I was using what happened to Amanda (which you brought up in the post above) to counter your subsequent statement that the law could invariably be relied upon to prevent the prosecutor from doing exactly what he wanted to do.
In fact, I noticed you were “using” a different topic not related to the thread we were following. Amanda anyway was not interrogated by Mignini, but this is another story.
A sentence like “The law could invariably be relied upon to prevent the prosecutor from doing exactly what he wanted to do“ is not what I said. What I say is no coercion took place, no claim was made to explain Raffaele’s lies as a consequence of police abuse or other factors unrelated to his will, and I say: there is no reason to think anything happened different from what provided by the law. No clue to say Raffaele was coerced, that unlawful interrogations took place, that interrogations took place at all. I don’t know why you believe or claim this things, given the absence of any element and any backing by the defence, to say anything different from what procedures provide.
Which defense documents? Were they written after the interrogation by Mignini was thrown out by the Supreme Court? In that case, there would be no need to mention it.
There is no interrogation by Mignini thrown out by the supreme court. There is no interrogation by Mignini, except one that took place on December 17.
The defence documents can be equally taken as any of the trial documents: for all judges and for all parties there is a spontaneous statement at 05:45 and no interrogation.
Where is Massei’s court saying the opposite? Where is Micheli saying the opposite? In any formal description of the scenario, in the appeals, even in court speeches, the 05:45 statement is a spontaneous statement and not an interrogation. In any report by Amanda prior to the trial testimony, the same is always called a statement.
As I wrote in my last post, Raffaele diary shows he was coerced into saying things he regretted saying.
I can see what you were saying before about the decree and the dates of the various hearings, but I continue to believe that this passage in Massei says that Raffaele was denied his right to counsel when he was arrested, and that the Prosecutor was the one responsible for that:
And where are you getting that, "The fact of being imprisoned without having spoken to a lawyer instead is legal?"
How can one be put in prison without being a suspect? And how can one be a suspect without having a lawyer?
But before, you said something different: what you were claiming is there
has been an interrogation by Mignini
without legal counsel, and
before legal counsel was allowed. Also, somebody said Raffaele denied Amanda’s alibi during this interrogation.
Don’t you remember this was the claim?
For the rest, I am amazed that still after three years people arguing on the case haven’t got the idea of what are the rights of a witness and of suspect in Italy.
A suspect doesn’t have a “right to confer with lawyers after being arrested
but before speaking with a magistrate”.
Suspects have a right to
be assisted by a lawyer
as they are interrogated by a magistrate, and the state has to provide a lawyer. Not necessarily to confer with lawyers in the time frame before following their arrest. Suspects don’t have the right to take counsel
before the interrogation with the magistrate to decide their strategy in the interrogation. This “right” is not granted in the ordainment. No right is violated when you delay the legal counsel to the magistrate interrogation, for the simple reason that you cannot violate a right that doesn’t exist. The counsel with attorney by a person under police arrest can be delayed by the police on grounds of evidence pollution. The delay can be untile the interrogation by a magistrate which must be within 48 hours, in case the person in in any form of detention, the magistrate must be the GIP, cannot be the prosecutor.
The decrees and formal steps during this time frame are usually taken by the prosecutor.
The conclusion is: there is simply ground and no reason to say there was an interrogation by Mignini before Sollecito waas granted legal assistance. This claim is absurd in this trial, not because of the law itself, but because any claim of the contrary is missing. And doing the contrary would nonsense for Mignini: if he did this interrogation, this would be useless, it would be nullified. Wouls be wasted work. A person in custody cannot speak to the prosecutor before having spoken to the GIP, and cannot speak as a suspect to a magistrate without a lawyer present. No interrogation like the on you claim ever took place, and to claim it is nonsense.
Recall: some people, including you, affirmed he said certain things in an interrogation because his rights were denied during interrogation. They were not. The complain by Bongiorno has some relation to the wish of having a counsel before the interrogation, but the same complain refers to a time frame that starts after the end of police interrogation and before the interrogation by the GIP. They asked for the dismissal of the latest interrogation, the one of the GIP, on the grounds of a missing decree referred to a time in which legal counsel was delayed.
Apart from the legitimacy and formal correctness of the delay of the right to confer privately with attorney in this specific case (this is a point on which I don’t have sufficient competence to express myself), the problem for Bongiorno’s claim is that this point of correctness anyway can’t be used to invalidate the interrogation, it cannot be used to maintain the suspects rights were not respected during the interrogation. The nullification request was refused because, if the lawyers wanted to complain for the lack of legal counsel as a violation of the right of defence, they should have done it in that moment, with a procedure on the opening of the interrogation by the GIP. At that time they should have asked for a suspension in order to have legal counsel. Later, they cannot complain the interrogation was violating their clients rights, not after they accepted the interrogation with no objection and took part to it.
It's getting weirder and weirder! Why on Earth would she want him to say this? 
