....
To overcome such issues about "mind reading" in the face of a lack of available trustworthy information on the state of mind of the police and prosecutor, one may attempt to rely on their overt (observable) actions.
For example, in the ECHR case Hajnal v. Serbia 36937/06, Hajnal was arrested for several days in a row each morning by Serbian police at about 4:00 or 5:00 am, brought in for questioning, and then released much later, after about 10 or 12 hours. On one of these days he claims he was beaten by the police. On the next day he confessed to a serious crime. (He had a retained lawyer, but while under police custody, he dismissed that lawyer for not allowing him to confess, and was assigned a defense lawyer who did not attend his interrogation. He claimed the dismissal was done under duress.) The ECHR judged in the Hajnal case that the police actions in arresting Hajnal, questioning him for lengthy periods, releasing him, and then rearresting him was part of a pattern showing violation of Convention Article 3, prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment, even if the alleged beating by police could not be documented BARD.
Application to the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case: Amanda was requested to appear at the police station for questioning for many hours duration on each of Nov. 2, 3, and 4, 2007. She was not formally under arrest during these questionings, but persons requested to answer questions as a witness by police may be under some obligation to do so. Were these repeated questionings for long durations comparable to the repeated ones in Hajnal (without the element of coercion including allegations of threats and hitting before the Nov. 5/6 interrogation)? Were they simply repetitive and designed to wear down the resistance or to fatigue Amanda Knox? If so, then the official misconduct may have begun as early as Nov. 3, 2007.
In any case, IMO, the official misconduct must certainly have begun with the planning of the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007. Testimony of Giobbi documents for ECHR purposes that this interrogation was planned for both Knox and Sollecito, and this type of interrogation is that used for suspects. There were clear undisputed violations of Italian law (procedural) and Constitution in the Nov. 5/6 interrogations, and allegations of criminal violations (including threats and hitting). And with the conviction of Knox for calunnia, there was clearly a violation of Convention Articles 6.1 (right to a fair trial) with 6.3c (right to a lawyer for defense, which generally must be provided during interrogation).
For completeness and accuracy, here is the bottom line of the ECHR judgment for the Hajnal v Serbia case 36937/06 regarding the violation of Convention Article 3 (substantive aspects):
92. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant was physically abused on 17 August 2005 and was, at the very least, mentally coerced into giving his confession on 18 August 2005, events of those two days being inextricably linked to each other (see, mutatis mutandis, Milanović v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 78, 14 December 2010). Indeed, on 22 March 2006 the Municipal Court itself concluded that the applicant’s repeated arrests amounted to police harassment aimed at obtaining his confession (see paragraph 39 above).
93. Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by the applicant.
{Highlighting added.}
The highlighted statements in the judgment appear relevant to the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito case for the period Nov. 2 through Nov. 5/6, 2007 and for Knox, Nov. 6 and 7 (relating to her Memoriales 1 and 2).
Last edited: