Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

So, not the wilting violet she paints herself to the ECHR.

Well, there's the matter of the supreme court decision that says "innocent". That's all the ECtHR is really going to care about.

 

[Diocletus]

The police immediately acted and terminated the conversation.

If by "acted" you mean typed up an incriminating statement and had her sign it without providing a lawyer, then yes, the police did act.

 

[Vixen]

She wrote "you hit me" on a piece of paper the next morning and gave it to the police. Seems adequate to me.

Very astute. She already has a defense ready as retaliation.

'Tee-eachherrr!! Johnnny hi-iiit me!!!'

It's the thinking of a four-year old infant.

If they did hit her, she should have filed a complaint to the right person.

 

[Vixen]

If by "acted" you mean typed up an incriminating statement and had her sign it without providing a lawyer, then yes, the police did act.

If you walk into a police station and make a confession or allegation, there is no obligation to provide legal help.

 

[js202]

Kudos

Of note to Vixen, I have you on my ignore list.

Would that this would prove more infectious.

 

[Bill Williams]

To those of you in the stalls, try to imagine what would happen if you walked into your local police station to complain you saw a Cabriolet drive crash into an Audi a few days ago.

Will they patiently listen as you spell out your claims, or are they supposed to ignore you and offer you tea and biscuits and a lawyer paid for by taxpayers?

Thank you. Once you understand police obligations, you may move up to the balcony.

By Mignini's own admission to Drew Griffin/CNN in 2010, yes a lawyer needs to be provided at taxpayers expense. Then, incredibly, Mignini continues and the suspect in front of him, who he is talking to, does not have a lawyer.

 

[Vixen]

Well, there's the matter of the supreme court decision that says "innocent". That's all the ECtHR is really going to care about.

Wrong. The MR does not rule 'innocent' it rules 'insufficient evidence' (='not proven').

In addition, the ECHR will want to read the legal points of the MR. You will recall the MR branded Amanda as a serial liar.

It also found she was not coerced, but covered for Rudy.

The ECHR will soon realise they are dealing with a hardened manipulator and unreliable witness.

 

[Kauffer]

Your roommate has been murdered. Your boyfriend is asked to go to the questura and you tag along with him. You are told to go home. You say, no, I want to wait for boyffy.

Whilst waiting, you offer to help the police draw up a list of who frequented the house.

How does this call for the right to a lawyer.

Police are suspicious. They are paid to be suspicious. They are trained to be suspicious. You know they are suspicious.

What on earth would possess you to imagine you can make a confession and allegation and the police will not act?

The police immediately acted and terminated the conversation.

They are not obliged to tell you why.

It didn't happen this way. Knox was called into the interrogation room. She didn't offer anything. The police instigated the questioning. Why she was at the questura is irrelevant.

I've just been revising this stuff and it looks like Matteni, in denying Knox's petition for house arrest noted that the police had intended to arrest her before her mother arrived in Perugia. The judge reasoned that Knox was a flight risk.

As Diocletus has noted, the claims of spontaneity of utterance were rejected.

 

[Vixen]

By Mignini's own admission to Drew Griffin/CNN in 2010, yes a lawyer needs to be provided at taxpayers expense. Then, incredibly, Mignini continues and the suspect in front of him, who he is talking to, does not have a lawyer.

Mignini had identical sessions with Sophie Purton and Herkuman (sp?) Kokomani, and no doubt numerous other witnesses.

If a lawyer was mandatory, then I am sure all of these would have complained through the correct channels of the abrogation of their rights.

Safe to say, you just invented this supposed 'law' in retrospect.

 

[Kauffer]

In this regard, I find this interesting:



This is focusing on the charges of "false accusation", which were not introduced into the case until much later (we need to nail down just when).

I find this interesting, because Machiavelli is always saying that she was required to file a complaint of mistreatment within some period (90 days?) after the mistreatment. But, at that point, it looks like she had not even been charged with callunnia, so she would have had no reason to do so. When the callunia charges were finally filed, Knox took the only course of action available to her: she raised the mistreatment in defense of the claims. Of course, by this time, nobody within the prosecution was going to investigate the circumstances of the interrogation because that could be disruptive to the defense, so the police were able contested only by Knox to offer whatever BS they wanted (probably a violation of equality of arms).

Given what I think is the lateness of the callunnia charges, Knox took every action available to her--raising the defense of mistreatment, filing appeals, and BTW, ultimately prevailing on her argument that prosecution conduct placed her in a position of great psychological pressure, and prevailing (apparently on grounds of truth) on the claim of slander that the prosecution later tried to raise against her for alleging mistreatment.

The ECtHR seems well-aware of all of this.

It looks like all the charges for all three defendants flow from the Notice concluding the preliminary investigations delivered by Mignini in late June 2008. The callunia charge did not come later than the murder charge. But we know that Knox was accused of the murder in November. I think the Art 6 claim therefore is in relation to this, which could have equally applied to the murder charge. They took nearly 8 months to reach a charging decision and reserve themselves 12 months. So, this claim is essentially about the incompatibility of Italian law with the convention, perhaps.

On the complaint in relation to Art 3, this requirement to register a querala - I haven't seen a time limit in the Italian CP. Maybe there is one. But surely, the ECHR must conclude that since the authorities were aware of Knox's allegations, then the requirement for a formal querala must be superfluous.

 

[Kauffer]

Mignini had identical sessions with Sophie Purton and Herkuman (sp?) Kokomani, and no doubt numerous other witnesses.

If a lawyer was mandatory, then I am sure all of these would have complained through the correct channels of the abrogation of their rights.

Safe to say, you just invented this supposed 'law' in retrospect.

We know Knox was suspected by the authorities from Ficarra's testimony, immediately, on the day the body was found. And it looks like Matteini has confirmed that there was a plan in play to arrest Knox on the very evening she accompanied Raffaelle to the questura. They were also bugging her phone. The guy who set up the bugging said Knox was identified to him as a suspect.

 

[acbytesla]

It's so bizarre watching Vixen argue things that Italy will undoubtedly stipulate to. About the only item they are likely to dispute is Amanda being slapped. And given this is Strasbourg and not Rome the outcome is very predictable. Even the Italian Supreme Court could see this ruling coming.

 

[acbytesla]

Mignini had identical sessions with Sophie Purton and Herkuman (sp?) Kokomani, and no doubt numerous other witnesses.

If a lawyer was mandatory, then I am sure all of these would have complained through the correct channels of the abrogation of their rights.

Safe to say, you just invented this supposed 'law' in retrospect.

Yeah, they called Sofie in during the middle of the night on November 4th and had a dozen investigators screaming at her that she's a liar. I forgot all about that.

 

[Vixen]

We know Knox was suspected by the authorities from Ficarra's testimony, immediately, on the day the body was found. And it looks like Matteini has confirmed that there was a plan in play to arrest Knox on the very evening she accompanied Raffaelle to the questura. They were also bugging her phone. The guy who set up the bugging said Knox was identified to him as a suspect.

Several people had their phones tapped/wired. (For example, Purton, Khiri, Kokomani.)

Police have to be able to carry out investigations without alerting potential perpetrators. In the UK the police can get a magistrates warrant to intercept your calls (or at least, they used to).

It seems in Italy, it is very common to wire tap people. It doesn't mean any obligation to warn you or make you a 'formal suspect'.

Are you claiming that no-one in the Kercher case should have been covertly surveilled, and if so, how do you propose police go about solving serious crime?

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, they called Sofie in during the middle of the night on November 4th and had a dozen investigators screaming at her that she's a liar. I forgot all about that.

Filomena and Sophie were both given a hard time by the police. They understood. At no time did they lie or accuse an innocent person, or even moan.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, they called Sofie in during the middle of the night on November 4th and had a dozen investigators screaming at her that she's a liar. I forgot all about that.

Raff was called in at 22:30 and he deigned to attend, 'after I have finished my dinner'.

We only have Amanda's word - a seasoned liar, as decreed by the Supreme Court - they called her a 'stupid liar'.

But it was true if they did. She was stupid not to tell the truth and a liar.

 

[Numbers]

It looks like all the charges for all three defendants flow from the Notice concluding the preliminary investigations delivered by Mignini in late June 2008. The callunia charge did not come later than the murder charge. But we know that Knox was accused of the murder in November. I think the Art 6 claim therefore is in relation to this, which could have equally applied to the murder charge. They took nearly 8 months to reach a charging decision and reserve themselves 12 months. So, this claim is essentially about the incompatibility of Italian law with the convention, perhaps.

On the complaint in relation to Art 3, this requirement to register a querala - I haven't seen a time limit in the Italian CP. Maybe there is one. But surely, the ECHR must conclude that since the authorities were aware of Knox's allegations, then the requirement for a formal querala must be superfluous.

The first-instance acquittal for calunnia against the police, the Boninsigna MR, states that her defense rights were violated during the interrogation and that this was in fact the opinion of the Gemelli CSC panel.

 

[acbytesla]

Filomena and Sophie were both given a hard time by the police. They understood. At no time did they lie or accuse an innocent person, or even moan.

No they werent. Vixen's MO, if the facts don't fit your narrative make it all up. Sort of like the Donald Trump school for life.

 

[acbytesla]

Raff was called in at 22:30 and he deigned to attend, 'after I have finished my dinner'.

We only have Amanda's word - a seasoned liar, as decreed by the Supreme Court - they called her a 'stupid liar'.

But it was true if they did. She was stupid not to tell the truth and a liar.

Wait and see Vixen. Read the last motivation the judge suggested that the police and the PM was lying, not Amanda.

 

[Diocletus]

On the complaint in relation to Art 3, this requirement to register a querala - I haven't seen a time limit in the Italian CP. Maybe there is one. But surely, the ECHR must conclude that since the authorities were aware of Knox's allegations, then the requirement for a formal querala must be superfluous.

The whole querala thing is really a waiver argument. The argument is that if you don't file a querala (i.e., initiate a collateral proceeding against the police), then you can't use mistreatment as a grounds of defense against charges that the police subsequently bring against you arising from the transaction. In effect, you have waived your right to raise mistreatment.

I think it's obvious that this argument is not correct, else the prosecution would have just argued that no querala was filed, and the courts would have decided that Knox was precluded from raising mistreatment. Instead, we heard arguments from the police about cammomile tea, and the courts decided that Knox was mistreated, although according to them this mistreatment was not sufficient to excuse the accusation (i.e., did not rise to the level of coercion).