Amanda asked if she needed a lawyer. Raffaele may have also asked about a lawyer, and he asked to see his father. Naturally Amanda's and Raffaele's accounts of their interrogations are different from the police's accounts.
Dr. Giobbi testified that he wanted to bring both of them in that night, saying that he was mathematically certain, according to Perugia-Shock. However, this issue was a point of dispute on the previous thread (whether the police did as Dr. Giobbi wanted or not). It is possible that the police failed to tell Amanda that she was expected to come in.
It is known from Judge Matteini's words that the police took Amanda into custody before Edda arrived because they were afraid she would leave the country.
I believe I'm right in saying that there is no right in Italy for people to have their legal counsel present during witness interviews. In this case, this would cover all of AK's/RS's interactions with the police up to around 6am on 6th November (although, in passing, I'd continue to argue that AK should have been read her rights by around 1am that night).
However, since witness statements are given freely and without obligation, there's nothing to prevent a person from interrupting witness interviews in order to consult with legal counsel outside of the police station. And of course a person can also be fully briefed by his/her legal counsel prior to attending the police station, if desired.
And this is why most of the spotlight on access to legal representation is narrowly focussed on suspects who have been arrested and held in custody - since it's at this point that suspects both a) need legal advice and protection, and b) are in a difficult position to gain access to such counsel.
Here's a very interesting article from the European Criminal Bar Association regarding the "interesting" attitudes that its members seem to have encountered among Italian police surrounding access to legal counsel.
http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=981&Itemid=31
It contains the following section (my highlights):
Access to a lawyer after being arrested or brought to a police-station or prison
The suspect has a right to immediate legal assistance.
If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning. A distinction, however, must be made between the investigation by the police on the one hand and the investigation by prosecutors in subsequent stages of the proceedings on the other.
The police tend to restrict the right to legal assistance, especially in the first stages of the proceedings, in order to get as much information as possible from the suspect.
A public prosecutor would never explicitly dare to do that. Very often, however, lawyers are silenced and not allowed to speak during an interview of the suspect before a public prosecutor.
An example of questioning the suspect as a witness can be found in the following murder case.
The suspect entered the police station as a witness at 15:00h. He got out at 7:00h the following day charged as a suspect and arrested and brought to jail. According to the written record of the interrogation he made a confession at about 5:00h after having been visited by a doctor and having been given two psychotropic drugs (Didergot and Aurorix). The lawyer was only called so that he could be given the written record of the interrogation. The written record, however, turned out to be fundamentally different from what was actually said and recorded on tape. The suspect never actually said that he had killed the victim and simply but incoherently answered in a confused way the questions of the public prosecutor. Notwithstanding the fact that the suspect at trial withdrew his confession, he was sentenced to 21 years mainly on the ground of the confession.
And here's a second link from the same organisation:
http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=31
which contains the following - also illuminating - passages (my highlighting):
Caution and the right to silence
The suspect should be warned that his statements might be used against him in a future trial (Art. 64 of the CCP). He should always be reminded that he has the right to remain silent, although if he does remain silent the proceedings will continue anyway. If these rules are violated, a statement made by the suspect cannot be used in evidence.
In practice, the suspect is not always warned that everything he says during the interrogation can be used against him in a future trial. If he is assisted by a lawyer during the interrogation, his statement can still be put in evidence during the trial.
The suspect has the right to silence (Art. 64 c. 3 lett. b) and Art. 27 c. 2 Constitution, Art. 63 c.1 CCP, Art. 198 c. 2 CCP), of which he has to be notified prior to every interrogation.
In practice, however, the police put a lot of pressure on the suspect to get a confession.
Presence of a lawyer during police interrogation
A lawyer can be present during police interrogations. In practice, however, the police try to prevent the lawyer from being present. For instance, they do not allow the suspect to call his lawyer, or they say they have called a duty solicitor but he has not answered the call, or they suggest that it would be better if the suspect did not contact his lawyer because this would be very expensive. Of course, if the suspect is very determined, he can have legal assistance.
In theory, the lawyer plays an active role if he is present, but it may be that he is prevented from so doing by the police.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................ (as our surfing acquaintance would say)
