybody is constantly watching to see who enters where? Do you sit by your window keeping a lookout on the goings on in your street?

According to this version of life on Corso Garibaldi, we can be sure they are innocent because none of the eagle-eyed hawks saw them heading off to kill Mez at 9 or whenever it was. Why didn't the defence call this conclusive evidence of absence?

Presumably, you also dispute that the cops bugged Le Chic on the same basis - that nobody saw them do it. As if when on secret missions like that one, they arrive with blue lights flashing and announce through a loud hailer they are about to bug some joint.

Furthermore, maybe dozens of people saw the cops enter and it was the talk of the entire neighbourhood for months - but no one will come forward and speak out for fear of the consequences. How the heck do you know?

 

[lonepinealex]

Bill, I do not get it. If Hellmann had no faith in the calunnia charge and, like the parents, believed in improper police conduct, then he had a duty to say so in his judgment.

ISTM you are second-guessing what went on in his mind. You are saying he must have thought this, that or the other, but if he did not say so how can you possibly know?

The other possiblity is that he upheld the calunnia charge because he was satisfied with the evidence. If he is scared of the police, why acquit at all?

Maybe he was. Doesn't make him right. We'll see what the ECHR thinks.

 

[Grinder]

Kauffer

On reflection, I agree with you. Since she was a suspect more or less from the off, she was entitled to receive a caution, access to a lawyer etc well before the 5th. Obvious really and stupid of me to miss it.

Thank you.

Of course she was a suspect from the beginning as one of the people that discovered the crime scene. As time went by other people were eliminated and the police had things that they believed tied the kids to the crime. Their investigators believed the break in was staged. The 911 call seemed strange to them, particularly the "nothing was taken" remark. A some point they thought the bloody shoe prints matched Raf's. They most likely knew Amanda received a text a crucial time but she never mentioned it during the hours of interviews. In those interviews the kids weren't completely consistent about the evening. (Something that I would think would reduce suspicion as they didn't plan a spiel).

I'm probably leaving out many things that added to the suspicion. With everything they thought they had, under Italian law (please no references to ECHR to disprove or in anyway address this point) until they declare a person an official suspect that person isn't entitled to suspect protections. This may well violate what should be.

That night the unofficial suspect is in the station hands over her phone and they find the response to PL and now they are sure and start questioning. From their perspective when she finally stops lying and tells of events with PL they have an involvementor suspect and her status changes.

They had reasonable cause for arrest and their judges upheld it. Obviously much of their facts were in the end shown to be erroneous. At this point I'll mention the thousands of hair identifications here that turned out be total junk science that not only arrests but convictions were based on. So now those arrests and convictions that seemed reasonable and even guilty BARD are in doubt.

Having said the above, the police shouldn't have used the Reid technique and should be held accountable and the use of it should be made a criminal act.

 

[Grinder]

Maybe he was. Doesn't make him right. We'll see what the ECHR thinks.

If we live long enough

 

[Grinder]

Why? This strikes me as a crazy reason, as crazy as the cat, for rejecting the idea that the police entered the flat. What do you know of the neighbourhood that tells you everybody is constantly watching to see who enters where? Do you sit by your window keeping a lookout on the goings on in your street?

As you know I'm usually washing my walls and climbing the walls keeping an eye on the street. I watched SA's video and looked at the street and came away thinking police arriving on the street would be noticed.

According to this version of life on Corso Garibaldi, we can be sure they are innocent because none of the eagle-eyed hawks saw them heading off to kill Mez at 9 or whenever it was. Why didn't the defence call this conclusive evidence of absence?

Not just the PLE were incompetent. Do we know when and what the defense did in terms of asking questions of neighbors?

Presumably, you also dispute that the cops bugged Le Chic on the same basis - that nobody saw them do it. As if when on secret missions like that one, they arrive with blue lights flashing and announce through a loud hailer they are about to bug some joint.

Hailer? Do you mean a loudspeaker? Refresh my memory of the Le Chic recordings.

Furthermore, maybe dozens of people saw the cops enter and it was the talk of the entire neighbourhood for months - but no one will come forward and speak out for fear of the consequences. How the heck do you know?

I don't know. What I think I said was it would surprise me if the police entered Raf's place that night without being noticed but not that it would be impossible.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, I do not get it. If Hellmann had no faith in the calunnia charge and, like the parents, believed in improper police conduct, then he had a duty to say so in his judgment.

That is true. Please also consider that all Italian criminal cases are decided on a vote within the eight-member panel - 2 professional judges and 6 popular judges. The lead judge (apparently) has the responsibility to write up the motivations report; the explanation for the verdicts. It is a possibility that Hellmann, personally, did not vote for the calunnia conviction, but was outvoted by the others. There's also the procedure (apparently) where the two professional judges vote last, seemingly to avoid having their professionalism sway the popular judges who are the "peers" of the accused.

AFAIK, there is no provision in the Italian system for someone dissenting from the majority to write their own, "minority report".

ISTM you are second-guessing what went on in his mind. You are saying he must have thought this, that or the other, but if he did not say so how can you possibly know?

I can't.

The other possiblity is that he upheld the calunnia charge because he was satisfied with the evidence. If he is scared of the police, why acquit at all?

All good questions. Yet, Hellmann's comments since the March 2013 ISC reversal of his acquittals, as well as his more detailed comments since the March 2015 complete exoneration is fuel for thought on all of this.

 

[Vixen]

No, only Mez had the key which was never found?

Do you have a citation that "only Mez had the key"?

Are you claiming Mez locked the door herself?

How did Amanda know her door was locked if neither she nor Raf tried the door handle, as neither of their fingerprints were found. Do you think perhaps, they were wearing gloves?

 

[lonepinealex]

Do you have a citation that "only Mez had the key"?

Are you claiming Mez locked the door herself?

How did Amanda know her door was locked if neither she nor Raf tried the door handle, as neither of their fingerprints were found. Do you think perhaps, they were wearing gloves?

What makes you think Amanda had the key to Meredith's room? Why would she?

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you have a citation that "only Mez had the key"?

Are you claiming Mez locked the door herself?

How did Amanda know her door was locked if neither she nor Raf tried the door handle, as neither of their fingerprints were found. Do you think perhaps, they were wearing gloves?

The outside door handle was never tested. The PLE testified that it was not tested because it was not part of the crimescene.

Let that roll in your head for a second to consider the way this was investigated.