Her lawyer didn't lodge a complaint. In court she said she had been well treated.
Her lawyers had no proof other than her say-so because there was no recording. Do you seriously think the cops would have admitted to anything? Knowing the police there, they'd probably have sued her lawyers for calunnia, just like they sued Knox and her parents for repeating what she'd told them.
Really? So you'll have no trouble quoting her saying that, right?
I'll even give you a link to a searchable transcript of her testimony to make it super easy for you.
http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/2009 -06-12_eng.pdf
Vixen's
statement is false.
We should recognize such falsehoods and understand the true facts.
Knox complained of mistreatment by the police in her Memoriale written in English soon after the 6 November interrogations. She also complained of mistreatment by the police and unfair interpretation in her letters to her lawyer soon after her arrest.
Knox complained of mistreatment by the police and unfair interpretation by the interpreter in her court statement and she filed repeated complaints on this in the appeals.
Before the Massei court, her lawyer requested the transfer of the record of her complaints to a prosecutor for an investigation. The Massei court ignored this request, but allowed prosecutor Mignini to transfer the record of Knox's statements claiming mistreatment by the police and unfair interpretation to his own office. Mignini initiated a criminal case against Knox for those statements and her subsequent appeals, charging her with aggravated continuing calunnia (malicious false accusation). The very filing of such charges indicate that Knox's statements in court were officially recognized as requiring the filing of a complaint by police, prosecutor, or judge. See the definition of the law on calunnia, CPP Article 368*, to understand this point.
Under Italian law, Knox's original Memoriale complaining of police mistreatment should have been made an official complaint by the police. (Under Italian law, any statement made to police alleging a crime is made into a complaint by the police which is then sent to a prosecutor.) The police failed to take these steps - probably since the same police had received Knox's Memoriale as had allegedly committed the mistreatment.
The above facts were recognized by the ECHR in its judment Knox v. Italy, and formed part of the basis for the ECHR finding that Italy had committed a violation of Convention Article 3, procedural branch, in failing to conduct an independent and effective investigation of a credible complaint of inhuman or degrading treatment.**
* The relevant part of the text of CPP Article 368, Calunnia. The CPP article numbers in brackets are insertions by the law firm that published this as a guide to understanding the legal terms. For example, each of Knox's Memoriale and statements in the court and appeals would be likely be considered as a
denucia (report by a private party which by law requires the police to write out a complaint to be forwarded to a prosecutor.) In contrast, a
querela is a form of complaint which explicitly requests prosecution.
Chiunque, con denuncia [c.p.p. 333], querela [c.p.p. 336], richiesta [c.p.p. 342] o istanza [c.p.p. 341], anche se anonima o sotto falso nome, diretta all'Autorità giudiziaria o ad un'altra Autorità che a quella abbia obbligo di riferirne o alla Corte penale internazionale, incolpa di un reato taluno che egli sa innocente, ovvero simula a carico di lui le tracce di un reato, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni. ....
Source:
https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art368.html
** The ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy discusses the alleged violation of Convention Article 3 in paragraphs 114 to 140. The most relevant part of that judgment is shown here:
135. Eu égard à l’ensemble de ces circonstances, la Cour estime que les faits dénoncés par la requérante donnent lieu à une allégation défendable selon laquelle elle aurait subi des traitements dégradants alors qu’elle se trouvait entièrement sous le contrôle des forces de l’ordre atteignant le minimum de gravité requis pour tomber sous le coup de l’article 3 de la Convention (Poltoratski c. Ukraine, no 38812/97, §§ 125-128, CEDH 2003‑V).
136. Cette disposition requérait qu’une enquête officielle effective fût menée dans la présente espèce, afin d’aboutir à l’identification et à la punition des personnes éventuellement responsables. À cet égard, la Cour ne peut que constater que, malgré les plaintes réitérées de la requérante, les traitements qu’elle a dénoncés n’ont fait l’objet d’aucune enquête (Kaçiu et Kotorri c. Albanie, nos 33192/07 et 33194/07, § 94, 25 juin 2013 ; voir aussi les conclusions du tribunal de Pérouse dans le cadre de son jugement du 22 mars 2013, paragraphe 101). Elle note en particulier que la demande de transmission des actes au parquet formulée par la défense de l’intéressée le 13 mars 2009 est restée sans réponse (paragraphe 47).
137. La Cour note en outre que, à la suite de cette audience, la requérante a elle-même été soumise à une procédure pénale pour dénonciation calomnieuse à l’égard, cette fois, des autorités, qu’elle accusait d’être à l’origine de l’atteinte à ses droits protégés par l’article 3 de la Convention. Elle observe que, à l’issue de cette procédure, l’intéressée a par ailleurs été acquittée, aucun élément n’ayant démontré que ses allégations pouvaient s’écarter de la réalité des faits. La Cour relève aussi que, de toute évidence, cette dernière procédure ne pouvait pas constituer une enquête effective, requise par l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les griefs que la requérante soulève devant la Cour.
138. Il y a lieu donc de conclure que la requérante n’a pas bénéficié d’une enquête pouvant éclaircir les faits et les responsabilités éventuelles dans son affaire. L’article 3 de la Convention, sous son volet procédural, a donc été méconnu en l’espèce.
Translation by Google with my help; some inline citations omitted for clarity:
135. Having regard to all of these circumstances, the Court considers that the facts complained of by the applicant give rise to an arguable allegation that she was subjected to degrading treatment when she was entirely under the control of the police [law enforcement]. This degrading treatment reached the minimum seriousness required to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.....
136. This provision [of ECHR case law relating to an arguable allegation of mistreatment] required that an effective official investigation be carried out in the present case, in order to lead to the identification and punishment of the persons possibly responsible. In this regard, the Court can only note that, despite the applicant's repeated complaints, the treatment that she complained of was not the subject of any investigation (Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, § 94, June 25, 2013; see also the conclusions of the Court of Perugia in the context of its judgment of March 22, 2013, paragraph 101). ... [The Court] notes in particular that the applicant's defense request on 13 March 2009 for transmission of the documents to the public prosecutor's office has remained unanswered (paragraph 47).
137. The Court further notes that, following this hearing [trial proceeding], the applicant was herself subjected to criminal proceedings for slanderous denunciation [calunnia], this time against the authorities, whom she accused of being the origin of the infringement of her rights protected by Article 3 of the Convention. It observes that at the end of these proceedings, the applicant was also acquitted, as there was no evidence that her allegations could deviate from the reality of the facts. The Court also notes that, obviously, these last proceedings could not constitute an effective investigation, required by Article 3 of the Convention, into the complaints that the applicant raises before the Court.
138. It must therefore be concluded that the applicant did not benefit from an investigation capable of clarifying the facts and possible responsibilities in her case. Article 3 of the Convention, in its procedural aspect, has therefore been breached in the present case.
Source:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
REALLY? THAT old, disproved bit of tabloid trash? Disproved by the reporting police officer's own written report where that just didn't happen as described in your link. I know you've read that report because it's been provided many times. That you would knowingly repeat a confirmed tabloid fabrication is beyond sad and intellectually dishonest. In order to avoid any further repeats of this falsehood and possible claims of ignorance of it, here it is...again:
