Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

Well, to me, it's that no one cares about what you care. This is the law, the law was respected and enforced, this is what matters, not what you care about. These legal devices are accepted by all European and international organs, they are not under dispute (by comparison the legal devices employed by the USA instead are under international dispute).
So if you claim that a violation of rights was found, ot that thre was a violation of law, you are plainly stating the false.

Really? Because I posted a law that they broke promptly upon "detaining" her, and pointed out that a) she was in fact detained prior to 1:45, and b) was detained as a matter of law after 1:45. All you've done is make uniformed, baseless statements about what you think the law is. I've shown you the law (one of many) that they broke. If you disagree then show me a contrary law, but don't throw out statements like "not in dispute", "plainly stating the false", etc. This is meaningless.

 

[Diocletus]

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment.

This is better:

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment. he was on drugs.

 

[Diocletus]

(Which BTW reminds me of how propaganda influences the masses of 'less informed' with simpleton sequences of self perpetuating restatements.)

Maybe you need reminding (or possibly informing) about Judge Hellman's comments after his in Court TV cameras were off.
__________________________________
Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all

Judge says acquittal of US student and Rafaelle Sollecito was based on 'truth created in the proceedings'.
But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible
________________________________

But surely you knew that.

You also surely know that repeatedly arguing by using propaganda like spin about "exoneration, completely vindicated, etcccc" is grossly inaccurate, even if the Final Appeal had been decided.
Which you may also need informing... has not.

This style is easily seen for what it is; an agenda driven, spin biased argument that gets little relevance from informed readers.
But these arguments do usually manage to garner the usual mindless "atta boy" or two, if that is the objective.

ETA:
In the interests of a Forum that extols endlessly the necessity for minute accuracy, Judge Hellman never used the words that you seem so enraptured with, and keep repeating.
He did however use the *exact* words I have referenced above:They may be responsible

I think Hellmann said that just to make you feel better, so go with it if you want. In the courtroom, though, he said you're wrong. And that's all that matters.

 

[Grinder]

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment.
Curatolo's testimony would only prove they are lying about their alibi. And a false alibi is evidence of guilt. The fact that they are not there is - based on Curatolo's testimony and the medical opinions - not only qustionable on logical grounds due to uncertainity about ToD and about timings of Curatolo's testimony, but also legally of little value. Because you don't have to be in a specific place in order to be guilty of a charge, you only have to be responsible of an event. Whether their responsibility consists in stabbing Meredith or doing other activities such as covering things up, to me, only a secondary matter. The first logical step is finding proof of involvement and responsability, dynamic is a secondary step. It's obvious that if both are not in the murder room at the moment of the fatal stabbing, it would be difficult to describe a dynamic of the murder. But nonetheless a false alibi like this one cannot be considered an evidence of non-responsibility.

Just for discussion let's suppose that A & R were drunk that night to the extent that they really couldn't remember where and what they were doing during the critical hours. They told the police the best truth they could, but as it turned out it wasn't accurate. If someone else saw them or a video captured them at the time of the murder elsewhere, you maintain that wouldn't be an alibi for them because a false alibi means they are guilty?

 

[davefoc]

Do people agree that AK was in custodial interrogation?

Is there a requirement that when an individual is placed in custodial interrogation that:
1. The individual be informed of their right to request that their consul be informed of it?
2. That their consul be informed that one of its citizens is in custodial interrogation whether the individual requests it or not?
3. That custodial interrogation not be commenced until formal notification is transferred to the person's consul?

Are any of these procedures followed by the US when a foreign national is first arrested?

This article seems on-point with regard to that question:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume6_2/Quigley-FinalPDF.pdf

The quick answer based on the above article is that the US does provide consular access if somebody asks for it, but it doesn't always tell people that they have the right to request consular notification. Some states require it though. The US Supreme court has ruled that failing to notify a person of his right to consular notification is not a basis for overturning a conviction. *

The US State department has a policy that when its agents meet foreign police resistance to informing arrested US citizens of their right to consular visitation because they US doesn't always provide it, that the foreign police department should be told to do it because "two wrongs don't make a right".

Note the above two paragraphs is my brief summary of a long article, it might not be exactly correct.

It wasn't clear to me exactly when this right to consular access kicks in. It sounds like international law requires notification right away (the US in some jurisdictions doesn't comply with this) but I didn't see something that suggested the police can't begin the interrogation until the consul arrives. This is complicated by the issue of when an individual needs to be informed of their right to an attorney. On this, the US and Italy seem similar but in the US the requirement that an individual be informed of the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent is almost absolute and no information obtained during a custodial interrogation can be used against an individual until he has been informed of his rights, period. In Italy there seems to be some wiggle room on this as evidenced by this case.

*ETA. I wonder if a state court might overturn a conviction in state court if a defendant wasn't informed of his right to consular assistance in a state that requires it.

 

[Grinder]

________________________________
ETA:
In the interests of a Forum that extols endlessly the necessity for minute accuracy, Judge Hellman never used the words that you seem so enraptured with, and keep repeating.
He did however use the *exact* words I have referenced above:They may be responsible

How would you know they were the exact words? Was he speaking in English?

When it makes your case the source never matters. When Mignini says they didn't record the interrogation because of budget you ignore it.

When the police chief makes it clear that the police fed the Patrick story to Amanda you ignore it.

Was it reported in Massei that Hellman said what you reported, because if it wasn't it doesn't count.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Pilot, Hellmann also said that Amanda and Raffaele are totally innocent of the crime and people playing amateur sleuths who think otherwise are not familiar enough with the case file (wasn't that one spot on? ) He called Massei's verdict illogical and inadequate. Finally in his sentence he said they didn't commit the murder and there was no fact of staging the break-in. What do you make of all of it?

Relax

BTW Amanda is enjoying autumn sun at home and Raffaele is said to be on a TV talk show tomorrow.

Time to release the anger and bitterness, it's over

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just for discussion let's suppose that A & R were drunk that night to the extent that they really couldn't remember where and what they were doing during the critical hours. They told the police the best truth they could, but as it turned out it wasn't accurate. If someone else saw them or a video captured them at the time of the murder elsewhere, you maintain that wouldn't be an alibi for them because a false alibi means they are guilty?

Exactly, Mach is being completely illogical here.

Let's make the thought experiment and replace the high on heroin serial prosecution's witness with something more trustworthy like a CCTV camera.

Let's say two people are recorded hanging out on the street during the time the crime happens elsewhere. Does it give them an alibi? Machiavelli?

 

[Katody Matrass]

So SlimVirgin is on the side of the angels in the Kercher article? That's a turnup for the books!

Wikipedia and Lockerbie

Spies in Wikipedia




So yeah, weird.

ETA: Weirder. The first comment on the article Kestral linked to is from Charles Norrie, who was banned from JREF for repeated rule breaches in a thread on Lockerbie. He immediately piles in there with the information about who SlimVirgin is, and her record in the Pan Am 103 articles. Charles is one of my online stalkers who is (or at least was) putting around the idea that I am SlimVirgin.

I suspect he must have some sort of alert set up for that name appearing in a discussion context, but even so, it's all quite peculiar.

Rolfe.

Rolfe, this is intriguing!

SlimVirgin is doing a great work straightening up the mess that the Wikipedia article was. Certainly it causes some guilters to froth at the mouth (Hi, Stilicho )

It brings back some faith in humanity to see that the rational people can make a correct assessment of this case after all.


ETA: Rolfe, you're a MI5 secret agent

 

[Freddy]

Absolutely not. The possibility or less to leave a country is not a legal status, certainly not a status of detention. There is no granted individual right to leave a country at any moment on free will; also the English girls Merediths' roommates were in the same way prevented from leaving, but they were not detained and did not gain any special right or warrant because of this.
Every free citizen has an obligation to comply with police and magistrates requests, and this does not imply a legal nor consulate assitance. The status of freedom is not equivalent to a total freedom to do what you want in every moment. The possibility to leave then must be actually verified or denied on a possible attempt to leave or to disattend obligations in any other way, then the status of detention may intervene, not before.

I was talking about leaving the police station on Nov. 5. Knox was not free to do so, and therefore was detained. The treaty section in question does not depend on any formal status of the person detained. This is obvious from reading it. The reason for this is precisely so that the police cannot play the semantic games you are playing.

Note that I am not saying the police cannot detain people for questioning. But if they do and the person is a foreign national, the police have a clear obligation under the treaty to inform the person of their rights under the treaty. The treaty trumps Italian criminal procedural rules, so to the extent they conflict, the treaty controls.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, to me, it's that no one cares about what you care. This is the law, the law was respected and enforced, this is what matters, not what you care about. These legal devices are accepted by all European and international organs, they are not under dispute (by comparison the legal devices employed by the USA instead are under international dispute).
So if you claim that a violation of rights was found, ot that thre was a violation of law, you are plainly stating the false.

By "legal devices," you mean the scam by which a police force can call in someone they suspect or know committed a crime and freely question/hit/lie to them unless and until such time as the police unilaterally decide that they want to formally charge the person? Show me where any European or international organ said it was ok for cops to abuse such a system, as they did here.

 

[Freddy]

Do people agree that AK was in custodial interrogation?

Is there a requirement that when an individual is placed in custodial interrogation that:
1. The individual be informed of their right to request that their consul be informed of it?
2. That their consul be informed that one of its citizens is in custodial interrogation whether the individual requests it or not?
3. That custodial interrogation not be commenced until formal notification is transferred to the person's consul?

Are any of these procedures followed by the US when a foreign national is first arrested?

This article seems on-point with regard to that question:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume6_2/Quigley-FinalPDF.pdf

The quick answer based on the above article is that the US does provide consular access if somebody asks for it, but it doesn't always tell people that they have the right to request consular notification. Some states require it though. The US Supreme court has ruled that failing to notify a person of his right to consular notification is not a basis for overturning a conviction. *

The US State department has a policy that when its agents meet foreign police resistance to informing arrested US citizens of their right to consular visitation because they US doesn't always provide it, that the foreign police department should be told to do it because "two wrongs don't make a right".

Note the above two paragraphs is my brief summary of a long article, it might not be exactly correct.

It wasn't clear to me exactly when this right to consular access kicks in. It sounds like international law requires notification right away (the US in some jurisdictions doesn't comply with this) but I didn't see something that suggested the police can't begin the interrogation until the consul arrives. This is complicated by the issue of when an individual needs to be informed of their right to an attorney. On this, the US and Italy seem similar but in the US the requirement that an individual be informed of the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent is almost absolute and no information obtained during a custodial interrogation can be used against an individual until he has been informed of his rights, period. In Italy there seems to be some wiggle room on this as evidenced by this case.

*ETA. I wonder if a state court might overturn a conviction in state court if a defendant wasn't informed of his right to consular assistance in a state that requires it.

In the US, I suspect a failure to follow the treaty would be subject to harmless error analysis by whatever court is hearing the appeal.

 

[Diocletus]

The US Supreme court has ruled that failing to notify a person of his right to consular notification is not a basis for overturning a conviction.

I think that the proper remedy would be exclusion of illegally obtained statements. Whether this would extend to derivative information is another issue.

So, in many cases, the violation of the treaty obligation would probably not result in the overturning of a conviction (if there is other evidence to support the conviction). But in the case where the illegally-obtained statements form the sole basis for the conviction, as with the Knox calunnia conviction, this WOULD result in an overturning of the conviction. No one should be sentenced to go to jail on the basis of statements that the police illegally ellicited.

 

[Kaosium]

(Which BTW reminds me of how propaganda influences the masses of 'less informed' with simpleton sequences of self perpetuating restatements.)

You ought to know! You soak daily in a swamp of spin! Why do you think they won't allow much of any dissenting opinion over there, while anyone (who didn't get themselves banned) is free to post here, or at IIP? That drivel can't stand scrutiny, whereas the truth is easy to defend. You propel yourself through propaganda daily, that's all it is.

It's an alternate reality, where up is down and black is white. Where some are 'White Knights talking backwards.'

Maybe you need reminding (or possibly informing) about Judge Hellman's comments after his in Court TV cameras were off.
__________________________________
Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all

Judge says acquittal of US student and Rafaelle Sollecito was based on 'truth created in the proceedings'.
But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible

How long did London John tell you the exact same thing! Instead of conspiracy theories insisting he was from Texas you ought to have considered the more interesting CT that he was Hellmann himself, doncha remember how...particular he was about the spelling of that name?

It means that it's (barely) possible that Raffaele and Amanda were involved; it is also possible that you or I were, but the 'evidence is not there.' That's what you need to convict someone of something, evidence, and he told you all the crap the police came up with was worthless, as did Massei if you were clever enough to realize what all that 'it's possible...indeed probable' conjecture and 400 pages of piss-poor post-hoc rationalization actually meant.

It meant they had a guilty verdict that was indefensible as the 'evidence' produced needed so much pathetic justification to even be considered as such and couldn't possibly be marshaled into a coherent whole.
________________________________

But surely you knew that.

You also surely know that repeatedly arguing by using propaganda like spin about "exoneration, completely vindicated, etcccc" is grossly inaccurate, even if the Final Appeal had been decided.
Which you may also need informing... has not.

This style is easily seen for what it is; an agenda driven, spin biased argument that gets little relevance from informed readers.
But these arguments do usually manage to garner the usual mindless "atta boy" or two, if that is the objective.

Pilot, what makes you think Mignini's blather about appealing the verdict to the Supreme Court is any more reliable than the nonsense he vomited forth about Rudy's Motivations damning Raffaele and Amanda? How many times and for how long were you sniffing those those bunny droppings?

530.1, exoneration code, no evidence. Just like we showed on the JREF thread here dozens of times for every single item, 70k+ posts of it. Just like they said at IIP where people could challenge every statement made. The truth doesn't need to hide, lies need to live like mushrooms, in the dark and fed crap!

ETA:
In the interests of a Forum that extols endlessly the necessity for minute accuracy, Judge Hellman never used the words that you seem so enraptured with, and keep repeating.
He did however use the *exact* words I have referenced above:They may be responsible

What evidence would you like to present in defense of that dubious proposition? Amanda and Raffaele are far less likely to have been there than most people who were capable of being involved, as they had their lives turned inside out, they tore that place apart twice trying to find evidence of them, they interrogated them outside the law employing foul methods, and they put them in prison for four years and played cruel mindgames with them, yet neither cracked in the slightest.

In every case where innocents are prosecuted they must have assembled 'evidence' that amounts to coincidence, mistake or fraud, that's what happens everytime, or they would never have let it get that far. Since in this case it was obvious the 'evidence' didn't stand scrutiny, and the 'theory' itself was from the beginning predicated on mistakes and coincidence, what are the odds the police who arrested Raffaele and Amanda got the right people despite their arrest being a mistake? The 'evidence' collected in desperation afterward all bilge, and there only being traces of one man who admitted to being there and is now serving his sentence for the murder? How could Mignini's theory that he just imagined for himself have possible been correct? Do you think he's psychic?

 

[charlatan]

This style is easily seen for what it is; an agenda driven, spin biased argument that gets little relevance from informed readers.
But these arguments do usually manage to garner the usual mindless "atta boy" or two, if that is the objective.

Reality has a mindless, agenda-driven pro-innocence bias.

 

[Dan O.]

The real question is: Does Mignini himself think he is a psychic or have some other power to "see" the truth before bothering to find the facts?

 

[Paninaro]

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment.
Curatolo's testimony would only prove they are lying about their alibi. And a false alibi is evidence of guilt. The fact that they are not there is - based on Curatolo's testimony and the medical opinions - not only qustionable on logical grounds due to uncertainity about ToD and about timings of Curatolo's testimony, but also legally of little value. Because you don't have to be in a specific place in order to be guilty of a charge, you only have to be responsible of an event. Whether their responsibility consists in stabbing Meredith or doing other activities such as covering things up, to me, only a secondary matter. The first logical step is finding proof of involvement and responsability, dynamic is a secondary step. It's obvious that if both are not in the murder room at the moment of the fatal stabbing, it would be difficult to describe a dynamic of the murder. But nonetheless a false alibi like this one cannot be considered an evidence of non-responsibility.

Yes, a false alibi is a clear sign of guilt of some sort. But it's clear that Hellmanns court doesn't consider Curatolos testimony trustworthy.

So no, Curatolos testimony doesn't work as an evidence of their alibi, but that's not the point when it's said that that it does, if you follow what I mean. If Curatolos testimony is to believe it's not consistent with the time line and the narrative of the prosecution. And the prosecution need to show a believable theory of the crime, which it hasn't done, even if Curatolo's testimony is accepted. Therefore Curatolos testimony doesn't work as evidence of murder either way. The case of the prosecution must add up, or else there is reasonable doubt. It's possible for example in theory that Knox and Sollecito did lie about being at Sollecitos apartment the whole evening, and still wasn't involved in the murder.

It could be constructed a theory were Knox and Sollecito had something to hide but didn't commit murder. The prosecution need an unbroken chain to connect the pair to the murder and they just couldn't prove that. That is the key to understand Hellmanns acquittal. Contrary to what you think Hellmann's court must see an alternative explanation to all the evidence.

 

[Osterwelle]

I was talking about leaving the police station on Nov. 5. Knox was not free to do so, and therefore was detained.

And that was also stated by the police when they informed the embassy. The cable says "Detained for interrogation on November 5, 2007".

Maybe someone can link the pdf, I can't do that yet...

-
Osterwelle

 

[TruthCalls]

(Which BTW reminds me of how propaganda influences the masses of 'less informed' with simpleton sequences of self perpetuating restatements.)

Maybe you need reminding (or possibly informing) about Judge Hellman's comments after his in Court TV cameras were off.
__________________________________
Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all

Judge says acquittal of US student and Rafaelle Sollecito was based on 'truth created in the proceedings'.
But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

_______________________________

But surely you knew that.

You also surely know that repeatedly arguing by using propaganda like spin about "exoneration, completely vindicated, etcccc" is grossly inaccurate, even if the Final Appeal had been decided.
Which you may also need informing... has not.

This style is easily seen for what it is; an agenda driven, spin biased argument that gets little relevance from informed readers.
But these arguments do usually manage to garner the usual mindless "atta boy" or two, if that is the objective.

ETA:
In the interests of a Forum that extols endlessly the necessity for minute accuracy, Judge Hellman never used the words that you seem so enraptured with, and keep repeating.
He did however use the *exact* words I have referenced above:They may be responsible

Ah yes, They may be responsible. These words means about as much as There may be life on Mars. They are correct in that, in the absence of absolute proof to the contrary, they must be considered as potentially correct. Judge Hellman also used these *exact* words; but the evidence is not there. Like the case for life on Mars, these words accurately assess the current argument for Knox and/or Sollecito being involved in Kercher's murder -- there is no evidence to support this.

 

[daydreamer]

The real question is: Does Mignini himself think he is a psychic or have some other power to "see" the truth before bothering to find the facts?

I just finished reading The Monster Of Florence by Doug Preston. I was amazed at the many similarities with the AK&RS case. I seems that the strange methods used by the investigators are not limited to Mignini and company. Here is what seems to be the Italian investigators mode of operation (at least in these 2 cases):

1) Select suspects based on hunches, intuition, on “strange “ behavior
2) Search for, or create confirming evidence
3) Ignore, alter or destroy exculpatory evidence
4) Intimidate, threaten or abuse anyone who “gets in the way”
5) Concoct a wild/contorted scenario to make the evidence fit
6) Lie to the suspects, media, even the court to “sell” the storyline
7) Assembly a team of witnesses by whatever means, ignoring credibility
8) Never, I mean never, admit to making a mistake or charging the wrong person, even at the risk of wrongful imprisonment

The book is worth reading, if only for similarities. The first half focuses on the murders and the second half deals with the Preston and Mario Spezi case