i agree. this was obviously a common practice to evade the law requiring counsel. We were just interviewing as a witness so we didn't have to record the interrogation, or have legal counsel present. I suspect it was not the first time Mignini had used the 'I'm just hear to record your statement' lie as a way to avoid the presence of a defence lawyer.How do the above reasons for having a defense lawyer present during questioning compare to Knox's situation during the interrogation? Did the Italian police and prosecutor (Mignini) deny Knox a lawyer for the purpose of defeating the aims of the ECHR for insisting that a defense lawyer must be present from the first questioning?
Note also that had the police and prosecutor identified Knox as a suspect prior to the questioning of the interrogation, she would have been entitled to the presence of a defense lawyer during the questioning (CPP Article 364, paragraphs 1 - 4). Furthermore, the questioning could only be carried out lawfully if the rules for questioning explained in CPP Article 64 were followed. These rules include the following paragraphs (summarized here):
1. the suspected person participates freely in the questioning [meaning without coercion and with only necessary security measures];
2. the requirements of CPP Article 188 apply, that is, methods or techniques that can influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the ability to recall and evaluate the facts shall not be used;
3. Before the questioning begins, the person shall be warned:
a) her statements can always be used against her,
b) she has the right to silence,
c) if she makes any statement on facts concerning the liability of others, she will become a witness in relation to those facts [possibly a warning against calunnia];
3-bis. If the provisions of paragraph 3, subparagraphs a) and b) are not fulfilled, the statements made by the person questioned shall not be used. If the warning of paragraph 3, subparagraph c) is not given, the statements made regarding the liability of others shall not be used, and the person shall not be a witness in relation to those facts.
So what did the police and prosecutor obtain by denying a lawyer for Knox and questioning her as a witness - allowing them to avoid the warnings of paragraph 3. With no lawyer for Knox present, there was no advocate to protect her defense rights, such as the right to remain silent and to make clear to her that the police suspected her of a serious crime. Although neither a witness nor a suspect may be lawfully coerced during questioning, the absence of a lawyer for Knox allowed the police, according to Knox's statement, to coerce her with threats and violence (hits on the head). The absence of a bilingual lawyer also allowed for the interpreter's suggestive subterfuge of discussing her own (alleged) traumatic amnesia, and the interpreter's failure to help Knox present her version of the facts.
Thus, it seems certain to me that the police and prosecutor Mignini intended to conduct the interrogation of their chosen suspect, Knox, without a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining, even by means of coercion and the denial of defense rights, an incriminating statement from her. Recall also that according to Sollecito's account in his book Honor Bound, his interrogation for which he had been summoned to the police station, began prior to that of Knox and focused on inducing or coercing him to abandon her alibi - that she had been with him at his apartment - at the relevant time.
Sources:
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa. Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014
It was particularly invidious given the long coercive interrogation throughout the night, carried out in a foreign language, of a foreign national without notifying the embassy.
