Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

Every single word about that disgusting post.

EVERY single word that you have written there LJ.

I agree with.

I second that. Pity for a life of torment which they are lustfully wishing on her, against all evidence. Pathetic and lurid and appalling.

 

[Ammonitida]

Daily Mail Interview with John Kercher today 7th Oct. 2011.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rong-capitalise-murder.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

"If it had been just one person, Meredith would have fought back, but there were no defensive injuries on her body. She may have looked slight, but she was a very strong, tough person. She was on her third belt in karate. She could look after herself."

A background in martial arts is no guarantee that someone will be able to defend themselves against an attacker (especially in the case of a small woman against a big man). "Blacks belts" don't mean anything anyway. They're scams to get your money.

As for the lack of defensive wounds, didn't the defense establish at the trial that she had injuries that could be considered defensive wounds?

 

[LondonJohn]

Daily Mail Interview with John Kercher today 7th Oct. 2011.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rong-capitalise-murder.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I think was an unfortunate article. I think the Kerchers are perfectly entitled to talk about Meredith and their memories of her. But at the moment, I think it's inappropriate and undignified for them to be making comments about Knox and Sollecito.

And I think that it's both wrong and unfair to be criticising the media coverage of Knox's (and Sollecito's) acquittals. That is quite clearly the main story at the moment, and I'm afraid that it needs to be said that the "don't forget Meredith" mantra is beginning to be badly overused right now. Everyone involved in the case or who follows the case remembers Meredith, and remembers that she was by far the biggest victim in all this. But the current issue on the table is whether Knox and Sollecito were participants in her murder or not, and therefore they should rightly be the focus of attention at this time. And I wish the Kerchers would stop implicitly criticising the pair and/or those who have campaigned for their release.

Incidentally, within that article, a particular paragraph caught my eye:

‘I thought the judge might uphold the conviction but possibly reduce their sentences to be more in line with Guede’s — but not this,’ he (John Kercher) says.

Isn't that in line with "The Machine's" bold prediction, based on his "trusted source"? Interesting, huh........ or maybe it's just a coincidence.........

 

[DarkStar2011]

Kaosium.

Please note that Hellmann does not call Massei an idiot. This is quite possibly indeed exceedingly probably very likely to turn out to be ominous for the defense.

Am I missing something (or everything) here?

 

[RoseMontague]

Am I missing something (or everything) here?

Nothing has been turned in that I am aware of.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Some of the things Kercher says do not make sense.

I have complete sympathy for his loss, but he does not seem to consider that the attack may have been burglary-oriented ("leave no witnesses"): This to me is an even stronger argument than any other. And the 40 wounds later proved to be 21. He does not seem to have the facts straight:

Sometimes he likes to think she is still alive, studying abroad, enjoying her life.

‘I still find it difficult to believe she’s gone. I still think she’s out there in Italy,’ he says. ‘It’s not denial, it’s just a nice feeling to think she’s still there and that I just haven’t spoken to her for a while.’ [...]

‘There is still no explanation as to how or why Meredith died because no one has confessed,’ says John. ‘There were more than 40 wounds on her body. The intimation was that she was held down. Why? It’s not like it was a random attack in the street.
‘That’s the part I just can’t understand. Everybody who knew Meredith adored her. She was the most loving, caring person. She was always prepared to help people. She would never turn a deaf ear to anyone who needed her help or advice.
‘One of her teachers told me that she never, ever saw Meredith fall out with anybody. So who could do that to her? There is no reason. What was the purpose of it?
‘If it had been just one person, Meredith would have fought back, but there were no defensive injuries on her body. She may have looked slight, but she was a very strong, tough person. She was on her third belt in karate. She could look after herself.’

‘I grieve all the time for Meredith. I am still in a state of devastation. We don’t know exactly what happened to her because no one has admitted to killing her. There is no point in talking about forgiveness. Even if I did know who did this to Meredith, I don’t think I could ever forgive it." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-wrong-capitalise-murder.html#ixzz1a8b0aTB8

 

[komponisto]

I repeat, for the sake of our friend Machiavelli, that the language of Hellmann's verdict statement on Monday night made it absolutely clear that the acquittals were under 530.1. Apart from the small group of individuals who had a vested interest in pretending that the 530.1/530.2 issue was "unclear" (i.e. Mignini, Comodi, Maresca and Machiavelli), everyone inside and outside Italy knew full well that they were 530.1 acquittals.

As I said before, I know enough about Italian law, and this issue in particular, to have been able to attach a certainty to my belief in 530.1 acquittals long before Hellmann's implicit confirmation. That certainty was not some sort of bet (i.e. if I'm right, then its all good, but if I'm wrong, then I'll either hide for a bit or try to worm my way out of it). I stated I was certain because I knew I was right.

Well, I'll have to hand it to you if you turn out to be right (and not that that will make me the slightest bit unhappy, speaking as one of the most ardent "FOAKers" out there!). However, you must admit that Hellmann's public statements are confusing on this issue:

«Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell’articolo 530 del Codice (la vecchia insufficienza di prove, ndr). Non posso anticipare le motivazioni ma leggendole capirete. La nostra valutazione è che non è stato sufficiente l’impianto accusatorio ma indubbiamente gli elementi c’erano. Per noi, però, erano contraddittori, non soddisfacenti per arrivare alla condanna».

"In our case we didn't invoke the second section of article 530 of the Code. I can't say what will be in the motivation, but you will understand when you read it. Our assessment was that the prosecution case was insufficient, but there was definitely evidence. For us, however, it was contradictory, not satisfactory for arriving at a guilty verdict."

Now compare with the text of the section in question (530.2)

2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.

The judge shall also pronounce a verdict of aquittal when the evidence that the act exists, that it was committed by the defendant, that the act constitutes a crime or that the crime was committed by an accusable person, is lacking, insufficient, or contradictory.

So, although Hellmann appears to specifically say that they didn't invoke 530.2, the reasoning he proceeds to give is precisely the kind to which 530.2 applies!

My best guesses at the resolution of this paradox are:

1. The word "non" in the quote («Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell’articolo 530») is a typo for "noi";

2. His words "Our assessment was that the prosecution case was insufficient, but there was definitely evidence. For us, however, it was contradictory, not satisfactory for arriving at a guilty verdict." don't actually mean what they say, but are instead simply diplomatic BS, meant to save the faces of the prosecutors and avoid a political scandal. (Just like the way people apparently have to say they "respect" a court decision even when they think it's absolutely nuts.) And that, in point of fact, the motivation will make it very clear (if only also between the lines) that the case against Amanda and Raffaele amounted to nothing.

3. 530.2 does not mean what it says, and in practice 530.1 is what is usually used even under the circumstances described in 530.2, because 530.2 is thought to carry a stigma.

While I like the fact that Hellmann has blasted Massei ("illogical and full of holes"), I would have preferred he not speak at all rather than engaging in these awkward (and unsuccessful) attempts at diplomacy. I think the avoidance of citing the subsection may also have been part of this. He should have explicitly cited 530.1 or 530.2 in his ruling, and saved the motivation for...the motivation.

I wonder also when we will find out what the majority was. That Morsels guy on twitter claimed it was a unanimous verdict, but I have no idea whether that was based on any concrete information. My guess (not a certainty...) is that it was indeed unanimous.

Sabina Castelfranco said on Porta a Porta that she had heard that it was "6-2 at most" (meaning at most 2 dissenters).

 

[Machiavelli]

Mignini says that you are wrong:

0’48’’ CNN: You didn’t interrogate Amanda?

0’50’’ Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down* [Translator’s note: This seems to imply Mignini was not sleeping at home but instead somewhere on a higher floor at the Questura.] and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.
And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”.

What are you talking about? Where is it that I am wrong? Nothing contradicts what I said.
I am not talking about my opinions. I am talking about very well known procedure. Mignini is entirely aligned with what I am saying. It's obvious to me that you are unable to understand it. You still mistake the concept of formal suspect.

Further

1. As soon as she was a suspect, then the police were prohibited from interrogating her unless she had counsel or had waived the right to counsel. They did interrogate her and persuade her to sign documents and this was illegal.

As soon as the police had collected incriminating statements. They must have usable evidence, in order to have a formal suspect.

Being a suspect in this context means that they already have collected an incriminating statement . Do you want me to quote the procedure code? You seem really refractary.

You seem to imply that Knox should have been declared a suspect since the beginning of the interrogation, before releasing incriminating statements, based on the mere fact that the police did not believe her story. And this is wrong. You are inventing the law. The law daoes not say that. The law says that they cango on questioning a person informed about facts until the person actually does release incriminating statements or falls into contradictions or unability to give answers that appear obviously incriminating.

3. She was suspected and in custody as soon as she made what the poice deemed to be incriminating statements.

No she wasn't. In order to be a suspect, the police must have collected evidence which is usable by the magistrate.

You are mistaking on some very basic principles of investigation. Investigation is not as much protective of the "suspect" as you think. The warrants Mignini speaks about are to protect a people who have already evidence against them, they are not to protect the ordinary citizen from the risk of providing incriminating statements.

And you ovbviously did not read the Cassazione ruling about these statements.

 

[charlatan]

And I think that it's both wrong and unfair to be criticising the media coverage of Knox's (and Sollecito's) acquittals. That is quite clearly the main story at the moment, and I'm afraid that it needs to be said that the "don't forget Meredith" mantra is beginning to be badly overused right now. Everyone involved in the case or who follows the case remembers Meredith, and remembers that she was by far the biggest victim in all this. But the current issue on the table is whether Knox and Sollecito were participants in her murder or not, and therefore they should rightly be the focus of attention at this time. And I wish the Kerchers would stop implicitly criticising the pair and/or those who have campaigned for their release.

It's doubly unfair given that he was an active participant in the charade which resulted in Amanda's celebrity status. Even if one ignores the conveniently timed press releases emerging from the Kercher camp throughout the case, Maresca was busy fanning the flames at every opportunity. I refuse to hold the Kerchers' anger against them, but it's nonetheless a bit disingenuous for them to suggest Amanda & Raffaele's supporters had no right to make their case before the media when their detractors spent years doing exactly that. At any rate, I don't see how justice for Meredith must be incompatible with vindication for Amanda & Raffaele.

 

[smkovalinksy]

It's doubly unfair given that he was an active participant in the charade which resulted in Amanda's celebrity status. Even if one ignores the conveniently timed press releases emerging from the Kercher camp throughout the case, Maresca was busy fanning the flames at every opportunity. I refuse to hold the Kerchers' anger against them, but it's nonetheless a bit disingenuous for them to suggest Amanda & Raffaele's supporters had no right to make their case before the media when their detractors spent years doing exactly that. At any rate, I don't see how justice for Meredith must be incompatible with vindication for Amanda & Raffaele.

You are right; the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Freddy]

As soon as the police had collected incriminating statements. They must have usable evidence, in order to have a formal suspect.

Being a suspect in this context means that they already have collected an incriminating statement . Do you want me to quote the procedure code? You seem really refractary.

I'm sorry, but if the police question someone for 8 hours, the person is obviously a suspect regardless of any self-serving claims to the contrary by the police. After several days of questioning 8 hours a day, the person is a suspect. You can tell me the sky is purple, but that just makes you a liar.

Your point that the police did not have any evidence to consider her a suspect (while they were interrogating her for 43 hours over five days) until her statement that implicated Mr. Lumumba raises a rather obvious question: why the hell were they interrogating her for such a ridiculously long time if they didn't even have enough evidence to consider her a suspect?! That is a very low evidentiary bar for police to meet, and the police couldn't meet it until they got a statement after 43 hours of aggressive questioning. And yet you take all of this as evidence that her rights were not violated?

Knox's alleged false accusation occurred well after she was obviously a suspect. Whether she is a suspect or not is determined by the nature of the interrogation, not by whether the police claim she was a suspect at that time. Such a claim is obviously self-serving, and should not be trusted if it is not consistent with the nature of the questioning. The nature of the questioning is clear from the vid...oh. Yeah. That's right.

And even without video, anyone with any familiarity with criminal procedure knows that police do not (or at least are not supposed to) attempt to get non-suspects to incriminate themselves by repeatedly insisting they were at the scene (and that maybe they just forgot or repressed it), and encouraging them to say that someone else was there as well, so they can arrest that person. Even if it takes 43 hours of interrogation to get the non-suspect to make such a statement. While refusing to let the non-suspect eat. Or sleep. Or drink. Or speak to a lawyer. Or leave, until the police have a statement they are satisfied with. You really don't have a leg to stand on, here. A conviction obtained in this fashion is not evidence of anything, except that the investigators were out of control due to the (admittedly extreme) pressure to arrest someone.

I am especially amused by your apparent contention that the right to a lawyer does not attach until the police have already obtained an incriminating statement, even if it takes 8 hours. Or 43. What is the purpose of having a lawyer during questioning, again? Although to be fair, you seem to be implying that that only applies to suspects against whom there is no other evidence at all.

I think it's time to give up.


Edit: Zing!

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, I'll have to hand it to you if you turn out to be right (and not that that will make me the slightest bit unhappy, speaking as one of the most ardent "FOAKers" out there!). However, you must admit that Hellmann's public statements are confusing on this issue:

In the same article that you quote, there is also this statement:


«Se fossi stato il pm avrei agito come hanno agito i pm del processo. Nessun errore da parte loro. Solo che abbiamo valutato diversamente le prove. Il codice stabilisce che basta un piccolo dubbio, purché ragionevole, per assolvere. E noi siamo stati coerenti con i nostri convincimenti».


So he says: Pblic Ministers made no mistake; and recalls that a small doubt is enough. And they were consistent with their principles. Why does he mention a "tiny doubt"?
I don't know.
I don't know what he is writing in his report. I still don't know id he will chose 530.1 or 530.2; what I know is that he should have chosen one, not be in between.
I had already noticed that they did not mention the 530.2 in their reading; but I also noticed that they did not mention the 530.1 And this is the point.
They have to chose. They have to indicate what they chose; not what they don't chose. Such a reading is something I have never seen: they have to say what they decide, not what they did not decide, I have never heared a judge not mentioning paragraph on the main condition of the formula.

About LJ, the problem with him is different. He is boasting things he doesn't know. It is not that there is anything bad in making a bet. But dressing up a bet with a lecture based on false knowledge, that's LJ. I don't know why he is amused by pontificating axiomatic certainities, but that's his hobby.
The point is, that there is no axiom of the kind that he says. Maybe he is betting that it will be in a way based on what the journalist and "the world" thinks (and what his intellectual ego is invested into), and that is a bet. Wrong or right, always good. What is bad, is call it "axiomatic cetainity" and lecture others about non-existing principles and knowledge, when it would be just honest to call it an educated guess.

p.s. 530.1 would be more interesting to me, and I would feel it even a more stronger candidate for nullification at the Supreme Court. But I can't imagine how it could be argumented.

 

[Mary_H]

LJ, how about admitting that you were wrong in claiming that "non avere commesso il fatto" means - with "axiomatic" certainity - that the paragraph is 530.1, and that you were teaching false things on topics that you don't know?
What about admitting that the above statement is proven?

My position is - the same as before - that I don't know what kind of sentence this was, i don't know if it's 530.1 or 530.2. I stress the concept that I don't know, the same thing that I said earlier.
I also have the position that 530.1 would be rather in contradiction with the conviction of calunnia, more in contradition than with 530.2, and writing such a sentence would be a kind of suicide. I also note that you had the same position: in fact you were the first to state this:

So, you were the first one to state 530.1 and calunnia here appear incompatible (you use the word "impossible").
I do not go myself so far to say that a calunnia is totally incompatible in the abstract with a 530.1 acquittal on another charge. But here you see how the logical links are structured so that calunnia and innocence of murder require the building of two arguments pointing in different directions, where their own points of strenght weaken each other. This is one of the reasons why I think it would be a suicide to write a sentencing report with such architecture.
Apparently you used to have the same opinion on the logical inconsistence of the whole.

For the question about the use of giudicato penale as a piece of circumstantial evidence I can address you to jurisprudence in Italian, but also I think you should be able to find it easilly by yourself.

Kermit? Is that you? Or did Machiavelli take a Valium?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sorry, but if the police question someone for 8 hours, the person is obviously a suspect regardless of any self-serving claims to the contrary by the police. After several days of questioning 8 hours a day, the person is a suspect. You can tell me the sky is purple, but that just makes you a liar.

Knox's alleged false accusation occurred well after she was obviously a suspect. Whether she is a suspect or not is determined by the nature of the interrogation, not by whether the police claim she was a suspect at that time.

The status of suspect is determined by the nature of the evidence, not by the nature of interrogation. The intensity of police investigation is not what makes a person become entitled to be a formal suspect.
If you knew a bit of Italian most recent news (political news) you would know this topic and this dialogue would not take place, I wouldn't need to write this post. There has been a flaming conflict between Berlusconi and the Procura of Naples who insisted to interrogate him as a person informed about facts. You tell them that the "nature" of their questioning is hostile, and see what happens.
Anyway, no censure was made on the police court on this point by any judicial authority, so nobody can claim the interrogation was found to be illegal. This is a fact. Why nobody reads the Supreme Court's ruling?

But even without video, anyone with any familiarity with criminal procedure knows that police do not (or at least are not supposed to) attempt to get non-suspects to incriminate themselves by repeatedly insisting they were at the scene (and that maybe they just forgot or repressed it), and encouraging them to say that someone else was there as well.

In fact they do not. It would make no sense.
So why do you assume, as is it was natural and logical, that the Perugia police did that? Note that we are speaking about a questioning that lasted only two hours, during which the point of climax was reached by the fact that they told her that Sollecito had changed story and withdrawn her alibi.
Where do you get prevent her from eating, bathroom rests? (in two hours after dinner?) Nothing of that kind was ever claimed. And where is the ever lasting repetition in two hours? They questioned her not because she was a suspect in their eyes, but because in their eyes she was a reluctant witness.
Because what we have in Italy, basically, is people refusing to be witnesses. So this is what the police expects to deal with frequently. They thought she was hiding the truth, that she knew about the murderer. She was a suspect (not a formal suspect), as a suspect of covering a murder, not suspected of murder herself. So her basic role for the police was not that of a suspect, she was there because the police needed to "use" her to obtain information about someone else: they were looking for evidence to go after somebody else.

[/I]I am especially amused by your contention that the right to a lawyer does not attach until the police have already gotten an incriminating statement, even if it takes 8 hours. Or 43. Although to be fair, you seem to be implying that that only applies to suspects against whom there is no other evidence at all. I think it's time to give up.

There is nothing to give up. It's like that. You say it is illegal? Then prove it. An interrogation of 43 hours would violate other articles of law, also in other codes. Not this one, sure not this one alone. But here we have a two hours interrogation.
In order to say something illegal you need to address the violation of the law, and there is nothing, no judicial act that addresses such a violation. There is no violation of law. Because the protections that you invoke do not exist. Quote this ruling about the interrogation if you think otherwise.

 

[Diocletus]

You seem to imply that Knox should have been declared a suspect since the beginning of the interrogation, before releasing incriminating statements, based on the mere fact that the police did not believe her story. And this is wrong. You are inventing the law. The law daoes not say that. The law says that they cango on questioning a person informed about facts until the person actually does release incriminating statements or falls into contradictions or unability to give answers that appear obviously incriminating.

No she wasn't. In order to be a suspect, the police must have collected evidence which is usable by the magistrate.

You are mistaking on some very basic principles of investigation. Investigation is not as much protective of the "suspect" as you think. The warrants Mignini speaks about are to protect a people who have already evidence against them, they are not to protect the ordinary citizen from the risk of providing incriminating statements.

I think you have a very poor understanding of the law of interrogations.

Try to understand this logically. Before Knox signed any statement, her "words" existed on the document typed by the police. And, before they existed on the police document, she spoke these words (assuming they typed them accurately). Knox's words as she spoke them, are her statements and her admissions, and they are incriminating facts.

Once Knox had spoken these words, she was more then a person informed of the facts--she became a suspect, and as such, had rights to counsel, as Mignini acknowledges. It was thereafter illegal for the police to continue to question her or to attempt to persuade her to sign the statement that the police typed. Mignini acknowledges this.

No civilized western country allows police to conduct a custodial interrogation of a suspect in the way you suggest.

The interrogation was illegal.

 

[Diocletus]

p.s. 530.1 would be more interesting to me, and I would feel it even a more stronger candidate for nullification at the Supreme Court. But I can't imagine how it could be argumented.

I already told you: alibi.

 

[Diocletus]

Being a suspect in this context means that they already have collected an incriminating statement . Do you want me to quote the procedure code? You seem really refractary.

Yes, please cite the procedure code where it says that a confession must be drawn out of a person by whatever means before that person can have a lawyer. That is absurd.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Nothing has been turned in that I am aware of.

I'm just trying to figure out how you think Hellmann not calling Massei an idiot is "ominous for the defense."

 

[DarkStar2011]

And the 40 wounds later proved to be 21.

I'm also trying to square the claim of 40 (or 21) wounds with the insistence that there are "no defensive wounds." Granted that three were knife-inflicted, it seems to me that any of the others could well be "defensive wounds."

 

[Freddy]

The status of suspect is determined by the nature of the evidence, not by the nature of interrogation. The intensity of police investigation is not what makes a person become entitled to be a formal suspect.
If you knew a bit of Italian most recent news (political news) you would know this topic and this diealogue would not take place. There has been a flaming conflict between Berlusconi and the Procura of Naples who insisted to interrogate him as a person informed about facts. You tell them that the "nature" of their questioning is hostile, and see what happens.
Anyway, no censure was made on the police court on this point by any judicial authority, so nobody can claim the interrogation was found to be illegal. This is a fact. Why nobody reads the Supreme Court's ruling?




In fact they do not. Thys would make no sense. So why do you assume as natural that the perugia police did that? Note that we are speaking about a questioning that lasted only two hours, during which the point of climax was reached by the fact that they told her that Sollecito had changed story and withdrawn her alibi.
Where do you get prevent her from eating, bathroom rests? (in two hours after dinner?) Nothing of that kind was ever claimed. And where is the ever lasting repetition in two hours? They questioned her not because she was a suspect in their eyse, but because in their eyse she was a reluctant witness.
Because what we have in Italy, basically, is people refusing to be witnesses. So this is what the police expects to deal with frequently. They thought she was hiding the truth, that she knew about the murderer. She was a suspect, but a suspect of covering a murder, not suspected of murder herself.



There is nothing to give up. It's like that. You say it is illegal? Then prove it. An interrogation of 43 hours would violate other articles of law, also in other codes. But not this one.
In order to say something illegal you need to address the violation of the law, and there is nothing, no judicial act that addresses such a violation. There is no violation of law. Because the protections that you invoke do not exist. Quote this ruling about the interrogation if you think otherwise.

I'll concede that you know more of Italian law than I do. I was not making a legal argument, but a normative argument (although it does reflect American law in some detail, which for all its faults doesn't totally have its head up its ass, at least compared to Italian law).

I don't care about the intricacies of Italian law if that law violates basic human rights in ways that are proven to facilitate the conviction of innocent people. If the police suspect someone of the crime, that person is a suspect in any sane legal system. If Italian law defies logic, so much the worse for Italian law. The point of having a right to a lawyer is to protect the right not to incriminate oneself, especially under duress. If the right to a lawyer does not attach until after the police coerce a confession from a suspect against whom there is no evidence (and thus a suspect who is more likely to be innocent), then the right to a lawyer is purely cosmetic. Abuses like that might be very rare (although likely not), but in high profile cases where the police are under great pressure, such abuses would be nearly certain. And the US needs to withdraw from that extradition treaty pronto, because Italy has no regard for due process.

And if Italy's law allows such interrogation tactics, then it is in violation of human rights agreements to which Italy is a party (which means that Italian law only appears to permit such tactics, since such a treaty would control as against any party's rules of criminal procedure). In any country with respect for due process, police who investigate a crime in such a reckless manner would be prosecuted.

According to you, Italian law permits the questioning of a person who isn't even a suspect for 8 hours a day for five days, while denying them food, water, and sleep, and that you can do this without allowing them access to a lawyer, even if there is no evidence against them at all. And further, you concede that if there were other evidence against them, they would be entitled to a lawyer (correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be what you are saying). Do you see no problem with that? The more likely you are to be innocent, the fewer rights you have against being railroaded.

If your best defense is that this is Italian law, then you don't have much.