Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

{WARNING - ECHR CASE-LAW DISCUSSION IN THIS POST.*}

There is a potentially important ECHR case relating to violations of Convention Article 3 that appears important for Amanda Knox's application claiming a violation of her rights by Italy due to her conviction for calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. That case is Hajnal v. Serbia 36937/06 19/06/2012. Of interest for this post are specifically paragraphs 94 - 99.

There are several features of Hajnal v Serbia that are important and relevant to Amanda's application. In this post, I will treat only the issue of procedural violation, because it is relatively straight-forward and yet there have been claims (in particular, by "Machiavelli") that Amanda and her defense team did not satisfy Italian law in not filing the proper paper-work complaint, and thus would not have an admissible ECHR regarding a procedural violation of Convention Article 3. A procedural violation of Convention Article 3 occurs when a Council of Europe State does not mount an effective investigation of a credible allegation that State agents have committed acts of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment against a person within the practical jurisdiction of that State.

In Hajnal v. Serbia, the Serbian Government presented two defenses against a claim by the applicant, Hajnal, that it had committed a violation of his Convention Article 3 (procedural aspect) rights. First, it claimed that there was insufficient evidence that in fact any abuse of the applicant had occurred. Second, it claimed that the applicant had not filed a written criminal complaint in proper form regarding his allegations of police abuse as required (apparently by Serbian law), and therefore no investigation had been started.

The applicant maintained that he had brought his complaint properly to the attention of judges and the competent prosecuting authorities.

The ECHR judgment stated the following:

96. The Court reiterates that where a person makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of State agents, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Labita v. Italy, cited above, § 131). Whatever the method of investigation, the authorities must act as soon as an official complaint has been lodged.

97. Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011).

98. The Court has also held that the investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. If not, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for State agents to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Labita v. Italy, cited above, § 131). The investigation must also be thorough: the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions. Furthermore, the investigation must be prompt and independent. Lastly, the investigation must afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny to secure accountability. While the degree of public scrutiny required may vary, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure in all cases (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 137, ECHR 2004-IV).

99. In the present case, having already found a substantive violation of Article 3, the Court further notes that the applicant had indeed complained of having been abused by the police. He did so before the investigating judge and the Deputy Public Prosecutor, as well as the trial and appellate chambers (see paragraphs 22, 31, 44 and 46 above). Yet, despite the Convention and the domestic law requiring that an allegation of this sort be explored ex officio (see paragraphs 97 and 54 above, in that order), no separate abuse-related investigation, aimed at the identification and punishment of those responsible, was ever instituted by the competent authorities. It is thus clear that the aforementioned standards have not been satisfied. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

{Bold emphasis added.}

 

[anglolawyer]

Vixen,

This is an astonishing answer. One, it suggests that Amanda and Raffaele did a skillful selective clean-up, except for the bathmat and bra clasp. Two, I don't think Rudi had much to do with getting them implicated, until after it was clear that the Perugian authorities made it clear that they were pressing ahead with a case against the pair. At that point it became very much in his interest to spread the blame to them.

In Vixen's reconstruction, they used the lamp to conduct a meticulous, finger tip clean up in the bedroom, carefully wiping it clean of prints (evidence for that one would be nice) but then negligently left it in the room, not even noticing it when stepping over the cord for the final time and further negligently leaving Raf's bloody footprint on the bathmat (not to mention padding about in bare, bloody feet).

 

[Vixen]

Firstly, I'm not Bill.

Secondly, did you even read (and comprehend) what I wrote before making that asinine reply?


(PS: I'll remember that "M O U N T A I N O F E V I D E N C E" bit for a long time (and it'll remind me of your position and your approach in a nice concise way). I'm still chuckling about it now. Comedy gold )

You don't get irony, do you, LondonJohn? :/ It's lost on you.

You are comedy gold. NOT_!

 

[Vixen]

Dumb and obtuse observation. You would think that the police would want to test something that looks like a semen stain. That the defense shouldn't have to ask for this. You would also think that the prosecution wouldn't fight that.

This case turns jurisprudence on its head. You have the defense tring to get a complete examination of the evidence and the people who should be most interested in justice doing everything to prevent that. Why do think that is Vixen?

How do you know the police didn't test it, and determined it not relevant?

 

[Vixen]

In Vixen's reconstruction, they used the lamp to conduct a meticulous, finger tip clean up in the bedroom, carefully wiping it clean of prints (evidence for that one would be nice) but then negligently left it in the room, not even noticing it when stepping over the cord for the final time and further negligently leaving Raf's bloody footprint on the bathmat (not to mention padding about in bare, bloody feet).

Yes, it's these things that come back to haunt those who thought they'd committed the perfect crime*.

Sure, there's "no proof" the ladies size 37 bloodsoaked shoeprint was Amanda's. All that means is there is still a female perp on the loose, for the bruising on Mez' face and neck - strangulation - also points to a female.

*Think "perfect crime" Leopold & Loeb, who left all sorts of evidence.

 

[Annella]

Re: How Amanda knew of Meredith's throat wound.

Vixen needs enlightening:

Luca Altieri’s testimony (Paola Grande’s boyfriend)

Page 223:

Altieri: Yes, yes, yes, after a while, you know, after the Red Cross car arrived, the Scientific Police and the Carabinieri arrived, all of them, after a while one of the two medics, I believe, the driver of the Red Cross, it wasn’t an ambulance, he came out of the crime scene, let’s say, from inside the house, speaking to one of the Carabinieri that was there outside and he described a bit about what had happened, saying… referring to the both the fact the her throat had been cut and that she had also fought back, let’s say, and from this I understood this thing.
Mignini: OK, do you remembe if Sollecito spoke to you in the Police Station, did he speak of this fact? What did he say to you?
Altieri: Look, the only exchange of words was while we were going to the Police station in the car, let’s say, where he asked me if she was dead. I was a bit shocked at the question, I responded “yes”. And then after he asked me, if I remember correctly, how she died, something of this sort, and so I explained to him this thing that I’d heard outside.
Paola Grande’s Testimony (Filomena’s friend)

Page 15:

Mignini: So you didn’t see them?
Grande: No, I saw them one minute as soon as we arrived that Marco and Filomena told them, partly in Italian and partly English, to recount everything, to say everything that they remembered, to stay calm, to recount what they remembered and that would suffice. More than anything during the car journey I remember that Raffaele asked Luca if she was dead, he said yes and how she died and Luca told him that she’d had her throat cut because… I don’t know how Luca knew, however I knew about it because when the ambulance arrived, a man went in and when he came out he didn’t speak to us, but I heard him saying how she had died.
Page 19:

Maori: If you can (not heard)
Grande: It’s very simple because there were some short questions and some short answers, there was no conversation around it. Raffaele asks: “How did she die? Is she dead?” and Luca responds: “Yes”. “How did she die?”, “she had her throat cut. That’s all”.

 

[Vixen]

I agree. Probably Federico Aldrovandi got a little mouthy, and look what happened to him. His mother asked for justice, and she got hit with about ten suits.

I agree injustices such as this must be fought against. There is never an excuse for police brutality.

Whilst some police personnel may have overstepped their mark, physically and psychologically, in Raf's and Amanda's case, I am sceptical it was anything out of the ordinary. Raf has not put in a complaint and Amanda said more than once she was well-treated.

Yes, it's wrong to refuse a comfort break, in their overzealousness. AIUI it is not true Amanda had no food or drink. A couple of the cops put some chairs together so Amanda could have a nap, when she turned up at the questura of her own accord.

The claim she was subjected to Guantanomo Bay - style torture is pure PR by people cynically trying to spin the story for commercial gain.

 

[Kauffer]

Delusional

In Vixen's reconstruction, they used the lamp to conduct a meticulous, finger tip clean up in the bedroom, carefully wiping it clean of prints (evidence for that one would be nice) but then negligently left it in the room, not even noticing it when stepping over the cord for the final time and further negligently leaving Raf's bloody footprint on the bathmat (not to mention padding about in bare, bloody feet).

The suggestion of a clean up requires a willing suspension of disbelief and the ignorance of the absence of evidence that must necessarily be present if it were true. You could even concede that the possibility exists selectively to remove microscopic traces of some evidence but not others. It is still not nearly enough.

They cannot just say "lamp" and think this is probative. The lamp is not an activity. It is called up as a tool required to carry out an activity. But no evidence of the activity exists, no evidence of cleaning materials employed for the task exists and no transfer evidence exists.

A crime scene clean up necessitates a number of other clean ups, including the disposal of cleaning materials and the cleaning or disposal of clothes worn during the original cleanup.

Then, we have to go on to ask other questions, such as why, having conducted a clean up of at the microscopic level, is the bathmat not disposed of? Perhaps the contention must be that since the print on the mat belongs to Guede, then Amanda didn't need to dispose of it.

 

[Kauffer]

How do you know the police didn't test it, and determined it not relevant?

Interestingly, we don't. But we do know that lots of testing took place, which was not disclosed. Some of it, for example the TMB results, which was originally withheld, was disclosed. Much has not been. You cannot wave this away. Evidence is discoverable.

The test should have been carried out AND, if it was, it should have been disclosed. Either way, there is a major problem. It is not for the police to determine relevance. The defence makes its own case.

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't get irony, do you, LondonJohn? :/ It's lost on you.

You are comedy gold. NOT_!

You're saying that you wrote that phrase ironically?

Hmmmm....... let's see the phrase with the supporting words, as written by you:

"There is a M O U N T A I N O F E V I D E N C E against Raf and Amanda. I know it has become a cliche, but cliches are just that, because they hold an inherent truth."


Now, I would say that I'm fairly good at spotting irony and sarcasm. But I am having a very hard time indeed spotting any of either in that paragraph. Perhaps you could help me out by explaining just how this should be interpreted as irony. Thanks.

 

[Kauffer]

I agree injustices such as this must be fought against. There is never an excuse for police brutality.

Whilst some police personnel may have overstepped their mark, physically and psychologically, in Raf's and Amanda's case, I am sceptical it was anything out of the ordinary. Raf has not put in a complaint and Amanda said more than once she was well-treated.

Yes, it's wrong to refuse a comfort break, in their overzealousness. AIUI it is not true Amanda had no food or drink. A couple of the cops put some chairs together so Amanda could have a nap, when she turned up at the questura of her own accord.

The claim she was subjected to Guantanomo Bay - style torture is pure PR by people cynically trying to spin the story for commercial gain.

No lawyer, no right to silence, no independent interpreter, statements used in defiance of court orders and contrary to law, both Italian and international, interrogation carried out late at night and into the morning etc etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree injustices such as this must be fought against. There is never an excuse for police brutality.

Whilst some police personnel may have overstepped their mark, physically and psychologically, in Raf's and Amanda's case, I am sceptical it was anything out of the ordinary. Raf has not put in a complaint and Amanda said more than once she was well-treated.

Yes, it's wrong to refuse a comfort break, in their overzealousness. AIUI it is not true Amanda had no food or drink. A couple of the cops put some chairs together so Amanda could have a nap, when she turned up at the questura of her own accord.

The claim she was subjected to Guantanomo Bay - style torture is pure PR by people cynically trying to spin the story for commercial gain.

Ahhh the straw man makes its near-inevitable appearance


Leaving aside for one moment the question of whether the following actually happened in this case or not: do you think it's a legitimate and lawful police interrogation tactic for them to tell a suspect 1) that they have solid evidence of that suspect's presence at a murder; 2) that the suspect will face 30 years in prison if (s)he doesn't "remember" certain events; 3) that the suspect must be suffering some form of traumatic amnesia, but must now "remember"; and 4) that the suspect might be in personal danger if (s)he does not give the police sufficient evidence to arrest and lock up another perp?

 

[anglolawyer]

The suggestion of a clean up requires a willing suspension of disbelief and the ignorance of the absence of evidence that must necessarily be present if it were true. You could even concede that the possibility exists selectively to remove microscopic traces of some evidence but not others. It is still not nearly enough.

They cannot just say "lamp" and think this is probative. The lamp is not an activity. It is called up as a tool required to carry out an activity. But no evidence of the activity exists, no evidence of cleaning materials employed for the task exists and no transfer evidence exists.

A crime scene clean up necessitates a number of other clean ups, including the disposal of cleaning materials and the cleaning or disposal of clothes worn during the original cleanup.

Then, we have to go on to ask other questions, such as why, having conducted a clean up of at the microscopic level, is the bathmat not disposed of? Perhaps the contention must be that since the print on the mat belongs to Guede, then Amanda didn't need to dispose of it.

I agree with this. Yet, astonishingly, that is exactly what Nencini did. He said the presence of the lamp was a fact of 'undoubted significance' but did not say what. He just said 'lamp!' so Vixen is in good company. Except, she isn't because Nencini has been rejected by Italy's highest court and reverts to the status of just being 'wrong' - using Vixen's own approach to this discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

No, I did not sidestep anything. I answered you question directly in a comment made prior to the one you just quoted. Did you not read it? I said that to the best of my understanding, there is no legal way for the defense to compel testing of the stain. I also pointed out that it was Sollecito's expert who found the stain with an ALS. If Sollecito knew of the stain and did not want Vinci to examine it, why not tell Vinci not to? Why even hire Vinci? Your position has no logic.

Now again let me ask you: Why does what the defense wants or does not want even matter? Why didn't the FP test the stain in the early days of November in 2007? What stopped them?

IIRC Vinci gave evidence at the trial. It was the courts prerogative to accept or reject it.

AIUI the defense did not draw the court's attention to the stain until after the verdict.

The prosecution are only interested in building their side of the case. It is grossly negligent for the defense to deliberately conceal their independent discovery of the stain under ALS.

It was Raf and his legal team's conscious decision to not bring the stain issue up during the trial.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, it's these things that come back to haunt those who thought they'd committed the perfect crime*.

Sure, there's "no proof" the ladies size 37 bloodsoaked shoeprint was Amanda's. All that means is there is still a female perp on the loose, for the bruising on Mez' face and neck - strangulation - also points to a female.

*Think "perfect crime" Leopold & Loeb, who left all sorts of evidence.

The what? There is no such lady's shoe print.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, it's these things that come back to haunt those who thought they'd committed the perfect crime*.

Sure, there's "no proof" the ladies size 37 bloodsoaked shoeprint was Amanda's. All that means is there is still a female perp on the loose, for the bruising on Mez' face and neck - strangulation - also points to a female.

*Think "perfect crime" Leopold & Loeb, who left all sorts of evidence.

1) There is no "ladies size 37 blooodsoaked shoeprint". That was a gross error from the "crack" police forensics guys. It's a portion of Guede's shoe print, and easily provable as such.

2) The stuff about the "bruising on Mez' (sic*) face and neck - strangulation - also point(ing) to a female" is arrant nonsense. Did you just make that one up out of thin air?


* The possessive of Mez is Mez's, not Mez'. Although unless you knew the woman personally, Meredith or Kercher is probably more appropriate (and certainly more objective).

 

[Vixen]

You're as bad as Mignini. He sees Satanic rituals and you see Manga. I've heard of looking at the world through rose colored glasses, but this is munch crazier. Do you really need Knox and Sollecito to be guilty so much that you see things that are not there?

Given the First Instance court, who found out the facts, decreed the burglary was simulated and there was more than one perp, the fact remains, two or more individuals - one whom we know was of feminine build from the bloody footprint and facial fingermarks on the victim - then it most certainly was a crazy group scenario by a bunch of drugged up fantasists.

Especially as Mez was subjected to a long torture.

 

[Samson]

Yes, it's these things that come back to haunt those who thought they'd committed the perfect crime*.

Sure, there's "no proof" the ladies size 37 bloodsoaked shoeprint was Amanda's. All that means is there is still a female perp on the loose, for the bruising on Mez' face and neck - strangulation - also points to a female.

*Think "perfect crime" Leopold & Loeb, who left all sorts of evidence.

Oh Vixen,
Is this all fun to you, or have your parents wasted their money on your education?
What do they think?
Please ask them dispassionately and post accordingly.

For my part, I have always been fascinated that a guilty Amanda would name Rudy Guede at 10 22pm on November the 5th as someone the police should seek and interview.

After all, he was a pretty good witness to her slaughtering her friend and room mate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Given the First Instance court, who found out the facts, decreed the burglary was simulated and there was more than one perp, the the fact remains, two or more individuals - one whom we know was of feminine build from the bloody footprint and facial fingermarks on the victim - then it most certainly was a crazy group scenario by a bunch of drugged up fantasists.

The first instance court GOT IT WRONG.

And in case you missed it, the Supreme Court nullified the first court (and the appeal court) on the murder-related charges when it acquitted Knox and Sollecito. So the Supreme Court in effect is also saying that the first instance court got it wrong.

Or, in your warped interpretation of your own appeals to authority, are you now going to suggest that the first instance court has more legitimacy than the Supreme Court?

 

[Vixen]

The what? There is no such lady's shoe print.

Massei was satisfied there was having seen all of the evidence in a court of law.