Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

I don't think there was a planned conspiracy, but I do think there was a meeting of like minds and group think. By this I mean, they didn't together decide to plant evidence, lie and obfuscate the truth.
It was more, we need to get this murdering American bitch. And individually, they crossed the line.

Acbytesla wrote "They didn't together decide to plant evidence, lie and obfuscate the truth." I'm not sure I agree.

Anytime the police discussed beforehand what (or how) they intended to do (something) in an upcoming task - in an interrogation, in the search for a knife in Raffaele's flat, in the retrieval of the bra clasp, etc., and then together agree to maintain that it just happened naturally (deny that it was preplanned) is collusion.

 

[Ken Dine]

I HAD POSTED:

[ ]
As for Amanda's conviction for libel/slander during her late night (unrecorded) interrogation, Italy's laws in that regards seriously needs to be amended.

While it may likewise be a criminal act in America to misdirect a criminal investigation, it seems like the lines were blurred by allowing Lumumba to pursue Amanda (civilly?) during her criminal prosecution?

I.e., logically how could Lumumba's attorney openly chastise Amandar as a 'SHE-DEVIL" during her criminal trial if Lumumba's part was only the civil aspect?

If Amanda was indeed CONVICTED of slandering Lumumba during the CIVIL portion of her trial, then how did her SLANDER conviction equate to a 3 year criminal sentence?

In America, a CRIMINAL trial can result in a prison sentence, but a CIVIL trial can only result in a monetary judgment! And, certainly both types of trials don't happen in conjunction!

Things are upside down in Italy, so venture there at your personal peril.
-+

There is a seeming misunderstanding in your post, which may have its origin in a problem of translation and lack of information about Italian criminal law.

Amanda was convicted by Hellmann, and the conviction confirmed by the Chieffi CSC panel, of a criminal charge: calunnia. The legal definition of the charge is (approximately): giving false information to the police or other judicial authority (such as a prosecutor or judge) stating that someone has committed a crime. Amanda was sentenced to three years imprisonment for this conviction, and it laid against time she had already served in remand.

Amanda was first convicted of calunnia by Massei after Italy’s Supreme Ct had ruled that Amanda’s wee-hour statements on Nov 6th were made as a suspect without counsel and thus those signed statements couldn’t be used against her in a criminal trial since the police had violated her rights by denying her legal counsel, and also she was denied her right to a certified (independent) translator. Hellmann's calunnia ruling is another matter.

Massei got around the Supreme Ct’s ruling by allowing Lumumba’s civil action to be heard in conjunction with her criminal trial, which was improper on its face, and in that way Amanda’s wee-hour statements were allowed in, despite Italy’s Supreme Ct ruling that her signed statements couldn't be used against her in a criminal trial.

Clearly, a CRIMINAL calunnia charge can only be prosecuted by the state, not by Lumumba, who was only a civil party to the action.

Despite the Supreme Ct's ruling, eventually Massei ruled that Amanda was guilty of CRIMINAL calunnia, but based upon what since Italy’s Supreme Ct had previously ruled that Amanda’s wee-hour “spontaneous” declarations couldn’t be used against her in a criminal action?

I understand legal principles, but Italy’s lazy and incompetent judges are obviously clueless (or, they just don’t care?)

In particular, Amanda was alleged to have committed calunnia because of her statements about Patrick Lumumba having raped and murdered Meredith, in her interrogation Nov. 5/6, 2007 and possibly also because her statements attempting to show she wished these statements to be considered unreliable, her Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007, were interpreted as additional statements against Lumumba.

The civil action against Amanda by Patrick Lumumba resulted in the assessment of a monetary payment from her to be paid to Lumumba.

Since Italy’s Supreme Ct ruled that Amanda’s interrogation was illegal, can you explain how her wee-hour statements were used by Massei to convict her of a criminal offense?

THAT'S THE QUESTION!

As for Amanda’s “Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007” they were certainly misinterpreted:

The Perugian authorities did not record either interrogation citing “significant budgetary problems,” so because of no lawyer and no recording the 2008 Italian Court of Cassation (Supreme Court) ruled the “confessions” unconstitutional and therefore “inadmissible.” The Defense victory was short-lived as Italy allows civil trials to run concurrently with criminal trials and the prosecution used that law to segue the false confessions into court record. In 2009 the prosecution called witnesses to testify in the civil trial and discuss the interrogations as well as the false “confessions” created with the confused statements from Amanda and Raffaele, all the while knowing that the information was ruled inadmissible by the higher court.

http://groundreport.com/amanda-and-raffaele-the-illegal-interrogations/

Amanda has filed a complaint against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights for her conviction of calunnia. IIUC, the rights violated include her allegations that her statements were coerced by the interrogation techniques, including being threatened and slapped. But also, the interrogation was conducted contrary to ECHR case-law, in that she was not provided with a lawyer during the interrogation nor informed of her right to remain silent; nor did she have a lawyer's counsel during the initial days of her custody.

There is voluminous ECHR case-law in this area about persons convicted on evidence gained by violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and/or violation of Article 6.3c (right to a lawyer, including during interrogation or during custody); in such cases the ECHR has ruled that the conviction and trial was unfair - a violation of Article 6.1 - and that therefore there mus be a retrial or rehearing if requested by the victim, but strictly in accordance with the Convention. That is, the evidence collected through violation of the Convention must be excluded.

Precisely my point.

Amanda continues to face a criminal charge of calunnia for stating in court that she was threatened and slapped during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. In fact, this criminal charge includes an aggravating factor, because she has repeated this allegation in each of her appeals. Interestingly, the ECHR generally requires that an alleged victim request that the alleged violation of rights be addressed to a judicial authority at each appeal. So here is a potential instance of a claim against Italy for interfering with the right to seek redress of a violation of a Convention right, which is itself a violation of the Convention and ECHR case-law.

As I had said, Italy’s draconian laws need serious revamping!

A lot of this forum’s current posters were discussing this 'calunnia' issue way back in August 2012 in this other forum, so I realize my indignation over this unjust criminal conviction is not new:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=747&start=16800

 

[Ken Dine]

Acbytesla wrote "They didn't together decide to plant evidence, lie and obfuscate the truth." I'm not sure I agree.

Anytime the police discussed beforehand what (or how) they intended to do (something) in an upcoming task - in an interrogation, in the search for a knife in Raffaele's flat, in the retrieval of the bra clasp, etc., and then together agree to maintain that it just happened naturally (deny that it was preplanned) is collusion.

I suspect that Acbytesla meant that there wasn't a grand conspiracy resulting from all the involved authorities meeting together and agreeing to do whatever it took to get a conviction. Instead, it was a series of many smaller collusions, which likely to most of those involved may not have seemed improper at the time.

E.g., Mignini likely showed the Postal Police officers the CCTV footage showing that their car had arrived at 12:35 pm (instead of around 1:00 pm that was initially in their report), so the officers changed their arrival time to match the CCTV's time-stamp believing it was the right thing to do, not knowing that the time-stamp was slow. (Officer Marsi later admitted to doing that).

Then again, Stefanoni blatantly LIED numerous time, but she likely felt it was the right thing to do since she wanted her forensics to match all the other evidence of guilt that she (WRONGLY) had heard the police had against Amanda & Raffaele.

Instead of a grand conspiracy, the case was instead a classic example of tunnel vision & confirmation bias, as explained here:

http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-mignini-witchcraft-and-tunnel-vision-a-postscript/

 

[Samson]

Acbytesla wrote "They didn't together decide to plant evidence, lie and obfuscate the truth." I'm not sure I agree.

Anytime the police discussed beforehand what (or how) they intended to do (something) in an upcoming task - in an interrogation, in the search for a knife in Raffaele's flat, in the retrieval of the bra clasp, etc., and then together agree to maintain that it just happened naturally (deny that it was preplanned) is collusion.

Hmm the list
1. We have not ruled out the culprit is a woman. Nov 4.
2. Momma is coming so we need her now. We got her.
3. Raffaele was needed at the Questura late evening, with multiple police redundancy on tap. Why?
4. We need a murder weapon. Got it.
5. We need evidence of a sexual assault. Got that too.

It seems possible we underestimate Mignini. After all, the police followed Raffaele home on March 27 2015, planning to take him directly to jail. He came within a heartbeat of a massive victory.

Strozzi, you may have an idea. Did the state department explain to the Italian government that they were playing with fire?

 

[Grinder]

Alex Crudo witness statement to police 8-Dec-2007 http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Alex-Crudo-Statement-8-Dec-2007.pdf

Luca Altieri witness statement to police on November 2, 2007 http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Luca-Altieri-Statement-2-Nov-2007.pdf

Thanks again.

From Alex a couple of interesting bits:

“I have been in Italy since September this year and I study Italian Language at the Foreigners’ University.
I live in an apartment at Via Bartolo 49 with my sister and a young Cypriot woman called Elena.
I met Rudy around town but I cannot remember exactly when and how. I saw him quite often, sometimes he came round my home, other times he phoned me. Sometimes we went out for a drink, a couple of times we ate together, on one of these occasions we were in Hoogan in Piazzetta Matteotti. However more often we chatted at my home.
In my presence Rudy never took drugs not even cannabis nor did he drink to excess.
I didn’t know Meredith except that I once saw her at the Shamrock pub about 20 days before she died, I remember that we were watching a rugby match. Rudy was also there, in fact it was he who told me, when she died, that the woman who was watching the rugby match at the Shamrock some time back was Meredith the dead woman.

and

On that day, which I think was November 2, I didn’t notice anything strange about Rudy nor if he had injuries to his hands. Only later when my sister told me that Rudy was involved in Meredith’s murder did I consider his behavior strange at that time (November 2 2007), I thought he had lied and in hindsight I remembered that he might not have been calm on that day. I repeat that Rudy never told me he had dates with women and certainly not with Meredith.

 

[Diocletus]

On that day, which I think was November 2, I didn’t notice anything strange about Rudy nor if he had injuries to his hands. Only later when my sister told me that Rudy was involved in Meredith’s murder did I consider his behavior strange at that time (November 2 2007), I thought he had lied and in hindsight I remembered that he might not have been calm on that day. I repeat that Rudy never told me he had dates with women and certainly not with Meredith.

Why is that interesting? Rudy admitted that he cut his hand in the "struggle" and the German cops took a picture of the almost-healed slices on his fingers. The only thing that's interesting about this is that the court in Rudy's trial absurdly used this non-observation to rule out that Rudy had cuts on his hand that night, despite his admission and the corroborating photos.

 

[Grinder]

Why is that interesting? Rudy admitted that he cut his hand in the "struggle" and the German cops took a picture of the almost-healed slices on his fingers. The only thing that's interesting about this is that the court in Rudy's trial absurdly used this non-observation to rule out that Rudy had cuts on his hand that night, despite his admission and the corroborating photos.

At the time some thought he inflicted the wounds himself to substantiate his story of fighting off the left-handed murderer.

It is also another case of "observations" changing after a person is charged or at least being held for a crime, much as the british girls turned against Amanda.

 

[Numbers]

I HAD POSTED:





Amanda was first convicted of calunnia by Massei after Italy’s Supreme Ct had ruled that Amanda’s wee-hour statements on Nov 6th were made as a suspect without counsel and thus those signed statements couldn’t be used against her in a criminal trial since the police had violated her rights by denying her legal counsel, and also she was denied her right to a certified (independent) translator. Hellmann's calunnia ruling is another matter.

Massei got around the Supreme Ct’s ruling by allowing Lumumba’s civil action to be heard in conjunction with her criminal trial, which was improper on its face, and in that way Amanda’s wee-hour statements were allowed in, despite Italy’s Supreme Ct ruling that her signed statements couldn't be used against her in a criminal trial.

Clearly, a CRIMINAL calunnia charge can only be prosecuted by the state, not by Lumumba, who was only a civil party to the action.

Despite the Supreme Ct's ruling, eventually Massei ruled that Amanda was guilty of CRIMINAL calunnia, but based upon what since Italy’s Supreme Ct had previously ruled that Amanda’s wee-hour “spontaneous” declarations couldn’t be used against her in a criminal action?

I understand legal principles, but Italy’s lazy and incompetent judges are obviously clueless (or, they just don’t care?)




Since Italy’s Supreme Ct ruled that Amanda’s interrogation was illegal, can you explain how her wee-hour statements were used by Massei to convict her of a criminal offense? THAT'S THE QUESTION!

As for Amanda’s “Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007” they were certainly misinterpreted:







Precisely my point.




As I had said, Italy’s draconian laws need serious revamping!

A lot of this forum’s current posters were discussing this 'calunnia' issue way back in August 2012 in this other forum, so I realize my indignation over this unjust criminal conviction is not new:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=747&start=16800

Ken Dine,

You have made many good points in your post (meaning, of course, that I agree with those points!)

The issue of how a statement obtained through a procedurally illegal action (interrogation or questioning) could be used to convict someone, contrary to Italian law, Constitution, and ECHR case-law is a very good one, indeed. That's why Amanda Knox has IMO an essentially slam-dunk application pending before the ECHR.

From my reading of Amanda's early appeals (in Google translation), I believe the Italian authorities used a bad-faith argument to justify the criminal charge of calunnia. The Italian authorities (prosecutor and court - in Italy, they are partners de facto) dug out a CSC ruling from many years ago that justified holding someone being charged with calunnia if the false accusation was made in a "spontaneous" statement. In the statement that Mignini had Amanda sign near the end of the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation, he inserted as her words that the she was giving a "spontaneous" statement. Now she did not have legal counsel at that point, and was probably thoroughly fatigued and frightened, and would not have understood what was going on from a legal point of view. So that appears to be the "legal" basis of the criminal calunnia charge. Only, it cannot be legal, according to Italian law or the European Convention on Human Rights, binding on Italy.

I hope that my explanation of what I believe has transpired regarding the criminal charge for calunnia is understandable and not too convoluted.

The Italian procedural laws that apply include, but are not limited to, CPP Articles 63 and 64.

The ECHR case-law that applies includes, but is not limited to, Salduz v Turkey [GC], Dayanan v Turkey, and Ibrahim et al. v the UK (and all the citations within the last-named case.)

ETA: In terms of conducting a civil trial "simultaneously" with a criminal trial, that is legal in Italy and apparently a standard practice there, and apparently in some other European countries. Furthermore, it is legal and standard practice in Italy, and in some other European countries, for the prosecutor to appeal a provisional acquittal or even a provisional conviction (asking for a more severe sentence). These activities have not been found, to date, to be contrary to the Convention. Of course, from the American POV, these activities are unfair and contrary to American law and Constitution. (Although prosecutors in the US can appeal certain appeal court decisions.)

ETA2: Whether introduction of evidence forbidden in the criminal trial to the same judges and "lay judges" by means of the simultaneous civil trial is unfair, a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, to my limited knowledge, has not been ruled on by the ECHR. My limited knowledge of Italian civil law procedure is that it is not bound by all the rules of Italian criminal procedural law, but whether it can rightfully allow the introduction of evidence obtained contrary to CPP law I do not know. At any rate, when there is a final acquittal in Italian criminal law, the civil cases that piggy-backed onto the criminal case are by CPP ended in favor of the defendant and cannot be revived.

 

[davefoc]

How would you feel if you learned that the police did test the semen stain, determined it is a match to Guede, and that Mignini and Comodi knew that?

My guess about the situation is already that Mignini suppressed the semen evidence and probably the rape kit evidence and downstairs evidence.

My guess is that Mignini believes AK/RS are guilty however he also believes that almost anything a prosecutor does is OK if the purpose is to prove that defendants he believes to be guilty are convicted.

If proof surfaced that Mignini suppressed the semen stain test results it would confirm that Mignini was suppressing evidence however we still wouldn't know whether Mignini came to know that AK/RS were likely to be innocent. If that was proven Mignini's would be guilty of a moral crime at least as great as murder in my mind. However, if all he did was illegally suppress evidence the situation is a bit ambiguous for me. I think he should be fired and sent to jail for his crime (given the substantive nature of what he suppressed and the lying associated with the suppression) but IMHO he would be guilty of a moral crime that is far less than if he had known that AK/RS are innocent.

Given that the prosecutors oppose testing it, would you conclude that Stefanoni, Mignini, and Comodi were engaged in a cover-up?

Clearly they would have been involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence and they would be covering up that fact. An interesting question here and a difficult one given the politics of the Italian justice system is which judges would have known this and went along with it anyway.

The semen stain evidence is not of much exculpatory value for AK/RS assuming it was Guede's and the crime of suppressing it seems much less than if evidence was suppressed that was clearly exculpatory for AK/RS. There are multiple reasons to believe that clearly exculpatory evidence for AK/RS might have been suppressed but there is at least no smoking gun with regard to that.

 

[Grinder]

Numbers,

The two statement 1:45 - 5:45 weren't ruled illegal but rather not usable in the murder trial however they were used by Patrick in the trial running concurrently with the murder trial.

The ISC allowed the truly spontaneous notes to be used in the trial.

I believe if you read the testimony of others you will see the spontaneous phrase in some of them.

Before the undersigned police officers Chief Inspectors BURCHIELLI Giampiero and PASCAI Giuliano, in service with the 1st Section of the Perugia Flying Squad, the person indicated in the subject is present who declares to understand the Italian language sufficiently both in written and oral forms. FROST Amy, heard regarding the English citizen named KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara, found dead today in her home in Perugia at via della Pergola no.7, spontaneously declares as follows:

Before the undersigned police officers Chief Inspectors BURCHIELLI Giampiero and PASCAI Giuliano, in service with the 1st Section of the Perugia Flying Squad, assisted for a translation in English by Assistant D’ASTOLTO Fabio in service with U.P.G.S.P., the person indicated in the subject is present who declares to understand the Italian language sufficiently in written form, a little less in oral form. PURTON Sophie, heard regarding the English citizen named KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara, found dead today in her home in Perugia at via della Pergola no.7, spontaneously declares as follows:

 

[Numbers]

Numbers,

The two statement 1:45 - 5:45 weren't ruled illegal but rather not usable in the murder trial however they were used by Patrick in the trial running concurrently with the murder trial.

The ISC allowed the truly spontaneous notes to be used in the trial.

I believe if you read the testimony of others you will see the spontaneous phrase in some of them.

Before the undersigned police officers Chief Inspectors BURCHIELLI Giampiero and PASCAI Giuliano, in service with the 1st Section of the Perugia Flying Squad, the person indicated in the subject is present who declares to understand the Italian language sufficiently both in written and oral forms. FROST Amy, heard regarding the English citizen named KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara, found dead today in her home in Perugia at via della Pergola no.7, spontaneously declares as follows:

Before the undersigned police officers Chief Inspectors BURCHIELLI Giampiero and PASCAI Giuliano, in service with the 1st Section of the Perugia Flying Squad, assisted for a translation in English by Assistant D’ASTOLTO Fabio in service with U.P.G.S.P., the person indicated in the subject is present who declares to understand the Italian language sufficiently in written form, a little less in oral form. PURTON Sophie, heard regarding the English citizen named KERCHER Meredith Susanna Cara, found dead today in her home in Perugia at via della Pergola no.7, spontaneously declares as follows:

You may indeed be correct that the two statements (Memorials 1 & 2) that Amanda wrote in an attempt to state that her interrogation & Mignini induced statements were unreliable were the basis, or a basis, for the conviction for criminal calunnia. However, this implies a mistranslation or misunderstanding of their content. Furthermore, by ECHR case-law, Dayanan v Turkey, since she should have had legal representation during custody explicitly to guide her in any statement she might make, these statements cannot be used to convict her of anything.

 

[Planigale]

I HAD POSTED:





Amanda was first convicted of calunnia by Massei after Italy’s Supreme Ct had ruled that Amanda’s wee-hour statements on Nov 6th were made as a suspect without counsel and thus those signed statements couldn’t be used against her in a criminal trial since the police had violated her rights by denying her legal counsel, and also she was denied her right to a certified (independent) translator. Hellmann's calunnia ruling is another matter.

Massei got around the Supreme Ct’s ruling by allowing Lumumba’s civil action to be heard in conjunction with her criminal trial, which was improper on its face, and in that way Amanda’s wee-hour statements were allowed in, despite Italy’s Supreme Ct ruling that her signed statements couldn't be used against her in a criminal trial.

Clearly, a CRIMINAL calunnia charge can only be prosecuted by the state, not by Lumumba, who was only a civil party to the action.

Despite the Supreme Ct's ruling, eventually Massei ruled that Amanda was guilty of CRIMINAL calunnia, but based upon what since Italy’s Supreme Ct had previously ruled that Amanda’s wee-hour “spontaneous” declarations couldn’t be used against her in a criminal action?

I understand legal principles, but Italy’s lazy and incompetent judges are obviously clueless (or, they just don’t care?)




Since Italy’s Supreme Ct ruled that Amanda’s interrogation was illegal, can you explain how her wee-hour statements were used by Massei to convict her of a criminal offense?

THAT'S THE QUESTION!

As for Amanda’s “Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007” they were certainly misinterpreted:







Precisely my point.




As I had said, Italy’s draconian laws need serious revamping!

A lot of this forum’s current posters were discussing this 'calunnia' issue way back in August 2012 in this other forum, so I realize my indignation over this unjust criminal conviction is not new:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=747&start=16800

While I agree in principle, if I can correct a fact.

The supreme court ruling only prevented the 'spontaneous' interviews from being used against Knox for the murder. They were still allowable for the criminal charge of callunia. By getting the murder and the callunia cases heard simultaneously Mignini could get the evidence in front of the judges lay and professional. This as you say is wrong.

It is interesting that the pro guilt posters still refer to 'all the lies' Knox told and 'the accusation against Lumumba' (as does Mignini) as evidence against Knox, even though this was not allowable evidence against Knox for the murder.

 

[Grinder]

While I agree in principle, if I can correct a fact.

The supreme court ruling only prevented the 'spontaneous' interviews from being used against Knox for the murder. They were still allowable for the criminal charge of callunia. By getting the murder and the callunia cases heard simultaneously Mignini could get the evidence in front of the judges lay and professional. This as you say is wrong.

It is interesting that the pro guilt posters still refer to 'all the lies' Knox told and 'the accusation against Lumumba' (as does Mignini) as evidence against Knox, even though this was not allowable evidence against Knox for the murder.

Except that she was convicted of calunnia and it only makes sense if she was guilty. That's why everyone but one person in the whole world understood what mistake it was for Hellmann to convict her of that.

 

[Numbers]

While I agree in principle, if I can correct a fact.

The supreme court ruling only prevented the 'spontaneous' interviews from being used against Knox for the murder. They were still allowable for the criminal charge of callunia. By getting the murder and the callunia cases heard simultaneously Mignini could get the evidence in front of the judges lay and professional. This as you say is wrong.

It is interesting that the pro guilt posters still refer to 'all the lies' Knox told and 'the accusation against Lumumba' (as does Mignini) as evidence against Knox, even though this was not allowable evidence against Knox for the murder.

I do not dispute that the CSC may have correctly ruled that Knox's interrogation statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape case.

However, CPP Article 63 and 64 would prevent any use of statements obtained contrary to their provisions for any criminal charge. So how could Italian criminal courts constitutionally contravene Italian procedural law? Only the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court could declare a law unconstitutional, and while the CSC can interpret law, it seems disingenuous that it could interpret contrary to the plain meaning of the words.

CPP Art. 63 Incriminating statements

1. If a person who is not accused or suspected makes statements before the judicial authority or the criminal police that raise suspicion of guilt against him, the proceeding authority shall interrupt the examination, warn him that, following such statements, investigations may be carried out on him, and advise him to appoint a lawyer. Such statements shall not be used against the person who has made them.
2. If the person should have been heard as an accused or a suspect from the beginning, his statements shall not be used.

CPP Art. 64 General rules for questioning

1. The suspected person, even if under precautionary detention or detained for any other reason, participates freely in the questioning....

2. Methods or techniques which can influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the ability to recall and evaluate the facts shall not be used, even with the consent of the person being questioned.

3. Prior to be questioned, the person must be warned that: a) his statements can always be used against him; b) ...he has the right to silence...; c) if he makes any statement on facts concerning the liability of others, he will become a witness....
3-bis. If the provisions of para. 3 a) and b) are not fulfilled, the statements made by the person questioned shall be excluded. If the person questioned in not warned according to para. 3 c), the statements that he may have made on the facts regarding the liability of others shall not be used against them, and he shall not become a witness in relation to those specific facts.
Since Amanda was not warned, she could not legally be found to have committed calunnia. Her statements were simply legally not useable against her or against Patrick Lumumba. The CSC and lower Italian courts violated Italian procedural law to convict her of anything.

The same conclusion may be reached by considering ECHR case-law.

 

[Strozzi]

Duplicate

 

[Bill Williams]

Except that she was convicted of calunnia and it only makes sense if she was guilty. That's why everyone but one person in the whole world understood what mistake it was for Hellmann to convict her of that.

..... and even he became convinced of the error of his ways. It took reading Mignini's own defence of his own actions to convince this former naysayer that Mignini is/was an unethical travesty - but in Feb 2012 when this person came to this reversal, he came to the view that Mignini had no leg to stand on, really, and that Hellmann did err.

Atoning for sins sucks.

 

[Strozzi]

Hmm the list
1. We have not ruled out the culprit is a woman. Nov 4.
2. Momma is coming so we need her now. We got her.
3. Raffaele was needed at the Questura late evening, with multiple police redundancy on tap. Why?
4. We need a murder weapon. Got it.
5. We need evidence of a sexual assault. Got that too.

It seems possible we underestimate Mignini. After all, the police followed Raffaele home on March 27 2015, planning to take him directly to jail. He came within a heartbeat of a massive victory.

Strozzi, you may have an idea. Did the state department explain to the Italian government that they were playing with fire?

I doubt the US Department of State ever discussed with Italian authorities the guilt or innocence of the American or the legal disposition of this case. Likewise, I doubt that any discussion occurred concerning extradition, unless Italian officials inquired generically as to the US Government mechanism for considering an extradition request.

I do believe that if Amanda or her parents (acting on her behalf) permitted it, the Department of State would have discussed with the Government of Italy at a high level the US Department of State's concerns that Amanda was physically abused (struck) during interrogation, denied legal consul, denied the services of a competent neutral interpreter, and that personal medical information which should have been kept confidential was disseminated by Italian officials.

A key US Government official who closely follows this case commented privately that the Italian prosecution was "stupid beyond belief". But that should not be a surprise to anyone. There are many Italian Government officials who think the same. Just ask several Italian parlementarians.

US Government officials are aware of how police and judicial authorities operate in various countries. This includes foreign authorities directly conspiring together or passively colluding to condem innocent persons.

 

[Grinder]

On trial for defamation before the single judge Paola Buccelli, today there is only the journalist Michaela Bohle, "for having offended the dignity and reputation" of Sollecito. The positions of the other three journalists - the host of the show, Claudio Brachino and Remo Croci (speaking as a guest) and Lella Volta (who had made a service) - were instead filed by the investigating magistrate Scarlett Fox in May 2013. Sollecito ( who is assisted by Francesco Mastro) today briefly deposed the alleged offenses the accused, which refer to 16 July 2008. At the time, the young man was detained, along with Amanda Knox, accused of killing in Perugia The 22 year old English in November 2007. In the service of the TV broadcast, the journalist - allegedly - popularized "the summary of the statement made by Rudi Guede Ermann the prosecutor during the interrogation of 20 June 2008, which stated that the same claimed to have recognized Raffaele Sollecito in the home of Meredith Kercher, virgolettando and emphasizing his statements, which is not true because the Guede had merely to report that after being out of the bathroom, he saw a male figure near the door, the light was weak and that this subject giratosi quickly was holding a knife and tried to hit him.

http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corri...sa-de1a34f0-15bd-11e5-a559-03d20c97512a.shtml

 

[Samson]

I doubt the US Department of State ever discussed with Italian authorities the guilt or innocence of the American or the legal disposition of this case. Likewise, I doubt that any discussion occurred concerning extradition, unless Italian officials inquired generically as to the US Government mechanism for considering an extradition request.

I do believe that if Amanda or her parents (acting on her behalf) permitted it, the Department of State would have discussed with the Government of Italy at a high level the US Department of State's concerns that Amanda was physically abused (struck) during interrogation, denied legal consul, denied the services of a competent neutral interpreter, and that personal medical information which should have been kept confidential was disseminated by Italian officials.

A key US Government official who closely follows this case commented privately that the Italian prosecution was "stupid beyond belief". But that should not be a surprise to anyone. There are many Italian Government officials who think the same. Just ask several Italian parlementarians.

US Government officials are aware of how police and judicial authorities operate in various countries. This includes foreign authorities directly conspiring together or passively colluding to condem innocent persons.

This is a post I thought indicated a potentially more proactive role by state department.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422673&postcount=891

The discussion on this forum made me vastly more effective.

I wrote a case summary that made its way around the State Dept. and official corridors. I walked reporters through the story and got them to the point where they understood. "Yes, this makes sense, I now see what you see." The resulting coverage didn't include that detail, but it reflected an understanding of the detail.

People here can mock the "Obknoxen," but they are stuck with the fact that this forum had an impact on the case. Any attempt to be irrelevant has failed. People who care about fact and reason prevailed over those who "boasted proudly that they would never go near that 'cess-pit of a thread.'"

 

[davefoc]

This is a post I thought indicated a potentially more proactive role by state department.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422673&postcount=891

The discussion on this forum made me vastly more effective.

I wrote a case summary that made its way around the State Dept. and official corridors. I walked reporters through the story and got them to the point where they understood. "Yes, this makes sense, I now see what you see." The resulting coverage didn't include that detail, but it reflected an understanding of the detail.

People here can mock the "Obknoxen," but they are stuck with the fact that this forum had an impact on the case. Any attempt to be irrelevant has failed. People who care about fact and reason prevailed over those who "boasted proudly that they would never go near that 'cess-pit of a thread.'"

Thank you so much for that link Samson. I really hope I get to meet Charlie someday and for that matter all the regular participants in this thread. What Charlie did approaches heroic. Way to go Charlie.