Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

IIRC The complaint is under Article 6.

Article 3 is about torture and extreme and unusual punishment. Good luck with that one.

You see, when you use confrontational phrases such as "good luck with that one", it rather belies your claims to neutral objectivity, doesn't it?

The ECHR will very likely rule that Knox's human rights were significantly breached on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. The ECHR might also be minded to accept an application from Knox and Sollecito in regard to the murder charges. The Italian criminal justice system messed up spectacularly in many different places during the sad course of this case, and it appears that the ECHR is the only body that will hold those responsible to account. I believe that many of the serious problems in the Knox/Sollecito case also directly reference serious institutionalised problems in Italian criminal justice, and I suspect that the ECHR is very keen to see Italy put its house in order.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

Amnesty International's 2007 report on Italy has been quoted in these threads many times, and it indicated the lack of an independent body to investigate such claims. i suggest you look it up in these threads, because they seem to have changed their site navigation.
EDT
"Italy still failed to make torture, as defined in the UN Convention against Torture, a specific crime within its penal code. There was no independent police complaints and accountability body. Policing operations were not in line with the European Code of Police Ethics, for example in the requirement for officers to display prominently some form of identification, such as a service number, to ensure they could be held accountable." (highlighting mine)

If it is true - and I am unsure as you appear to be referring to torture only - there is no police complaints body in Italy, for example, to investigate deaths in custody or police shootings, then, yes, I agree, that is most unethical and uncivilised.

 

[Loss Leader]

I suppose it would be too much trouble to ask all y'all to abide by the Membership Agreement. Please be civil and address arguments. Speculating on the identities or sexual habits of other members is against the MA. Digressing into conversations about verb conjugation is also off topic. I doubt further warnings will be given without greatly increased punitive measures.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[LondonJohn]

Depends what you mean by "bleach". Do you mean ammonia or peroxide, or standard soap?

There's only one standard definition for bleach in the context of household cleaning chemicals, and it's the one that is meant here. It's not ammonia or peroxide, or standard soap. It's sodium hypochlorite in solution.

 

[Vixen]

1. As pointed out by Kauffer, the European Convention on Human Rights and the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (that is, its case-law) constitute the supreme law of Italy in accordance with the Italian Constitution and solemn treaty.

2. Amanda Knox stated soon after the interrogation (in her Nov. 6, 2007 Memoriale 1) that she was threatened and hit by the police during the interrogation. The police have not produced any records, written or electronic, of the details of the interrogation. The ECHR is likely to infer that Amanda Knox was indeed subject to abuse amounting to a violation of Convention Article 3, prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment.

The evidence ECHR will use may include: Amanda's statement that she was abused, her repeated written statements on this in her appeals, the lack of any detailed police record of the interrogation, Amanda's sudden stating of witnessing Patrick Lumumba murder and rape Meredith and Amanda's subsequent and sufficiently rapid retraction of that statement in her Memoriales 1 and 2, the apparent state of confusion reflected in the Memoriales, the clear violation of her rights under Italian law and the ECHR case-law during the interrogation and afterwards, the filing of a criminal charge of calunnia against her by the prosecutor due to her statement alleging abuse in open court, and the similar filing of a law suit for civil calunnia against her by about 12 police officers who were all involved in that interrogation.
3. and 4. Italy apparently does have a process for filing complaints against the police for official abuse. That is irrelevant in this case, because in part of the legal actions taken against Amanda Knox for stating in open court that she was abused by the police. Those actions, and apparently other indications that those who complain receive further bad treatment, reflected in an intercepted phone conversation between Amanda and her parents, may be taken to show that the official complaint process was not practical or effective in this case.

Sorry, we were just informed there was no process in Italy for filing complaints, and now you say there is, after all.

From the POV of the judiciary, anything stated in a court in hearings is legally privileged.

Therefore, by charging Amanda, she will now be obliged to substantiate her serious allegations, made under the protection of legal privilege.

 

[Vixen]

1) It's not "probably wrong". It's a violation of Amanda's human rights. It's not even a case on the margins. Donnino's own testimony condemns her and the cops who permitted her behaviour.

2) The cops can put whatever suggestions they like to Amanda, but they have to do it through her lawyer. She had no lawyer. Making accusatory suggestions to anyone in police custody without a lawyer present is a violation of a suspect's procedural rights. If the cops are putting such suggestions to you, then that is evidence you are a suspect.

3) This nonsense about "a gift" keeps getting recycled. Amanda, who didn't have enough Italian, was searching for the Italian word for "explanation". Instead, she mistakenly used the word "regalo", which means gift or present. You juxtapose the arrival of Amanda and the writing of her first "memoriale". In fact, there were about 15 hours between the two events, such time filled with her lawyerless, coercive double interrogation at the hands of multiple cops and Mignini.

Do keep up.

Er, hang on a minute, we have been told Amanda understood the cop discussing a slashed throat.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, we were just informed there was no process in Italy for filing complaints, and now you say there is, after all.

From the POV of the judiciary, anything stated in a court in hearings is legally privileged.

Therefore, by charging Amanda, she will now be obliged to substantiate her serious allegations, made under the protection of legal privilege.

If only some sort of audio or video recording had been made of those interrogations, especially since they were conducted in a new, state-of-the-art regional police headquarters building, with integrated recording facilities in its interrogation rooms (plus, let's not forget, the useful facility to bug the waiting rooms.....). Then we'd know with far more certainty what did and did not happen that night.

What's that you say? No such recordings apparently exist? Why ever could that be........?!

 

[LondonJohn]

Er, hang on a minute, we have been told Amanda understood the cop discussing a slashed throat.

I think the sign of pulling your index finger horizontally across your throat has something of a universal translation.

 

[Vixen]

Furthermore, Amanda should have been provided with a lawyer while she was in police custody, according to ECHR case-law (Dayanan v. Turkey). This again was a violation of Italian law, because the ECHR case-law is the supreme Italian human rights law. Thus, nothing in her Memoriales may be used against her.

And indeed, Matteini refused to allow it for that reason.

As Amanda was at the questura as a voluntary witness, there was no requirement for the presence of a lawyer.

As soon as Amanda announced her presence at the murder scene, the interview was suspended, and Amanda was now a suspect AND informed of her legal rights.

 

[anglolawyer]

Say Vixen, can you get back to me with a quote from Massei in which he finds as a fact that a female shoe print was left on the pillow? Alternatively, if you can't find it, let's agree that point falls away. OK?

 

[Grinder]

I think the sign of pulling your index finger horizontally across your throat has something of a universal translation.

She also had a translator and Luca spoke some English.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

how I read the AI report

If it is true - and I am unsure as you appear to be referring to torture only - there is no police complaints body in Italy, for example, to investigate deaths in custody or police shootings, then, yes, I agree, that is most unethical and uncivilised.

Vixen,

I understand this paragraph to be a broad summary (the entire 2007 summary of Italy is perhaps eight paragraph or so), and I don't think that the first two sentences are linked, as you imply that they might be. In other words I infer that Italy did not have an independent body as of 2007.

 

[LondonJohn]

And indeed, Matteini refused to allow it for that reason.

As Amanda was at the questura as a voluntary witness, there was no requirement for the presence of a lawyer.

As soon as Amanda announced her presence at the murder scene, the interview was suspended, and Amanda was now a suspect AND informed of her legal rights.

I love this part! It's straight out of the pro-guilt misdirection manual!

Let's go through this once again. Did Knox:

a) suddenly blurt out, without any warning, that she had been present at the murder scene after meeting up with Lumumba and letting him into the cottage, and that she'd been cowering in the kitchen area with her hands over her ears as Lumumba attacked and killed Kercher?

b) capitulate to prolonged and repeated accusations from the police that she had been present at the murder scene (and that the police had evidence to prove that), that she was either therefore lying to them or suffering some form of traumatic amnesia, and that if she didn't tell them "the truth" now she was looking at 30 years in prison?


I'll give you a very useful hint: option (b) was essentially confirmed (and option (a) was definitely disproved) by the testimony of the "interpreter" Donnino in court.

And if option (b) - or something anywhere close to it - is what actually happened, then Knox was clearly being considered (and treated as) a suspect by the police well before she first opened her mouth to give her confused "confession/accusation".

Oh and here's another useful hint: the notorious and very revealing words of Perugia police chief De Felice after the triumphalist "case closed" press conference the next day. Do you know what De Felice said? Can you remember? I can remind you if you either don't know or have forgotten. You're welcome

 

[Chris_Halkides]

She did not initiate the interview

As Amanda was at the questura as a voluntary witness, there was no requirement for the presence of a lawyer.

Vixen,

Amanda did not go to the station for the purpose of making a statement, and that puts her interrogation into a very different light. I believe that Numbers made this point a few months ago.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahhh I yearn for the good old days when pro-guilt commentators were coming up with gems such as "the police had hardly had time to set out the chairs when Knox blurted out that her black boss did it". Where did those good times (and those stupid people) go?!

 

[Kauffer]

Didn't the Postal Police react that they thought at first it was an insurance scam? This was particularly because the cameras and laptops hadn't been stolen - "This is no burglary." Did they suggest this to the Carabinieri when they got there?

Only they and Follain know. Bill will check on this for us I'm sure.

I don't know how it could have been insurance fraud since nothing was stolen.
I remember that before Mez was found they thought it looked like a fake. Later when the 911 tape was heard that reinforced the idea.

But that's the point of a domestic insurance fraud. You simply list items you didn't own that you say were stolen and claim the cash value, usually on a new for old basis.

 

[Vixen]

That all makes sense but let's not over-analyse. The alleged "staged break-in" and "clean-up" were always fictions needed by the investigators in order to sustain their persecution of Amanda and Raff.

The point is that once you follow the evidence at the scene, you have to conclude:

a) that the crime was committed by an intruder (or, conceivably, intruders) who broke in through the window in Filomena's room;

b) that there is evidence of only one perpetrator of the crime and in particular, nothing implicates the 2 students.

So - having already announced that the 2 were guilty, the police and prosecutor were in a bind. The evidence didn't agree with their solution to the crime - so, the evidence had to be wrong! How did it come to be wrong? Of course, the 2 murderers cleaned up their own traces and simulated a break-in! Obvious, really.

It's so much easier to establish your own version of "the truth" when every piece of evidence that doesn't agree with it can be attributed to a staging of the scene. Don't you know that dinosaur fossils were put in the ground to mislead humanity from the word of God as revealed in Genesis?

If your hypothesis is true, then the cops would not have immediately released Patrick as soon as they realised he was innocent.

The idea the "police could not admit they were wrong" is without foundation.

 

[LondonJohn]

If your hypothesis is true, then the cops would not have immediately released Patrick as soon as they realised he was innocent.

The idea the "police could not admit they were wrong" is without foundation.

1) The police had no choice but to release Lumumba - he had a cast-iron alibi from a Swiss university professor (whom Mignini and the police had the chutzpah to claim they found and encouraged etc!).

2) The police and PM could conveniently blame the Lumumba mistake on "evil Knox" deliberately misdirecting them by falsely accusing an innocent man - despite the clear and unequivocal evidence that it was the police who had essentially coerced Knox into "confirming" that Lumumba was the murderer. Worthy of the real Machiavelli, that one!

 

[Vixen]

Well, the evidence is obviously that Mez's digestion was halted while her pizza meal was still undigested, but she wasn't killed until 11:45pm. And we know the time-of-death from the Massei trial.

Oops, now Vixen is going to go back on PMF and quote me.

The piece of undigested mushroom found in Mez' gullet most likely came from a punnet in the fridge. IOW it was not part of the meal with the English ladies.

 

[Kauffer]

IIRC The complaint is under Article 6.

Article 3 is about torture and extreme and unusual punishment. Good luck with that one.

From Wiki:

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention. The European Court of Human Rights has further held that this provision prohibits the extradition of a person to a foreign state if they are likely to be subjected there to torture. This article has been interpreted as prohibiting a state from extraditing an individual to another state if they are likely to suffer the death penalty. This article does not, however, on its own forbid a state from imposing the death penalty within its own territory.

“ Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Your lack of knowledge is betrayed again. The question of Amanda being assaulted by Ficcarra, which you laughingly dismiss as a result of the absence of a querela or complaint, is covered by Article 3. But it also transforms into an Article 6 violation on finding, meaning that in itself it is enough to invalidate a conviction. Luck is not a matter for the ECHR. The absence of a police record, on the other hand, is.