Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

"A suspect" as deemed by who? The data seems to indicate that there was no consensus in the PLE about this, although, yes, some did suspect all that.

If the prosecutor and the police commanders, such as Giobbi, believed her a suspect, that would be sufficient.

A police department does not operate under consensus.

Not every officer has command responsibility.

The ones who interrogated Knox, and Sollecito, did carry out certain orders. Otherwise, why was Sollecito questioned about Knox's being at his apartment at the relevant time, in the manner he has described?

 

[Numbers]

It's pretty clear that Bonsegna thinks they targeted Knox from the earliest strand of investigative activity. Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter. The moment Profazio calls Mignini at 11:30 pm to report that Raffaelle has dumped Amanda's alibi is early enough. After all, who rousts the prosecutor from his bed to talk about a witness interrogation and who talks about witnesses' alibis? Donnino is also called for the same reason. It's all before Knox says anything they use against her.
The nuts at .nut simply cannot get the truth into their heads about 1:45. They think because Gemelli said it could be used for callunia, that's ok then - that Knox only had procedural rights after 1:45. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that her rights attached BEFORE she signed the statement (if she had no rights at this time, then 1:45 could be used for the murder) and Gemelli, recognising one part of the truth of this matter, somehow (and it is a mystery to me how exactly) reasoned that some use could be made of it - for criminal conviction purposes in the callunia case. It's crazy reasoning defying the whole notion of rights.

Bonsegna pushes the time back further to before Knox said anything of interest at all and goes to town on constitutional rights, manipulation, Donnino and the whole police narrative. He guts implicitly, the callunia verdicts of Massei and Hellmann, citing Hellmann's own reasoning, which Diocletus was the first to identify as a core argument in the case against Italy and hands Ficcara, napoleoni, Donnino and the rest, their arses (asses). But, notice, if you will, the gentle, nuanced handling of Mignini's role in the report. Bonsegna has acted bravely and intelligently, but we must never forget that all these judges and prosecutors in Italy are members of the same club. The tide has turned somewhat since Hellmann, in acquitting for murder was blackballed by the club, but Bonsegna will have known he must show some restraint as far as Mignini is concerned.

Those who have trouble understanding the topic of when Knox was a suspect should read this carefully.

If the police were reporting to the prosecutor that they had succeeded in breaking Sollecito at 11:30, then Knox became a suspect at that time, well before her coerced false statement at 1:45.

 

[Diocletus]

This makes it quite clear:

Raffo Ivano, assistant chief in service at the Central Operations Service of the police, in Rome, referred to having participated in taking summary witness information from Knox during the night of 06-Nov-2007, at 01:45. He said the young woman was reassured, while the act was being drawn up, also with physical contact (a circumstance that was previously excluded by the witness Ficarra) and that he himself, in particular, held her hand; such a gesture, which is not mentioned in the statement, was erroneously considered by the witness as commendable and of human significance, but was in reality totally anomalous and inappropriate, in itself, and a tangible sign of these ambiguous procedures that led to the sanction of inadmissibility of the same statements, due to defects pointed out by Cassation (taking statements from a person who was in reality a suspect).

She was already a suspect while the 1:45 statement was being drawn up.

 

[acbytesla]

This makes it quite clear:



She was already a suspect while the 1:45 statement was being drawn up.

Exactly. Why do the nutters think that the ECHR is going to rule any differently than Bonsegna? Wishful thinking maybe?

 

[Bill Williams]

Those who have trouble understanding the topic of when Knox was a suspect should read this carefully.

If the police were reporting to the prosecutor that they had succeeded in breaking Sollecito at 11:30, then Knox became a suspect at that time, well before her coerced false statement at 1:45.

Bonsegna is writing about when Knox was de facto a suspect if the law had been applied properly at the time.

It is reasonable to conclude, however, that real-time there had been a breakdown of command - not to mention the ambiguity between a lead investigator (Napoleoni) and the role of the PM.

Be careful not to read back into the situation what should have happened (Bonsenga) as opposed to those on the scene at the time who in their rush to judgment simply blew it on many levels.

Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.

 

[Kauffer]

Bonsegna is writing about when Knox was de facto a suspect if the law had been applied properly at the time.

It is reasonable to conclude, however, that real-time there had been a breakdown of command - not to mention the ambiguity between a lead investigator (Napoleoni) and the role of the PM.

Be careful not to read back into the situation what should have happened (Bonsenga) as opposed to those on the scene at the time who in their rush to judgment simply blew it on many levels.

Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.

The breakdown was that the prosecutor, who was in command, at the latest when told by Profazio that Knox had no alibi, "suggesting the necessity to speak to the girl" should have immediately made arrangements to appraise Knox of her rights and provide access to a lawyer. Also at that point, no further questioning should have taken place.

So the question is why Mignini didn't do that? And the answer to that question explains why this case is still going on today.

 

[Bill Williams]

The breakdown was that the prosecutor, who was in command, at the latest when told by Profazio that Knox had no alibi, "suggesting the necessity to speak to the girl" should have immediately made arrangements to appraise Knox of her rights and provide access to a lawyer. Also at that point, no further questioning should have taken place.

So the question is why Mignini didn't do that? And the answer to that question explains why this case is still going on today.

I am perfectly willing to accept that at least by 2:00 am Knox and Sollecito were de jure suspects. Why? Because that's what Mignini himself tells Drew Griffin in 2010.

The question at hand is when did they become de facto suspects - either of them? Is this latter issue not what Bonsenga is addressing?

 

[Diocletus]

The breakdown was that the prosecutor, who was in command, at the latest when told by Profazio that Knox had no alibi, "suggesting the necessity to speak to the girl" should have immediately made arrangements to appraise Knox of her rights and provide access to a lawyer. Also at that point, no further questioning should have taken place.

So the question is why Mignini didn't do that?

Answer: Because Mignini believed that she was guilty before Profazio called (i.e., she was a suspect before questioning even started), and thought that he would be rewarded with useful information by violating her rights.

 

[Numbers]

Bonsegna is writing about when Knox was de facto a suspect if the law had been applied properly at the time.

It is reasonable to conclude, however, that real-time there had been a breakdown of command - not to mention the ambiguity between a lead investigator (Napoleoni) and the role of the PM. Be careful not to read back into the situation what should have happened (Bonsenga) as opposed to those on the scene at the time who in their rush to judgment simply blew it on many levels.

Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.

No. If the police were reporting to the prosecutor that they had succeeded in breaking Sollecito at 11:30, then Knox became a suspect at that time, well before her coerced false statement at 1:45.If the police were reporting to the prosecutor that they had succeeded in breaking Sollecito at 11:30, then Knox became a suspect at that time, well before her coerced false statement at 1:45. See "NYPD Blue" (TV show) interrogations, based on input from a NYPD detective (retired).

 

[acbytesla]

Bonsegna is writing about when Knox was de facto a suspect if the law had been applied properly at the time.

It is reasonable to conclude, however, that real-time there had been a breakdown of command - not to mention the ambiguity between a lead investigator (Napoleoni) and the role of the PM.

Be careful not to read back into the situation what should have happened (Bonsenga) as opposed to those on the scene at the time who in their rush to judgment simply blew it on many levels.
Then again, the whole need for the second, 5:45 am statement is tacit recognition at the time that something about the 1:45 am statement needed fixing.

Really Bill? And you don't think the ECHR will absolutely look back at what should have happened? Isn't that their job?
The rules and procedures are quite clear. The police either didn't know the rules, (which isn't actually relevant) or they knew the rules and broke them thinking that this was for the greater good. Either way, I can't see Italy proving to the ECHR that this wasn't a blatant violation of Knox's rights.

Bonsegna is giving the ECHR all it needs to rule against Italy.

 

[Numbers]

I am perfectly willing to accept that at least by 2:00 am Knox and Sollecito were de jure suspects. Why? Because that's what Mignini himself tells Drew Griffin in 2010.

The question at hand is when did they become de facto suspects - either of them? Is this latter issue not what Bonsenga is addressing?

Italian law (CPP Art. 63) and ECHR case-law recognize that defense rights begin when one becomes a de facto suspect.

Certain Italian prosecutors (Mignini) and Italian courts (Massei, etc) did not recognize or follow Italian law or ECHR case-law.

 

[Numbers]

Really Bill? And you don't think the ECHR will absolutely look back at what should have happened? Isn't that their job?
The rules and procedures are quite clear. The police either didn't know the rules, (which isn't actually relevant) or they knew the rules and broke them thinking that this was for the greater good. Either way, I can't see Italy proving to the ECHR that this wasn't a blatant violation of Knox's rights.

Bonsegna is giving the ECHR all it needs to rule against Italy.

Right. The ECHR rules on actions of the authorities, not their intent (except when it is clear their intent was contrary to human rights, e.g., someone arrested on false charges because he was in the political opposition) or their psychology. That is why I emphasize looking for objective elements of evidence, such as a phone call from the police to the prosecutor at 11:30, or the seizing of Amanda's phone before she made the 1:45 statement.

 

[Numbers]

Answer: Because Mignini believed that she was guilty before Profazio called (i.e., she was a suspect before questioning even started), and thought that he would be rewarded with useful information by violating her rights.

Better, Mignini wished to establish that she was guilty.

 

[Kauffer]

I am perfectly willing to accept that at least by 2:00 am Knox and Sollecito were de jure suspects. Why? Because that's what Mignini himself tells Drew Griffin in 2010.

The question at hand is when did they become de facto suspects - either of them? Is this latter issue not what Bonsenga is addressing?

- Gemelli said she was a suspect in the murder after she named Lumumba and put herself at the cottage in the same verbal statement, which is why the 1:45 written, couldn't be used for murder. But incredulously, he said her protections did not extend to the callunia against Lumumba. Therefore it's not 2am but before she signed the 1:45. In other words she should not have been made to sign the 1:45. But the prosecution still get benefit from it!

- Bonsegna actually implies that Knox was targeted days earlier - "the girl should have been heard with the guarantees reserved for persons under investigation from the beginning, and so not as a simple witness"

and

"Indeed the investigations performed immediately after the Kercher murder, which directly involved Knox, were characterised by multiple specific procedural irregularities, as already pointed out, which even led to the inadmissibility of the documents coming from said activities (see on this point Cassation ruling 04-Jan- 2008, Section 1, which, while ruling about the measures of preventive incarceration, deemed as not usable the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements of 06-Nov-2007, since they had been collected “without the guarantees of the law from a person who had already formally assumed the status of a person under investigation”)"

The ECHR says your rights attach when your position is "significantly affected.", regardless of when or whether you are declared a formal suspect.

So, the answer as to the question needs to be derived from a grounded interpretation of events. And the ECHR trumps all.

Minimally, all statements are out, and that's all that matters. But the ECHR, from the case law, would be bound to argue that she was significantly affected for the whole period from Anna Donnino's arrival at 00:30. I think I'm right in saying that Knox said nothing of interest before then.

But it's the statements that matter.

 

[Kauffer]

Answer: Because Mignini believed that she was guilty before Profazio called (i.e., she was a suspect before questioning even started), and thought that he would be rewarded with useful information by violating her rights.

And that answer right there gets the star prize - as you know.

 

[acbytesla]

Right. The ECHR rules on actions of the authorities, not their intent (except when it is clear their intent was contrary to human rights, e.g., someone arrested on false charges because he was in the political opposition) or their psychology. That is why I emphasize looking for objective elements of evidence, such as a phone call from the police to the prosecutor at 11:30, or the seizing of Amanda's phone before she made the 1:45 statement.

I notice you haven't commented on my position about the late night interrogations. Am I wrong about that? It just doesn't seem likely to me that a material witness (not a suspect) would be ordered in for a late night discussion. It's clear to me that they were treating both Knox and Sollecito as suspects when they demanded that they come in.

 

[Diocletus]

I notice you haven't commented on my position about the late night interrogations. Am I wrong about that? It just doesn't seem likely to me that a material witness (not a suspect) would be ordered in for a late night discussion. It's clear to me that they were treating both Knox and Sollecito as suspects when they demanded that they come in.

They brought Sollecito in because they wanted to break Knox's alibi. Which, means that they suspected Knox and thought that Sollecito was providing a false alibi long before any of the questioning even started. They were intentionally violating her rights because they knew how to (probably standard MO at this police district) and thought they would get good information which would either be admissible against the defendants or, worst case, helpful to the investigation without being admissible (e.g., useful in supporting a search of Sollecito's residence).

I'll bet they're shocked that they Italian courts have now believed the silly American girl over the word of the cops. Actually, it is pretty startling when you think about it.

 

[Numbers]

They brought Sollecito in because they wanted to break Knox's alibi. Which, means that they suspected Knox and thought that Sollecito was providing a false alibi long before any of the questioning even started. They were intentionally violating her rights because they knew how to (probably standard MO at this police district) and thought they would get good information which would either be admissible against the defendants or, worst case, helpful to the investigation without being admissible (e.g., useful in supporting a search of Sollecito's residence).

I'll bet they're shocked that they Italian courts have now believed the silly American girl over the word of the cops. Actually, it is pretty startling when you think about it.

One addition: It doesn't matter to the ECHR whether this suspicion was justified by objective evidence on the part of the police, or was an arbitrary or irrational suspicion. It's the de facto situation and the actions of the authorities that counts, not their psychology or "confirmation bias".

Confirmation bias is not a justification for the violation of defense rights.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

funky sentiment

Thanks for that link. I just went back and re-read the first 20 pages of that thread. Most gratifying to see that I was correct right from the beginning and Fiona, stilicho, BobTheDonkey etc were wrong.

In the first thread (11 May 2010) funk de fino wrote, "There is only one thing worse than the lies those pair of clowns told the police. The lies and blatant falsehoods their supporters are telling here.

They do realise that they are only making it look worse for the supposed victims of this miscarriage of justice?"

funk de fino,

This sentiment has not aged well. The police, prosecution, and forensic police told numerous and obvious lies. Amanda told one, of which I am aware. I have no idea what you meant about the supposed lies or falsehoods told by the supporters. However, there are plenty of examples of misleading statements and falsehoods at the pro-guilt pseudo-Wiki. Perhaps you could support this statement or withdraw it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again it is clear that the murder case stands or falls on the conduct of that Nov 5/6 interrogation, and who knew what and when they knew it. As for the way the calunnia charge (and final conviction) works, it appears that in Italian law, it is allowable to have the same judge-panel hear evidence deemed inadmissible in relation to 4 of the charges, but releavnt to the fifth charge.

I don't defend it (on the face of it, it just seems loopy), but I also don't pretend to understand the reasons why Italians do it that way. However, it seems ECHR will now sort it out one way or another.

- Gemelli said she was a suspect in the murder after she named Lumumba and put herself at the cottage in the same verbal statement, which is why the 1:45 written, couldn't be used for murder. But incredulously, he said her protections did not extend to the callunia against Lumumba.

See above

Therefore it's not 2am but before she signed the 1:45. In other words she should not have been made to sign the 1:45. But the prosecution still get benefit from it!

Yes, that appears to be how Italian law works. And even the Marasca/Bruno panel in acquitting (Bonsenga calls it exonerating!) on the murder charges, says they are useful for the calunnia.....

- Bonsegna actually implies that Knox was targeted days earlier - "the girl should have been heard with the guarantees reserved for persons under investigation from the beginning, and so not as a simple witness"

This needs clarity..... "the beginning" of what?

and

"Indeed the investigations performed immediately after the Kercher murder, which directly involved Knox, were characterised by multiple specific procedural irregularities, as already pointed out, which even led to the inadmissibility of the documents coming from said activities (see on this point Cassation ruling 04-Jan- 2008, Section 1, which, while ruling about the measures of preventive incarceration, deemed as not usable the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements of 06-Nov-2007, since they had been collected “without the guarantees of the law from a person who had already formally assumed the status of a person under investigation”)"

The ECHR says your rights attach when your position is "significantly affected.", regardless of when or whether you are declared a formal suspect.

So, the answer as to the question needs to be derived from a grounded interpretation of events. And the ECHR trumps all.

Minimally, all statements are out, and that's all that matters. But the ECHR, from the case law, would be bound to argue that she was significantly affected for the whole period from Anna Donnino's arrival at 00:30. I think I'm right in saying that Knox said nothing of interest before then.

But it's the statements that matter.