Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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

Grinder,
Thanks so much for that link!

 

[Bill Williams]

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

Yes, thank you for the link.

 

[Numbers]

Grinder,
Thanks so much for that link!

BTW, Rudy Hermann Guede = Rudi Guede Ermann

and on the other hand

magistrate Rossella Volpe = magistrate Scarlett Fox

 

[Ken Dine]

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.)

As for the legality of trying the criminal and civil charges together under Italian law, what stinks was Massei's decision to combine the murder and calunnia cases after the Italian Supreme Ct had already ruled that Amanda's wee-hour statements were inadmissible against Amanda in a criminal trial.

While under the standards of many countries combining disparate criminal & civil actions would be legally improper, under Italian law combining the Kercher family's civil action, and even the cottage owner's action with the murder trial, those other civil actions wouldn't necessarily conflict with justice.

Lumumba's civil action is a different matter. Clearly, Massei had a choice not to combine Lumumba's civil action against Amanda with the state's criminal prosecution against Amanda, and in light of the Italian Supreme Ct's ruling, to be fair Massei had a duty to separate those two actions.

If the ECHR eventually rules in Amanda's favor over her calunnia conviction (as we both hope will happen), I feel that would be the ECHR court's main objection as to how the Italians had violated Amanda's rights.

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.

While the ECHR may not (yet) have set precedent, Amanda's case is probably rather unique since Italy's own Supreme Ct had ruled her illegally obtained wee-hour statements couldn't be used against her in a criminal trial, and then Massei and Mignini together subverted that ruling by using those illegally obtained statements against her in the criminal portion of her trial, which is how she got a 3 year conviction.

If Massei had only awarded Lumumba civil damages (as he did with the Kerchers), then this matter would over with no need to even go to the ECHR.

I assume that is why you likewise feel that Amanda has a "slam-dunk application pending before the ECHR."

ETA2: 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.

Of course, the civil judgments obtained by the Kerchers and the cottage's owner are officially dead and can't be revived. I assume that Lumumba's civil victory against Amanda is likewise now dead too?

However, Amanda's criminal calunnia conviction is apparently sealed and still stands. We could be surprised once the MR is released, but they probably won't touch that conviction?

If Amanda's criminal calunnia conviction against Lumumba still stands, while Lumumba's civil victory against Amanda was vacated (as was the case for the Kercher's and the cottage owner's civil actions), that seemingly would create a paradox?

 

[Numbers]

As for the legality of trying the criminal and civil charges together under Italian law, what stinks was Massei's decision to combine the murder and calunnia cases after the Italian Supreme Ct had already ruled that Amanda's wee-hour statements were inadmissible against Amanda in a criminal trial.

While under the standards of many countries combining disparate criminal & civil actions would be legally improper, under Italian law combining the Kercher family's civil action, and even the cottage owner's action with the murder trial, those other civil actions wouldn't necessarily conflict with justice.

Lumumba's civil action is a different matter. Clearly, Massei had a choice not to combine Lumumba's civil action against Amanda with the state's criminal prosecution against Amanda, and in light of the Italian Supreme Ct's ruling, to be fair Massei had a duty to separate those two actions.

If the ECHR eventually rules in Amanda's favor over her calunnia conviction (as we both hope will happen), I feel that would be the ECHR court's main objection as to how the Italians had violated Amanda's rights.




While the ECHR may not (yet) have set precedent, Amanda's case is probably rather unique since Italy's own Supreme Ct had ruled her illegally obtained wee-hour statements couldn't be used against her in a criminal trial, and then Massei and Mignini together subverted that ruling by using those illegally obtained statements against her in the criminal portion of her trial, which is how she got a 3 year conviction.

If Massei had only awarded Lumumba civil damages (as he did with the Kerchers), then this matter would over with no need to even go to the ECHR.

I assume that is why you likewise feel that Amanda has a "slam-dunk application pending before the ECHR."




Of course, the civil judgments obtained by the Kerchers and the cottage's owner are officially dead and can't be revived. I assume that Lumumba's civil victory against Amanda is likewise now dead too?
However, Amanda's criminal calunnia conviction is apparently sealed and still stands. We could be surprised once the MR is released, but they probably won't touch that conviction?

If Amanda's criminal calunnia conviction against Lumumba still stands, while Lumumba's civil victory against Amanda was vacated (as was the case for the Kercher's and the cottage owner's civil actions), that seemingly would create a paradox?

Lumumba's civil action would not have been affected by the recent acquittal. In Italian law (not looking at the deeper issues of CPP, Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law of the lawfulness or fairness of the conviction), the criminal judgment and the civil action became final with the Chieffi CSC panel decision. Lumumba's civil action result consisted in only a money award for damages, while the criminal judgment was 3 years imprisonment, which was settled against Amanda's time already served. There is no paradox there. The paradox is between the lack of consistency between the calunnia conviction and all the other laws that the Italian courts have ignored or violated.

I believe that Amanda has essentially a slam-dunk application to the ECHR because of ECHR case-law. There are several issues:

1) alleged violation of Convention Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. If ECHR finds such violation, the evidence obtained cannot whatsoever be used for conviction; if they are, such use is a violation of Article 6.1 (right to a fair trial).

2) alleged violation of Article 6.3c (legal counsel must be given from the first interrogation); statements from an interrogation without counsel cannot be used for conviction; if they are, it is a violation of Article 6.1.

3) alleged violation of Article 6.3e (a fair interpreter must be provided free of charge); the interpreter supplied by the police during the interrogation is alleged to have acted as a "mediator" or police psychological pressure rather than as a fair interpreter; if ECHR agrees this occurred, this is a violation of Article 6.1.

4) alleged violation of Article 6.3c (failure to supply legal counsel during police custody); thus, any use of Amanda's two memoriales of Nov. 6/7 as evidence to convict is a violation of Article 6.1, should ECHR agree that this denial of counsel occurred.

5) (ETA 2) IMO, the conviction for calunnia by Hellmann is based on arbitrary reasoning, as shown in the motivation report: a) Hellmann provides a list of reasons why there are problems with the interrogation (no counsel, unfair interpreter, lack of knowledge of the law by Amanda, she was really a suspect, etc.) yet he convicts; b) Hellmann apparently ignores the arguments of Amanda's memory expert which are central to her defense. ECHR case-law states that an arbitrary judgment (that is, the reasoning is arbitrary) is a violation of Article 6.1.

ETA: To my knowledge, there is no dispute that Amanda was denied access to counsel until just before her confirmation of arrest hearing on Nov. 8. There is no dispute that the interpreter acted as a "mediator"; the interpreter testified to that. Her efforts were directed to convincing Amanda that she had suffered from traumatic amnesia, while the police badgered Amanda with a coercive interrogation and hit Amanda (according to Amanda's statements). Rather than investigating Amanda's complaints of police mistreatment, which the Italian authorities are obligated to do under ECHR case-law, the authorities began a second criminal calunnia case against her, charging her with falsely accusing the police in giving her testimony in court. Failure of authorities to launch an independent investigation of a credible claim of mistreatment by police is itself a violation of Article 3.

 

[Ken Dine]

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.

Hmmm? Are you certain that Italy's Supreme Ct had ruled that Amanda's improper and forced statements were illegal, but nevertheless they could still be used against her for criminal callunia, but not used in her criminal trial for murder? That would be some incredible hair-splitting?

Not saying you're wrong, just saying that such an interpretation of that Supreme Ct ruling would be nonsensical. But then again, much of Massei's trial was nonsensical.

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.

True. In fact, Amanda's supposedly false accusation against Lumumba still feeds the internet troll since this was likely the most damning accusation against her, or at least, the one the average person doesn't comprehend, since most people just don't understand why an innocent person would accuse another innocent person.

That's because most people have never endured that type of interrogation, nor do they understand the circumstances under which the interrogation had occurred.

In retrospect, considering how that late-night interrogation was conducted, there was no other possible outcome since the police were highly motivated in getting Amanda to implicate Lumumba, who was the only African man they could tie Amanda to, and the police knew Meredith's killer was African from the perp's hairs found in her bedroom.

 

[Ken Dine]

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.

I agree that her calunnia conviction (whether the civil or criminal portion) makes no sense if Amanda was innocent of Meredith's murder.

Why Hellmann went along with Massei on that is interesting. As I recall, Hellmann even increased the sentence from 1 year to 3 years.

I suspect that Hellmann knew the calunnia conviction was bogus, but Hellmann also didn't want to get his acquittal ruling overturned on appeal, and since Amanda had already served more than 3 years and could be released immediately, so Hellmann threw the prosecution a bone.

 

[Numbers]

Hmmm? Are you certain that Italy's Supreme Ct had ruled that Amanda's improper and forced statements were illegal, but nevertheless they could still be used against her for criminal callunia, but not used in her criminal trial for murder? That would be some incredible hair-splitting?

Not saying you're wrong, just saying that such an interpretation of that Supreme Ct ruling would be nonsensical. But then again, much of Massei's trial was nonsensical.


True. In fact, Amanda's supposedly false accusation against Lumumba still feeds the internet troll since this was likely the most damning accusation against her, or at least, the one the average person doesn't comprehend, since most people just don't understand why an innocent person would accuse another innocent person.

That's because most people have never endured that type of interrogation, nor do they understand the circumstances under which the interrogation had occurred.

In retrospect, considering how that late-night interrogation was conducted, there was no other possible outcome since the police were highly motivated in getting Amanda to implicate Lumumba, who was the only African man they could tie Amanda to, and the police knew Meredith's killer was African from the perp's hairs found in her bedroom.

Italian law in this case was used in very strange ways.

Read the Massei trial transcript where the defense lawyers and the prosecutor and Lumumba's lawyer and the judge (Massei) discuss and try to understand what evidence from Amanda's statements can be introduced. The defense lawyers seemed not have agreed with the judge's opinion.

 

[Numbers]

I agree that her calunnia conviction (whether the civil or criminal portion) makes no sense if Amanda was innocent of Meredith's murder.

Why Hellmann went along with Massei on that is interesting. As I recall, Hellmann even increased the sentence from 1 year to 3 years.

I suspect that Hellmann knew the calunnia conviction was bogus, but Hellmann also didn't want to get his acquittal ruling overturned on appeal, and since Amanda had already served more than 3 years and could be released immediately, so Hellmann threw the prosecution a bone.

I believe this may be true. I also believe that Hellmann may have issued the judgment in the hopes that at least the CSC would confirm it, even if they annulled the acquittal. Generally, for trials, only final judgments, after all the appeals are exhausted, can be heard by the ECHR according to the Convention. Perhaps Hellmann hoped that the ECHR would straighten out this miscarriage, since the Italian judicial system was (perhaps as usual) not functioning properly.

 

[Kauffer]

Hmmm? Are you certain that Italy's Supreme Ct had ruled that Amanda's improper and forced statements were illegal, but nevertheless they could still be used against her for criminal callunia, but not used in her criminal trial for murder? That would be some incredible hair-splitting?

Not saying you're wrong, just saying that such an interpretation of that Supreme Ct ruling would be nonsensical. But then again, much of Massei's trial was nonsensical.



True. In fact, Amanda's supposedly false accusation against Lumumba still feeds the internet troll since this was likely the most damning accusation against her, or at least, the one the average person doesn't comprehend, since most people just don't understand why an innocent person would accuse another innocent person.

That's because most people have never endured that type of interrogation, nor do they understand the circumstances under which the interrogation had occurred.

In retrospect, considering how that late-night interrogation was conducted, there was no other possible outcome since the police were highly motivated in getting Amanda to implicate Lumumba, who was the only African man they could tie Amanda to, and the police knew Meredith's killer was African from the perp's hairs found in her bedroom.

Here is the Gemelli court ruling on the matter of the statements:

"With reference to the second appeal ground by the defence, the Court observes that circumstantial statements are characterized by a different usability regime under a subjective aspect. In the case in which these originate from a person against whom there already is sustained circumstantial evidence as regards the same crime, that is to a crime connected with or tied to the one attributed to a third party, the same cannot be used not only against themselves, but neither in relation to co-accused in the same crime (or of those accused of connected or related crimes).

The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness.
In fact, in the first case, due to the close connection and interdependence between the fact itself and the other one, there arises the necessity to also safeguard the declarant’s right to silence; in the second case, the declarant’s extraneity and indifference with respect to the facts in cause renders them immune to possible sanctions carried out by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).

On a par with these principles, the statements made by AMK at 1:45 on 6 November 2007, – at the end of which the interview was suspended and the woman was placed at the disposition of the relevant judicial Authority, revealing circumstantial evidence against herself –, are usable only contra alios, while the “spontaneous statements” from 5:45 are not usable, neither against the suspect nor against other subjects accused of participation in the same crime, inasmuch as they were made without due process safeguards by a person who had formally assumed the status of suspect.

On the contrary, the account written in English by Ms K and translated into Italian is fully usable, under Article 237 Criminal Procedure Code, since it is a document originating from the suspect, who had been its spontaneous material author for a defence purpose. The disposition under examination allows attribution of probative relevance to the document not only as regards it and its representative contents, but also in the strength of its particular ties, which tie it to the suspect (or accused), thereby illuminating the review of admissibility which the judge had held to be in operation."

 

[Numbers]

Here is the Gemelli court ruling on the matter of the statements:

"With reference to the second appeal ground by the defence, the Court observes that circumstantial statements are characterized by a different usability regime under a subjective aspect. In the case in which these originate from a person against whom there already is sustained circumstantial evidence as regards the same crime, that is to a crime connected with or tied to the one attributed to a third party, the same cannot be used not only against themselves, but neither in relation to co-accused in the same crime (or of those accused of connected or related crimes).

The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness.
In fact, in the first case, due to the close connection and interdependence between the fact itself and the other one, there arises the necessity to also safeguard the declarant’s right to silence; in the second case, the declarant’s extraneity and indifference with respect to the facts in cause renders them immune to possible sanctions carried out by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).

On a par with these principles, the statements made by AMK at 1:45 on 6 November 2007, – at the end of which the interview was suspended and the woman was placed at the disposition of the relevant judicial Authority, revealing circumstantial evidence against herself –, are usable only contra alios, while the “spontaneous statements” from 5:45 are not usable, neither against the suspect nor against other subjects accused of participation in the same crime, inasmuch as they were made without due process safeguards by a person who had formally assumed the status of suspect.

On the contrary, the account written in English by Ms K and translated into Italian is fully usable, under Article 237 Criminal Procedure Code, since it is a document originating from the suspect, who had been its spontaneous material author for a defence purpose. The disposition under examination allows attribution of probative relevance to the document not only as regards it and its representative contents, but also in the strength of its particular ties, which tie it to the suspect (or accused), thereby illuminating the review of admissibility which the judge had held to be in operation."

Kauffer,

Thanks for finding and reporting the CSC Gemelli decision. I myself did not understand that the basis of the calunnia case against Amanda were her own Memoriales, in which she attempted to cast doubt on the reliability of her interrogation statements and definitely in the second one fully renounced them.

So another issue for the ECHR is whether the Massei, the Hellmann, and the Chieffi CSC panel courts's understanding of the language of the Memoriales were consistent with a conviction. Furthermore, Amanda did not have legal counsel when she produced those Memoriales, so by Dayanan v Turkey, they should be unusable as evidence according to ECHR case-law.

 

[Ken Dine]

Lumumba's civil action would not have been affected by the recent acquittal. In Italian law (not looking at the deeper issues of CPP, Italian Constitution, and ECHR case-law of the lawfulness or fairness of the conviction), the criminal judgment and the civil action became final with the Chieffi CSC panel decision. Lumumba's civil action result consisted in only a money award for damages, while the criminal judgment was 3 years imprisonment, which was settled against Amanda's time already served. There is no paradox there. The paradox is between the lack of consistency between the calunnia conviction and all the other laws that the Italian courts have ignored or violated.

The above makes sense.

I also agree with the rest of your posting:

I believe that Amanda has essentially a slam-dunk application to the ECHR because of ECHR case-law. There are several issues:

1) alleged violation of Convention Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. If ECHR finds such violation, the evidence obtained cannot whatsoever be used for conviction; if they are, such use is a violation of Article 6.1 (right to a fair trial).

2) alleged violation of Article 6.3c (legal counsel must be given from the first interrogation); statements from an interrogation without counsel cannot be used for conviction; if they are, it is a violation of Article 6.1.

3) alleged violation of Article 6.3e (a fair interpreter must be provided free of charge); the interpreter supplied by the police during the interrogation is alleged to have acted as a "mediator" or police psychological pressure rather than as a fair interpreter; if ECHR agrees this occurred, this is a violation of Article 6.1.

4) alleged violation of Article 6.3c (failure to supply legal counsel during police custody); thus, any use of Amanda's two memoriales of Nov. 6/7 as evidence to convict is a violation of Article 6.1, should ECHR agree that this denial of counsel occurred.

5) (ETA 2) IMO, the conviction for calunnia by Hellmann is based on arbitrary reasoning, as shown in the motivation report: a) Hellmann provides a list of reasons why there are problems with the interrogation (no counsel, unfair interpreter, lack of knowledge of the law by Amanda, she was really a suspect, etc.) yet he convicts; b) Hellmann apparently ignores the arguments of Amanda's memory expert which are central to her defense. ECHR case-law states that an arbitrary judgment (that is, the reasoning is arbitrary) is a violation of Article 6.1.

ETA: To my knowledge, there is no dispute that Amanda was denied access to counsel until just before her confirmation of arrest hearing on Nov. 8. There is no dispute that the interpreter acted as a "mediator"; the interpreter testified to that. Her efforts were directed to convincing Amanda that she had suffered from traumatic amnesia, while the police badgered Amanda with a coercive interrogation and hit Amanda (according to Amanda's statements). Rather than investigating Amanda's complaints of police mistreatment, which the Italian authorities are obligated to do under ECHR case-law, the authorities began a second criminal calunnia case against her, charging her with falsely accusing the police in giving her testimony in court. Failure of authorities to launch an independent investigation of a credible claim of mistreatment by police is itself a violation of Article 3.

 

[Grinder]

Kauffer,

Thanks for finding and reporting the CSC Gemelli decision. I myself did not understand that the basis of the calunnia case against Amanda were her own Memoriales, in which she attempted to cast doubt on the reliability of her interrogation statements and definitely in the second one fully renounced them.

So another issue for the ECHR is whether the Massei, the Hellmann, and the Chieffi CSC panel courts's understanding of the language of the Memoriales were consistent with a conviction. Furthermore, Amanda did not have legal counsel when she produced those Memoriales, so by Dayanan v Turkey, they should be unusable as evidence according to ECHR case-law.

I don't think you read that correctly - the 1:45 could be used for the calunnia but the 5:45 couldn't.

The spontaneous notes from later were usable against Amanda in the murder trial.

I doubt very much that Hellmann found her guilty of calunnia so that it could easily and quickly (relatively) be adjudicated by the ECHR. If there was a motive I would suspect it was to cover Italy for the time served.

 

[Numbers]

I don't think you read that correctly - the 1:45 could be used for the calunnia but the 5:45 couldn't.

The spontaneous notes from later were usable against Amanda in the murder trial.

I doubt very much that Hellmann found her guilty of calunnia so that it could easily and quickly (relatively) be adjudicated by the ECHR. If there was a motive I would suspect it was to cover Italy for the time served.

I think you are right about the 1:45 statement being useable "contra alios" = "against others". It can't be used against Amanda, however, at least for the murder/rape. There is a certain double-talk by the CSC Gemelli decision in that the 1:45 can be used against others, but since the statement was false (and allegedly the result of a coercive interrogation without a lawyer) it could be used against Amanda for a charge of calunnia.

It's important to understand that none of these statements are useable against Amanda in terms of ECHR case-law, and debatable indeed whether CSC is interpreting CPP Articles 63, and 64, too loosely here in terms of non-ECHR law to unfairly benefit the prosecution.

Hellmann's motivations for the conviction are unknown to me; making a case for the ECHR is one possibility. Another possibility is that by convicting her of calunnia, he was protecting the police from criminal charges under CP Art. 377-bis. That criminal law makes it illegal - punishable by 2 to 6 years in prison - to induce someone to make a false statement to a judicial authority (including the police, a prosecutor, or a judge) by threat or violence. And Hellmann extending Amanda's sentence for the calunnia to three years lessens the amount she can immediately collect for false imprisonment under CPP Art. 344, Compensation for unfair detention, which allows compensation for persons kept in prison on remand when they are finally acquitted.

 

[Grinder]

I think you are right about the 1:45 statement being useable "contra alios" = "against others". It can't be used against Amanda, however, at least for the murder/rape. There is a certain double-talk by the CSC Gemelli decision in that the 1:45 can be used against others, but since the statement was false (and allegedly the result of a coercive interrogation without a lawyer) it could be used against Amanda for a charge of calunnia.

Since you don't believe there ever was enough cause to arrest them, you may be called by the Italians as a witness. Until officially declared as a suspect, not just being suspicious, the protections don't kick and anything said can't be used against the person except for calunnia and defamation.

The notes were written without the police present so were allowed since she had been told she was entitled to a lawyer. I agree that those should also have been disallowed and never seen the light of day.

 

[Numbers]

Since you don't believe there ever was enough cause to arrest them, you may be called by the Italians as a witness. Until officially declared as a suspect, not just being suspicious, the protections don't kick and anything said can't be used against the person except for calunnia and defamation.

The notes were written without the police present so were allowed since she had been told she was entitled to a lawyer. I agree that those should also have been disallowed and never seen the light of day.

I have seen nothing in the CPP that explains how one is "officially declared as a suspect". There is a CPP Article 61 that states a suspect has the same rights as an accused person. That would mean the right to a lawyer. The lawyer must be provided by police or prosecutor from a pool of registered lawyers (not intended as a joke) if the accused or suspect does not have one; CPP Article 96 and 97. The pool is organized by the Bar Association.

ETA: Is there documentation - a citation - showing that Amanda was told that she was entitled to a lawyer? Something that she had signed? I did see on some Mignini-originated forms that there was a lawyer named for her, but did she meet the lawyer when in custody?

There's a relevant ECHR case from Turkey. A defendant in custody asked to see a lawyer. A lawyer was brought into the room within sight of the defendant, but they were not allowed to speak. The ECHR judged this a violation of Convention Article 6.3c and thus Article 6.1. (This is not intended as a joke.)

 

[Bill Williams]

This post needs to be brought forward. Particularly while waiting for the Marasca motivations report, here's this little gem from Continuation 14 that explains, succinctly, that the process itself can create a reality, even when that reality is not.......

...... grounded in evidence-based inquiry.

Time for me too to thank the members who posted so much great information in these threads over the years. I rarely posted myself, and have only sporadically followed the thread (at least, since the more contentious earlier days when there was a lot more moderator involvement...) but over time, the truth became clear.

Here's how I'd sum up the case, for anyone who doesn't want to delve into those details but is open-minded about the overall picture.

There was and is no plausible accurate primary evidence against Knox. No crime scene evidence, no physical evidence on her person, no primary documentary evidence, no apparent motive, and no credible witnesses.

There was a lot of claimed evidence, but it wasn't evidence about the crime. It was all abstract, generated by the process itself. Claims about how she behaved while in custody. The scenarios that prosecutors and the press invented. Things people had said and written in other people's trials. The absence of exculpatory evidence that had vanished while under the control of the police. Things supposedly already "established" by earlier stages of the process.

The problem is, to sort out the two categories of claimed evidence, and see that overall pattern, one has to delve into the details. News articles almost invariably mix the two when describing "the evidence" and so could leave the impression that Knox was acquitted despite there still being some evidential "strikes" against her.

There are, in actual fact, none.​

"It was all abstract, generated by the process itself."

That is an interesting, and frighteningly accurate, description of what went on. It is the reason why all of us should care about wrongful convictions - in the face of State machinery (which mostly works well), someone on the receiving end of this "generated by the process" stuff is helpless.

IMO - the way the guilt-movers-and-shakers put this is by constantly referring to, "all the other evidence." "All the other evidence" was all this abstract stuff, generated by the process itself. My own entry point to this was to try and chase this, "all the other evidence", as it receded into the horizon.....

...... all the way over the edge of the horizon where there were warning signs: "Thar be dragons."

One of the first websites I turned to to make sense of this was Peter Quennell's, "True Justice for Meredith Kercher," when I knew absolutely nothing. I'd initially thought Knox (and knew nothing of Sollecito) was guilty because, "that's what the DNA said. DNA is DNA is DNA."

I became involved in the late summer of August 2011 when newspapers were reporting that the DNA evidence was falling apart. WTF!?, I thought, how can DNA "evidence", fall apart?

Turning to TJMK back then as a source, Peter Quennell had front-page opinions, one of which said: "regardless of the DNA, there's all the other evidence."

One of the reasons I went after Machiavelli on the psychopathology thing, was that there was a poster to PQ's site named Ergon, who Quennell, apparently, turned to to establish that there were serious psychoanalytical misgivings in this case about the health of Amanda Knox. I assumed, never having checked the record, that this had been established either at the earlier trial (in 2009) and was just glossed over by the Hellmann court (because you still have to have evidence to convict psychologically damaged people!).

IIRC - during my 7-post tenure at TJMK before I was banned, I asked Ergon (I think it was me) his credentials. He openly and without embarrassment said that he made evaluations based on astrology and "observational psychology."

Set aside astrology for a second...... "observational psychology"!? What is that?

It's a fancy word for "watching".

This last dust-up with Machiavelli is simply more of the same. In essence, Machiavelli reserved the right to keep "psychopathology" in the conversation because Mignini, in 2009, used it as part of his closing at trial. Literally no one since used it, not even Judge Massei even in convicting the pair in 2009. There had been, apparently, no evidence entered into trial, other than Mignini's somewhat exaggerated say-so. Not one word in 400+ pages of subsequent motivation report..... yet Machiavelli reserved the right to keep this as part of, "all the other evidence."

Or, to steal your phrase, keep it only because it was generated by some small part of the "process" (Mignini's mind), regardless that there was not one sentence from prison or the trial from a competent psychological professional suggesting such. Nothing. Nada.

Ok. All this drew to a close yesterday, and some are hanging on. As LondonJohn says, even the hardcore guilters are now talking about how corrupt the Italian system is to allow an acquittal (total innocence, really) at this late point.

Surely on a skeptics site like this one, the first thing one should think is: should we be trusting a system which some say is hopelessly corrupt with settling murder cases?

For Pete's sake, think of the Kerchers. They've been fed institutional lies for almost eight years about two people irrelevant to the crime. They've been told, "yes we have, no we haven't, yes we have, no we haven't" solved the brutal murder of their loved-one for almost eight years. Eight years.

Ok, seven years 5 months. Ever since Mignini asked John Kercher Snr. into his office, gave heartfelt condolences and then proceeded to bungle the investigation because Mignini's mind was filled with sex-games gone wrong, and because Mignini was trying to rescue his own career after the drubbing he took over the Narducci affair.

Some say, "I will not serve a life sentence just to further your career." I won't dare speak for them, but I imagine the Kercher's are coming around to some variation of that phrase for what they've endured at the hands of the keystone cops of Perugia, et al.​

 

[Grinder]

This post needs to be brought forward. Particularly while waiting for the Marasca motivations report, here's this little gem from Continuation 14 that explains, succinctly, that the process itself can create a reality, even when that reality is not.......

...... grounded in evidence-based inquiry.

No it didn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

No it didn't.

It did for someone! Not for you, obviously. If I readmy Grinders right, you'd have never sent them to trial in 2009.

Which leads me to ask - if it had been up to you, when would you have set them free, if arrested them at all?

 

[zotz]

"Ok, seven years 5 months. Ever since Mignini asked John Kercher Snr. into his office, gave heartfelt condolences and then proceeded to bungle the investigation because Mignini's mind was filled with sex-games gone wrong, and because Mignini was trying to rescue his own career after the drubbing he took over the Narducci affair."

The phrase "sex game gone wrong" was repeated by hundreds of newspapers across the globe and is still used to summarize the prosecution position. It is still amazing that this idea was invented with no evidence whatsoever based on pure speculation. Later the evidence was literally molded and shaped to fit the theory and major pieces of evidence had to be suppressed or destroyed to make the theory fit the facts (sorry, facts fit the theory). I forgot, is it three or four computer hard drives that were destroyed? I think these people honestly believed that they were just doing their job. But when they say openly, on camera, that evidence matters less that their professional intuition it is time to question the entire system that supports these people.

Apparently, at least some of the Kerchers and a large portion of the public (certainly in Europe) still believe that Meredith died at the hands of Knox and Sollecito in a "sex game gone wrong". There have been no TV documentaries to counter Is Amanda Knox Guilty? shown in the UK last year. The BBC has a responsibility to correct this lapse of judgement.