Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

Well then cite them. Address them. Explain them. Quote the claim.

It's not me the one who addresses some "police lie".
You can't indicate them?

Why should Amanda Knox need to explain why she made a false accusation for no reason while in police custody. The police need to explain how they accomplished this. They need to demonstrate that the statement was not coerced, and they cannot do so without the tapes that they destroyed.

 

[Diocletus]

In particular, none of you is able to quote a single lie told by an authority to Amanda Knox during interrogation.

LOL. OK. We give up. Your turn now: prove that the cops only told her the truth during the interrogation.

 

[Freddy]

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now, cite the law that says the cops can continue to interrogate a person who they believe is a suspect.

Don't you see? If there is no evidence against a person, she is not a suspect merely because the police are convinced she committed a crime. Don't be silly! She is not a suspect until she makes an incriminating statement. Since she is not a suspect, the police can interrogate her for 40 hours without a lawyer in order to coerce an incriminating statement out of her, because only suspects have a right to a lawyer. Then she can have a lawyer, and that will protect her rights. If she is innocent, she will float...I mean, she won't make an incriminating statement no matter what the police say or do. Besides, the police record all interrogations, so any abuses will be apparent. It isn't as if the police face tremendous pressure to make an arrest in a high profile murder case, and besides, there is no way they would ever do that to someone who isn't guilty, or who doesn't at least deserve it because she's a slut.

 

[Machiavelli]

Was it? Do we have a minute or recording of Sollecito's interrogation?

Of course.

 

[Machiavelli]

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now, cite the law that says the cops can continue to interrogate a person who they believe is a suspect.

There isn't any law that deals with the concept of "what police believe".
The law onle deals with the concept of elements of evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Was it? Do we have a minute or recording of Sollecito's interrogation?

All we have are the lies the police wrote down and forced Raffaele to sign. They are provably wrong but that doesn't stop the guilters from using it in their claims that Amanda was lying.

 

[Freddy]

There isn't any law that deals with the concept of "what police believe".
The law onle deals with the concept of elements of evidence.

Which is absurd, if true. But he is citing the European Convention on Human Rights, not Italian law. What you say is not what is not what the Convention on Human Rights says. As far as I can tell, it does not explicitly address the issue. However, the rights it does explicitly guarantee cannot exist under laws such as you describe, at least not in any meaningful sense. Common sense dictates that when the police think someone has committed a crime, and they are conducting a custodial interrogation, the person needs to be represented by counsel in order to be sure her rights are respected. Otherwise, the Convention is just empty words, as the police can circumvent its protections almost at will. In order to give Article 6 of the Convention any effect, it must be interpreted as Diocletus suggests.

The question is one of interpreting the Convention, and Italian law and practices have no bearing on the meaning of Article 6. The question is what the right to counsel demands and when it attaches under the Convention, not what sort of right to counsel Italian law affords. If Italian law explicitly condones police conduct that violates the Convention on Human Rights, then Italy is in violation of its obligations. Citing Italian law is no defense to such a charge. The only defense is to argue that in principle - and not merely as a matter of Italian law - a practice of not affording a right to counsel in all custodial interrogations comports with the Convention's requirements. You have not offered such a defense to this point.

 

[Machiavelli]

LOL. OK. We give up. Your turn now: prove that the cops only told her the truth during the interrogation.

So you don't know about any lie told by the police.
I not that you gave up, and the police didn't tell any lie.

Knox was not told lies as far as we know, as far as you know, as far as what Knox has ever claimed during her trial.

There is no room to claim any lie. You can perfectly see yourself there is no base for any claim. There is not even a claim (what lie?). Your lie is like Bertrand Russel's teapot. Even worse: you don't even know if is a teapot or what is it.

The next question is to myself. The qustion that I put to myself, is why there are individuals unable to see that you need elements to build a claim of something. The existence of something is claimed rationally only if based on some element.
You don't have an element. Any information about this lie. You only have your prejudice about who is right between Knox and the rest of the world. It is the rest of the things you believe that makes you think there is a "lie". But you have no information and no elements to claim a lie.

 

[Diocletus]

So you don't know about any lie told by the police.
I not that you gave up, and the police didn't tell any lie.

Knox was not told lies as far as we know, as far as you know, as far as what Knox has ever claimed during her trial.

There is no room to claim any lie. You can perfectly see yourself there is no base for any claim. There is not even a claim (what lie?). Your lie is like Bertrand Russel's teapot. Even worse: you don't even know if is a teapot or what is it.

The next question is to myself. The qustion that I put to myself, is why there are individuals unable to see that you need elements to build a claim of something. The existence of something is claimed rationally only if based on some element.
You don't have an element. Any information about this lie. You only have your prejudice about who is right between Knox and the rest of the world. It is the rest of the things you believe that makes you think there is a "lie". But you have no information and no elements to claim a lie.

Yawn. Still waiting for your proof that they told the truth . . .

While you're at it, please provide the proof that they did not hit her. That they did not tell her to imagine what happened. That the translator was not mistranslating purposefully or unintentionally. That she was not scared. That she was not stressed. That she was not exhausted. That the cops weren't yelling.

Then, when you've explained all of that, please tell us how it is that the cops ended up with a demonstrably false accusation against an innocent person as a consequence of their custodial interrogation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Which is absurd, if true. But he is citing the European Convention on Human Rights, not Italian law. What you say is not what is not what the Convention on Human Rights says. As far as I can tell, it does not explicitly address the issue. However, the rights it does explicitly guarantee cannot exist under laws such as you describe, at least not in any meaningful sense. Common sense dictates that when the police think someone has committed a crime, and they are conducting a custodial interrogation, the person needs to be represented by counsel in order to be sure her rights are respected. Otherwise, the Convention is just empty words, as the police can circumvent its protections at will. In order to give Article 6 of the Convention any effect, it must be interpreted as Diocletus suggests. To the extent that the Convention is binding on Italy, any Italian law to the contrary is invalid.

If you don't want to believe what the Italian law is like, I just tell you this will not change facts. The law is like that. Your belief that it offends human rights is absurd in law, but if you want to think that, it's not my task to convince you. If you just don't believe I suggest you to get informed. It makes no sense that you try to argue with me what Italian law is like. Italian law is not a secret, not something that I have to convince you about. I have no interest in telling you something different from what it is. I don't want to spend my time trying to convince you of what is self-evident: look at the procedure code, study it a bit, ask for counsel.

The Italian Law is valid in any international venue. But in particular in the European Union. You can easilly get acknowledged of this too.

It is necessary to be precise on a point: we are not talking about custodial interogations. The police interogation we are talking about was not a custodial interrogation. The Italian police cannot write minutes of custodial interrogations.
The interrogation we are talking about are all interrogation of "witnesses", people legally free. The free people, in Italy, are not maybe as "free" as in the US free citizens on many aspects. They have duties that the US citizens don't have. For example, they must have a valid ID document always with them, otherwise they can be fined and are "identified" which means have comply with some police requests (follow them, signe papers and so on); they also have to "comply" with public officer requests on a number of occasions.
Answering questions as a witness is not a duty in a custodial interogation: it is one of the duties of the "free citizen".

 

[Machiavelli]

Yawn. Still waiting for your proof that they told the truth . . .

Ludicrous request. Who claims, has to prove.

While you're at it, please provide the proof that they did not hit her.

I have no proof on this, I concede that maybe they hit her.
This does not mmake her become innocent, and does not justify the repeated accusation of innocents for weeks.

That they did not tell her to imagine what happened.

She gave an explanation in court, and this was not her claim; she never claimed this in court.
Moreover, it wous make no sense to ask someone to imagine things that didn't happen in an interrogation.

That the translator was not mistranslating purposefully or unintentionally.

The suspect is Amanda not the translator.

That she was not scared.

You bet she was scared.

That she was not stressed. That she was not exhausted.

For two weeks? Days before and days after the two-hour interrogation?

That the cops weren't yelling.

There is no claim they were yelling. Amanda herself didn't claim this in court.

And, the cops were certainly not yelling nor screaming nor asking her to imagine when she voluntarily wrote her infame hand written note.

Then, when you've explained all of that, please tell us how it is that the cops ended up with a demonstrably false accusation against an innocent person as a consequence of their custodial interrogation.

The innocent person was jailed for Amanda's fault, and no one else's. And there was no custodial interrogation: there was instead a spontaneous statement released before a magistrate and witnesses, among them the interpreter.

 

[Freddy]

If you don't want to believe what the Italian law is like, I just tell you this will not change facts. The law is like that. Your belief that it offends human rights is absurd in law, but if you want to think that, it's not my task to convince you. If you just don't believe I suggest you to get informed. It makes no sense that you try to argue with me what Italian law is like. Italian law is not a secret, not something that I have to convince you about. I have no interest in telling you something different from what it is. I don't want to spend my time trying to convince you of what is self-evident: look at the procedure code, study it a bit, ask for counsel.

The Italian Law is valid in any international venue. But in particular in the European Union. You can easilly get acknowledged of this too.

It is necessary to be precise on a point: we are not talking about custodial interogations. The police interogation we are talking about was not a custodial interrogation. The Italian police cannot write minutes of custodial interrogations.
The interrogation we are talking about are all interrogation of "witnesses", people legally free. The free people, in Italy, are not maybe as "free" as in the US free citizens on many aspects. They have duties that the US citizens don't have. For example, they must have a valid ID document always with them, otherwise they can be fined and are "identified" which means have comply with some police requests (follow them, signe papers and so on); they also have to "comply" with public officer requests on a number of occasions.
Answering questions as a witness is not a duty in a custodial interogation: it is one of the duties of the "free citizen".

Custodial means the person is not free to leave. Are you suggesting that Knox was free to leave? Because the police have admitted that wasn't true: one of them has stated that she was tasked with making sure Knox didn't leave the building. I suppose you could say she was legally free to leave even though the police were admittedly planning to stop her if she tried, but in that case the police violated her legal rights by preventing her from leaving in fact when she had a legal right to do so. If the fact is that the police were prepared to keep her from leaving, then it doesn't matter whether they called her a witness or a suspect, because res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself.

 

[Caper]

Didnt the police throw racist slurs at Patrick when he was in custody? Thats all you need to know about the honour of the Italian police.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yawn. Still waiting for your proof that they told the truth . . .

Ludicrous request. Who claims, has to prove.

While you're at it, please provide the proof that they did not hit her.

I have no proof on this, I concede that maybe they hit her.
This does not mmake her become innocent, and does not justify the repeated accusation of innocents for weeks.

That they did not tell her to imagine what happened.

She gave an explanation in court, and this was not her claim; she never claimed this in court.
Moreover, it wous make no sense to ask someone to imagine things that didn't happen in an interrogation.

That the translator was not mistranslating purposefully or unintentionally.

The suspect is Amanda not the translator.

That she was not scared.

You bet she was scared.

That she was not stressed. That she was not exhausted.

For two weeks? Days before and days after the two-hour interrogation?

That the cops weren't yelling.

There is no claim they were yelling. Amanda herself didn't claim this in court.

And, the cops were certainly not yelling nor screaming nor asking her to imagine when she voluntarily wrote her infame hand written note.

Then, when you've explained all of that, please tell us how it is that the cops ended up with a demonstrably false accusation against an innocent person as a consequence of their custodial interrogation.

The innocent person was jailed for Amanda's fault, and no one else's. And there was no custodial interrogation: there was instead a spontaneous statement released before a magistrate and witnesses, among them the interpreter.

 

[Caper]

Custodial means the person is not free to leave. Are you suggesting that Knox was free to leave? Because the police have admitted that wasn't true: one of them has stated that she was tasked with making sure Knox didn't leave the building. I suppose you could say she was legally free to leave even though the police were admittedly planning to stop her if she tried, but in that case the police violated her legal rights by preventing her from leaving in fact when she had a legal right to do so. If the fact is that the police were prepared to keep her from leaving, then it doesn't matter whether they called her a witness or a suspect, because res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself.

Great point...watch it be hand waived.

 

[Diocletus]

If you don't want to believe what the Italian law is like, I just tell you this will not change facts. The law is like that. Your belief that it offends human rights is absurd in law, but if you want to think that, it's not my task to convince you. If you just don't believe I suggest you to get informed. It makes no sense that you try to argue with me what Italian law is like. Italian law is not a secret, not something that I have to convince you about. I have no interest in telling you something different from what it is. I don't want to spend my time trying to convince you of what is self-evident: look at the procedure code, study it a bit, ask for counsel.

The Italian Law is valid in any international venue. But in particular in the European Union. You can easilly get acknowledged of this too.

It is necessary to be precise on a point: we are not talking about custodial interogations. The police interogation we are talking about was not a custodial interrogation. The Italian police cannot write minutes of custodial interrogations.
The interrogation we are talking about are all interrogation of "witnesses", people legally free. The free people, in Italy, are not maybe as "free" as in the US free citizens on many aspects. They have duties that the US citizens don't have. For example, they must have a valid ID document always with them, otherwise they can be fined and are "identified" which means have comply with some police requests (follow them, signe papers and so on); they also have to "comply" with public officer requests on a number of occasions.
Answering questions as a witness is not a duty in a custodial interogation: it is one of the duties of the "free citizen".

Yeah. Amanda Knox was free. And the Pope is a Mormon.

 

[Diocletus]

I concede that maybe they hit her.

OK . . . um . . . is this normal under Italian law?

 

[Freddy]

Great point...watch it be hand waived.

I'm sure Amanda stayed to be grilled all night because she wanted to, and I'm sure she never asked or attempted to leave. She must have stayed because she liked it. That's why she rolled up in a ball and cried at the end.

For all the flaws of the American legal system, at least our Supreme Court long ago saw through the ridiculous reasoning Machiavelli is peddling here. That's why they imposed an objective test: whether a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, would consider himself free to leave. They also realized another obvious point: questioning someone for 8 hours straight without a lawyer is inherently coercive, regardless of the particulars. Oh, and a person is a suspect when they are suspected of a crime. Because that's kind of what the word obviously means, and it is police suspicion that determines whether someone is in a position to worry about his rights being violated.

 

[Machiavelli]

Custodial means the person is not free to leave. Are you suggesting that Knox was free to leave? Because the police have admitted that wasn't true: one of them has stated that she was tasked with making sure Knox didn't leave the building. I suppose you could say she was legally free to leave even though the police were admittedly planning to stop her if she tried, but in that case the police violated her legal rights by preventing her from leaving in fact when she had a legal right to do so. If the fact is that the police were prepared to keep her from leaving, then it doesn't matter whether they called her a witness or a suspect, because res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself.

It is impossible to answer this question since it is merely virtual. She was legally free to leave, but she was "at disposal" of the police, the police could ask her to comply with their requests. So she was not exactly free to leave, but she was not entirely prevented from doing that. She was compelled to do only what was necessary to help the police, not stripped from all liberties. She was not in custody, since if she had been in custody she would have been prevented from communicating with the outside, while instead she was free to make phone calls (the last call at 22:40). She could have called her lawyer if she had wanted to, before signing the interrogation. A person in custody cannot do that.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sure Amanda stayed to be grilled all night because she wanted to, and I'm sure she never asked or attempted to leave. She must have stayed because she liked it. That's why she rolled up in a ball and cried at the end.

For all the flaws of the American legal system, at least our Supreme Court long ago saw through the ridiculous reasoning Machiavelli is peddling here. That's why they imposed an objective test: whether a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, would consider himself free to leave. They also realized another obvious point: questioning someone for 8 hours straight without a lawyer is inherently coercive, regardless of the particulars. Oh, and a person is a suspect when they are suspected of a crime. Because that's kind of what the word obviously means.

Amanda was questioned for 2,5 hours at best.