I'm willing to accept that, but it would be nice to see the actual text of the decision if anyone can link it here. Even Kermit himself seems a little confused:
"If you want, in addition to confirming that you understand that the supreme court ruling didn't have much to do with illegalities on the part of Italian authorities, and everything to do with Amanda's (Italian) constitutional protection against having her own words used against her in court."
That sounds a little legalish to me and not quite an affirmative statement of actual understanding. Perhaps you could point us all to the primary source. It would be appreciated.
.
Hi HumanityBlues. There's no confusion on my part. In this discussion, we have a point of view which is expressed by Curt Knox, as he explained to
Julie Chen on CBS's The Early Show:
"The only time that it's ever come out that she's changed her story was during a 14 hour interrogation all night in which she actually made two statements, one at 1:45 a.m. and another one at 5:45 a.m. and the Supreme Court of Italy has literally thrown them out because they were ... coerced."
This sort of suggested coercion and forced "confession" on the part of Italian investigators, and the supposed (according to Curt and pro-Amanda posters such as Dan O.) "throwing out" of Amanda's statements by the supreme court, has nothing to do with their true status as possible evidence in court.
Amanda's statements are what they are, and simply can't be used because they were made without a lawyer being present. Call it the Italian Miranda protection if you will.
However, that protection only goes so far. If your statements without a lawyer actually go so far as to represent a crime themselves, well, then your statements can be used against you in court (but only that part which is directly related to the new crime, in the case of Amanda, her false accusation against Patrick for which she has been found guilty, pending appeal).
You wanted some links ....
On one hand we have the Perugia Shock coverage of Amanda's legal action to have her Police Headquarters statements removed from the evidence. These were only partially successful, as the false accusation was included in the trial documentation:
Amanda's legal team's attempt to exclude all Police Headquarters statements
AMANDA (Kermit: Amanda's legal team) :
They used the statements I made at 1.45 am on November 6 when I didn't not have the presence of an attorney to defend me.
I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements," but these are not admissible due to the status I had acquired in the mean time.
Both are violations of Article 63 cpp.
SUPREME COURT:
Statements released without the proper legal guarantees can't be used contra se (against the person) --not even against other suspects-- when there is already circumstantial evidence against the person who makes them.
But when the person is heard as a witness the total lock-up (can't be used at all, not against the one who makes them nor against other suspects) provided by Article 63 cpp does not apply.
In this case, the fact that he is just a witness and as such outside the facts protects him from possible abuse by the investigators (Cass.Sez.Un. 13/2/1997).
Arguing from these principles, the statements you made at 1.45 can only be used contra alios (against another person).
As a result of those statements, the interrogation was suspended and you became "indagata"(a suspect).
The "spontaneous statements" made at 5.45 am are not admissible against you or against other suspects because you had already become "indagata" and you did not have legal protection.
But, the memoir you wrote was a spontaneous defensive act and is admissible against you.
=================================
What's of interest is how these references were used in the trial itself. There was some considerable sparring going on between the Defence and Prosecution, as the court testimony reveals:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165
- GCM=Giancarlo Massei=Judge=Presidente
- AK=Amanda Knox=accused undergoing examination
- CP=Carlo Pacelli=Lumumba lawyer=avvocato
- CDV=Carlo dalla Vedova=Knox defense lawyer=avvocato
CP: Yes, yes. In the interrogation of the 5th/6th, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola together with Patrick.
AK: It's more complicated than that.
CP: Do you confirm it?
CDV: Another objection.
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please. Yes?
CDV: The genericity of the question relative to the interrogation of November 6th must be specified. I recall that this document was declared unusable by the Supreme Court. Decision of April 1, 2008. So whenever we refer to the time period of the 5th and 6th of November, when you refer to transcripts from November 6 in a plural form, it is absolutely necessary to give a time reference for the interrogation being referred to. Because there is one transcript which was declared inadmissible and the other admissible against others but not against Amanda.
CP? Excuse me, Presidente, but this objection is really "peregrina" [bizarre]. The interrogation of November 6 at 1:45 and the interrogation of November 6 at 5:45 have both been acquired [included in the dossier] in the body of evidence of the slander case, and thus they are perfectly admissible in the aim of any contestation from this attorney [CP speaking of himself in the 3rd person]. Otherwise, we would be in a situation that lies outside any logic of the legal code, so I will repeat and reformulate my question. On November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?
AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were suggested by the public minister (Mignini).
CP: Excuse me, but at 1:45, the pubblico ministero was not there, there was only the judicial police.
