You seem to be going back to the tactic that because the actual literal word "coercion" or "shedevil" (or their Italian equivalents) were never explicitly used, it means the general sentiment was never expressed in any form.
I'm sorry but "coercion" is not a
general sentiment.
An allegation of coercion legally has to do with a point of fact.
To claim coercion means, to have a claim about a fact. Something that is by nature somehow observable.
Amanda Knox defence claimed facts that were identical to those claimed by the police.
And they claimed false memory syndrome - an event which is by its nature something non observable. It is an event internal to the brain. Theoretically possible. But a video camera cannot record it.
Incidentally, a person who claims to suffer of a false memory syndrome has no mean to tell what the memory is false, since false memories are identical to all other memories, and thus could not claim to be sure of having an alibi.
Amanda Knox's position is fundamentally contradictory on very obvious aspects.
As for quoting what you mean by "shedevil", what you did is quoting that she had reportedly a sexual or relational lifestyle different from that of her roommate, which is not a judge's theory (even less a prosecution theory) but rather something that was reported by some British witnesses.
If you call this "shedevil" characterization, what may only come out from this, in my opinion, is just your feeling of personal anger against the facts.
Maybe you don't like the English girls' reporting Meredith saying that she would bring strange men at home.
I understand you have a particular view of the interrogation. This is different from having a particular view on ECHR procedures, which are a matter of actual law.
I already stated your position on the ECHR claim would only be of interest to me if you had it without regard to the alleged coercive nature of the interrogation. I don't need you to remind me you think she blamed the black guy.
I don't have a particular view of the interrogation. We might say I have a particular view of Knox's false accusation of Lumumba, which I consider an issue itself, something separate from "the interrogation". My view is actually not "particular" since it's the view of all judiciaries and courts on the point.
The evidence of Knox's malice and lying does not depend on whatever alleged violation related to police interrogation.
The use of interrogation and spontaneous statement as evidence in the calunnia case, this is the allegation of violation of art. 6. I don't believe this is a violation but I acknowledge there is no case law precedent on this point. So I consider at least in theory the possibility that the ECHR would decide that some piece of evidence is not usable - even though I do not believe such a decision would be reasonable. But a violation of art. 6 based on this, it would be just a procedural point. A point of law, not a point of facts or evidence regarding coercion, and that would not affect the merits of the evidence of Knox malice and her guilt.
The evidence of Knox calunnia does not depend on whether the interrogation and the spontaneous statement are usable or not. There is sufficient evidence of calunnia even without those pieces of evidence.
And by the way, I believe only a hypocrite would claim someone's "innocence" based on the fact that a piece of evidence is procedurally not usable. Normal people would just look at the factual evidence that the person is a liar.
