Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Actually, upon reflection I largely agree with this. Generally the police don't have to inform suspects of their rights until there is enough evidence to make an arrest. But once there is, they absolutely do have to inform the suspect of her rights. Amanda should have refused to talk once it became clear the police thought she was involved in the murder. She should have refused to answer any more questions as soon as the questioning became hostile. Unfortunately, innocent people with no criminal history are not very savvy when dealing with the police.

But this is exactly what the police and the magistrate did. This is why the interrogation was ended at 01:45, as there was evidence enough to declare Amanda a formal suspect.
The police could have gone on interrogationg her, but they stopped.
Their duty is to declare the status of police arrest and to stop any interrogation. The magistrate then has the duty to inform the suspect about his/her rights, which is what Mignini did by giving her the paper the "warrants" and make a reading at the presence of a translator. This document actually accomplishes the formalizing of the status of suspect.
At this point, Amanda was informed she had the right to release statements.

In fact, the only problems I have with the interrogation are the failure to record, the hitting, the denial of food and water, and the denial of use of the restroom.

But there isn't anything like that, no claim of such kind. This is pure FoAs propaganda. On the contrary, Amanda claimed that she was given a chamomille tee and food just after the interrogation in which she mentioned the name of Patrick. This is only 2,5 hours after the beginning of interrogation.
As for internalized false confessions (or false accusation, in this case) Kassin (on of the main authors about false confessions in the US) maintains time is a key factor, and "nobody falsely confesses in an hour"; in his experience all false confessions he saw occured after a minumum of 14 hours interrogation, often more.
It must be said, there has never been any claim about an interrogation occurred at 05.54: there was interrogation after 01:45. There was instead a written "spontaneous statement" redacted together with translator and a magistrate. The terms spontaneous statement means there is no questioning.
The fact that there has not been an interrogation later than 01:45, is something that would be considered certain based on the legal process; since there were no claims nor elements of evidence of the contrary.
The only interrogation of Knox, that night, started after 22.40 and ended before 01:45. This is something established. It was followed by chamomille tee and pastries; for years, Amanda and her defence never claimed the opposite. Quite on the contrary, Amanda still sticks to a "statement" description even when she speaks before Judge Micheli many months after. The same version, a version which does not include any night lasting interrogation, was never disputed, neither before Judge Matteini, before Judge Ricciarelli, nor before Mignini during the preliminary investigation, nor in any other statement released by Amanda or by her defense.
There is no claim an interrogation ever took place after the end of the 01:45 interrogation. Even less there could have been claims of denial of bathroom breaks or foor/water denial or sleep deprivation. The only claim was hitting, and it is only twice and located before 01:45.

On the other hand, something absolutely sure is that Sollecito - please recall this event - completely changed his version and withdrew Knox's alibi, and blamed her for having asked him to lie.

 

[Diocletus]

On the contrary, Amanda claimed that she was given a chamomille tee and food just after the interrogation in which she mentioned the name of Patrick.

You mean "tea". A "tee" is something you place an object on if you want to beat the hell out of it. It can also be a verb. So, you could say something like this: the police teed up Amanda's head and gave her a smack down.

 

[Diocletus]

As for internalized false confessions (or false accusation, in this case) Kassin (on of the main authors about false confessions in the US) maintains time is a key factor, and "nobody falsely confesses in an hour"; in his experience all false confessions he saw occured after a minumum of 14 hours interrogation, often more.

Did Kassin do any experiments on cops hitting people? How long do you think the cops waited before they hit her?

 

[Diocletus]

On the other hand, something absolutely sure is that Sollecito - please recall this event - completely changed his version and withdrew Knox's alibi, and blamed her for having asked him to lie.

Where is Sollecito's signed statement that says so? I would like to read his words.

 

[Freddy]

But this is exactly what the police and the magistrate did. This is why the interrogation was ended at 01:45, as there was evidence enough to declare Amanda a formal suspect.
The police could have gone on interrogationg her, but they stopped.
Their duty is to declare the status of police arrest and to stop any interrogation. The magistrate then has the duty to inform the suspect about his/her rights, which is what Mignini did by giving her the paper the "warrants" and make a reading at the presence of a translator. This document actually accomplishes the formalizing of the status of suspect.
At this point, Amanda was informed she had the right to release statements.




But there isn't anything like that, no claim of such kind. This is pure FoAs propaganda. On the contrary, Amanda claimed that she was given a chamomille tee and food just after the interrogation in which she mentioned the name of Patrick. This is only 2,5 hours after the beginning of interrogation.
As for internalized false confessions (or false accusation, in this case) Kassin (on of the main authors about false confessions in the US) maintains time is a key factor, and "nobody falsely confesses in an hour"; in his experience all false confessions he saw occured after a minumum of 14 hours interrogation, often more.
It must be said, there has never been any claim about an interrogation occurred at 05.54: there was interrogation after 01:45. There was instead a written "spontaneous statement" redacted together with translator and a magistrate. The terms spontaneous statement means there is no questioning.
The fact that there has not been an interrogation later than 01:45, is something that would be considered certain based on the legal process; since there were no claims nor elements of evidence of the contrary.
The only interrogation of Knox, that night, started after 22.40 and ended before 01:45. This is something established. It was followed by chamomille tee and pastries; for years, Amanda and her defence never claimed the opposite. Quite on the contrary, Amanda still sticks to a "statement" description even when she speaks before Judge Micheli many months after. The same version, a version which does not include any night lasting interrogation, was never disputed, neither before Judge Matteini, before Judge Ricciarelli, nor before Mignini during the preliminary investigation, nor in any other statement released by Amanda or by her defense.
There is no claim an interrogation ever took place after the end of the 01:45 interrogation. Even less there could have been claims of denial of bathroom breaks or foor/water denial or sleep deprivation. The only claim was hitting, and it is only twice and located before 01:45.

On the other hand, something absolutely sure is that Sollecito - please recall this event - completely changed his version and withdrew Knox's alibi, and blamed her for having asked him to lie.

My apologies, but I substantially edited my post, apparently after you started replying. Before I respond, I want to give you time to read the edited version. Not that I think you'll agree, especially because after thinking about it some more, I agree with you less than I did when I initially posted. But I think that the problem is that the structure of Italy's criminal procedure rules, as you describe them, seems not to map well onto the language of the treaty.

 

[Diastole]

I also reject the reasoning that Curatolo might exonerate Raffaele and Amanda in some cases: it cannot, in principle, because a false alibi constitutes itself always evidence of guilt. And guilt is a wider concept depending on the concept of responsability, not directly depending from a scenario. A false alibi is the covering of a crime.

If a false alibi is invariable evidence of guilt, why wasn't Knox immediately declared a suspect when Sollecito refuted her alibi during his interrogation? Is it because such a declaration would have forestalled the attempt by the police to beat a confession out of her?

Really, Machiavelli, for a person who claims to have intimate acquaintance with police malpractice in Genoa and Ferrara, your approbation of police tactics in Perugia strikes me as rather disingenuous.

 

[Fine]

I liked this comment from Stefano Nazzi:



http://www.kronaka.it/

_______________________

Rose,

Even stronger words in another Italian Editorial: The Printing of Trash, HERE. This writer don't approve of the Kerchers, the Mayor of Perugia, press coverage of the case,.....and don't think the case against the lovebirds should have ever been brought to trial.

///

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
The reasoning here is on Curatolo.
<snip>

Greetings Machiavelli,
You've been talkin' about Curatolo abit, allow me to add my 2 cents.

Curatolo, from what I now know, did speak with the police around 1:30pm the day that Meredith was found murdered. He did not, apparently, tell them he saw anything suspicious. Even though the cops must have told him that a young gal was murdered. Even though he had been a murder witness in 2 other previous trials, so the guy knows the score, what info the cops would want to here from him. "Did ya see anything, 'Toto'?"

There's a guy named Raffaele Sollecito who has just been released from prison after 4 years.

This guy Raffaele bears an uncanny resemblance to Harry Potter.
Every one knows what Harry Potter looks like. He is sooo easily recognisable. But Curatolo did not tell the police this info then. Why not?

Curatolo, much, much later tells Judge Massei's court that he did see something, he pointed at Amanda and Raff in the courtroom and said that when he 1st arrived at his favorite park bench, he sees them from the beginning, from 21:30, and he keeps seeing them, talking, arguing, going to the rail to watch below... until at least 23:30, when the discotheque buses start to leave.*

Curatolo knows the time because he said that he goes to check it to the electronic board --on the other side of the square-- and also, get this, that he was wearing his own watch. And he happened to have checked the time that he arrived and saw Amanda and Raff hanging around outside that night, just talking, arguing, loitering on a chilly evening.

Curatolo had always stated not to have a watch. So what does Judge Massei do? Judge Massei asked him to show his watch. And he didn't have it. Judge Massei asked him if he could be more precise about his arrival time because 21:30-22:00 was a bit vague.

And he did get more precise, much more precise: 21:27-21:28!*
Wow, the guy has a great memory!

But how precise was he?
I wonder, it was kinda cold that night, what was Amanda wearing when he saw her, a grey coat, a red coat, or maybe some other color coat? What about Raff? I bet Raff was wearing his scarf. Was it a yellow scarf, a blue scarf, a red scarf?? Did Curatolo even give a detailed description of what they both were wearing? I seriously doubt it...

'Toto' is a strange guy, in my humble opinion. From what I know, he sells cocaine, but he apparently likes the heroin high instead and then just vegs out and reads the newspaper late at night while relaxin' on a park bench. Most folks I know kinda dig a cup of hot coffee while reading the newspaper when it's cold outside. Decaf even works late at night. But this guy doesn't grab a cup of coffee. He goes for the pipe, an opium high, on a cold night. He checks the time he arrived and then, in between reading articles he watches a guy and gal argue and loiter for a few hours, but does not tell the police any of this information when they stop by and ask him questions on the afternoon that Miss Kercher was found brutally slain.

I would think that a guy, who had a drug sting bust hangin' over his head, would surely want to come forward of his own free will and tell the police everything he knew right then, scorin' major points with investigators. Most people, when there is a major police scene developing, will crowd around and spectate. Surely Curatolo did so too, Wouldn't he want to know what was goin' down in his own neighborhood? And you know what? Raffaele, that Harry Potter look-alike, was right there! "That's the dude I saw last night, policeman!!!"

How could 'Toto' not positively ID the guy right there and then? Nor when he saw the Polizia Scientifica show up and get to work a short while later. Why didn't he do so the next day, nor the next? Ya got me.

Someone else said it well. Hey 'Toto':
Even though some days --or months-- have passed since the date of the crime, no problem. Your testimony will be even more important. Just avoid going to the Carabinieri or Police. Better call Giornale dell'Umbria first, and life will smile at you.*

Machiavelli, you believe Curatolo?!?
RW


* - Sfarzo is the source...

 

[Bruce Fischer]

But this is exactly what the police and the magistrate did. This is why the interrogation was ended at 01:45, as there was evidence enough to declare Amanda a formal suspect.
The police could have gone on interrogationg her, but they stopped.
Their duty is to declare the status of police arrest and to stop any interrogation. The magistrate then has the duty to inform the suspect about his/her rights, which is what Mignini did by giving her the paper the "warrants" and make a reading at the presence of a translator. This document actually accomplishes the formalizing of the status of suspect.
At this point, Amanda was informed she had the right to release statements.




But there isn't anything like that, no claim of such kind. This is pure FoAs propaganda. On the contrary, Amanda claimed that she was given a chamomille tee and food just after the interrogation in which she mentioned the name of Patrick. This is only 2,5 hours after the beginning of interrogation.
As for internalized false confessions (or false accusation, in this case) Kassin (on of the main authors about false confessions in the US) maintains time is a key factor, and "nobody falsely confesses in an hour"; in his experience all false confessions he saw occured after a minumum of 14 hours interrogation, often more.
It must be said, there has never been any claim about an interrogation occurred at 05.54: there was interrogation after 01:45. There was instead a written "spontaneous statement" redacted together with translator and a magistrate. The terms spontaneous statement means there is no questioning.
The fact that there has not been an interrogation later than 01:45, is something that would be considered certain based on the legal process; since there were no claims nor elements of evidence of the contrary.
The only interrogation of Knox, that night, started after 22.40 and ended before 01:45. This is something established. It was followed by chamomille tee and pastries; for years, Amanda and her defence never claimed the opposite. Quite on the contrary, Amanda still sticks to a "statement" description even when she speaks before Judge Micheli many months after. The same version, a version which does not include any night lasting interrogation, was never disputed, neither before Judge Matteini, before Judge Ricciarelli, nor before Mignini during the preliminary investigation, nor in any other statement released by Amanda or by her defense.
There is no claim an interrogation ever took place after the end of the 01:45 interrogation. Even less there could have been claims of denial of bathroom breaks or foor/water denial or sleep deprivation. The only claim was hitting, and it is only twice and located before 01:45.

On the other hand, something absolutely sure is that Sollecito - please recall this event - completely changed his version and withdrew Knox's alibi, and blamed her for having asked him to lie.

Are you aware that Saul Kassin reviewed Amanda's interrogation for the defense and that his report was submitted in court? Are you aware that his report supported Amanda's position?

Sometime after the supreme court rules, I will post Kassin's work. You should probably stop using him as a reference because it makes you look silly.

 

[Ammonitida]

Where is Sollecito's signed statement that says so? I would like to read his words.

It's said to be from his Nov. 4 interrogation.

"Just then, Amanda went into the big bathroom and came out looking scared. She clung to me and said that when she was showering earlier, there had been stools in the lavatory bowl but now it was clean. I wondered what was going on and went out to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window. I tried to force the door but I couldn’t open it. Then I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a lieutenant in the carabinieri. She told me to call 112 but by this time the postal police had arrived. In my earlier statement, I told you a whole lot of rubbish because Amanda convinced me about her version and I didn’t think about the contradictions.”

"I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her”.

 

[TruthCalls]

I may suggest to refrain from the practice of attampting to re-construct a reasoning in the shape of a generalizing rule, using universal concepts and categories.
The reasoning here is on Curatolo. About his specific testimony and its timing uncertainities, about the lack of alibies of the defendants after 8:40, about the lack of certainity in the so called (by you) medical conclusions about ToD, and about the verious possibility of how Sollecito and Amanda could be involved in this specific crime.

According to the police there was activity on Sollecito's computer at 9:10. They were last seen by someone else at 8:40, but there is evidence to support their alibi until 9:10. Perhaps there might have been more if the police didn't destroy the hard drives.

Your opinion puts the ToD between 9pm and 10pm.
There is no scientific certainity, despite I know that posters on this board are used to claim there is such certainity. There isn't. Variants do not allow to formulate a response in the terms that you claim.
But on the other hand, there are witnesses (two) who place a very disturbing woman's scream, obviously to be related to the murder and nothing else (corroborated by the testimonies of two suspects), at a time that is not between 9 and 10 pm. And this is also something called evidence.

It's not my opinion, it's a calculation based on scientific study. Meredith and her friends ate between 6 - 6:30pm. This meal had not yet made it to her duodenum by ToD. Since this typically takes between 2-4 hours, her ToD would need to be between 8pm and 10:30pm. We'd have an even better estimate of ToD if the police didn't screw up and not take core body temperature, but that's for another discussion.

Interesting how with Curatolo, you just accept "timing uncertainties" yet with the two very questionable 'audio' witnesses you have no issue with their time estimates. These two witnesses come with a lot of baggage, but you can work them into your version of the crime, so they're good to go, no uncertainties of what they claimed happened.

False. Curatolo's testimony does not consist in a continous observation, and if read literaly, based on the calculation on buses leaving, the last time he spots the defendants may well be at 22:30.
But the overall combination of the uncertainities allows a bigger game between the elements. Even a ToD at 9.00 does not really imply anything about defendants' innocence. They both don't have an alibi after 8:40. They could well have met again at 9:30 after Meredith had been killed, and one of them was present as she was killed while the other was not.

Curatolo's testimony was he repeatedly saw them between 9:30 and just before midnight. There is evidence they were using the computer at 9:10 watching the end of the movie. So unless you're arguing they quit watching the movie, ran over to the cottage, murdered Meredith and then raced back to the Piazza by 9:30, Curatolo's testimony isn't helping your cause.

Absolutely not. I can also believe parts and discredit other parts of a testimony, if I deem there are founded reasons to do so.

Yes you can. That's called cherry picking.. something bias people do a lot of.

No. I never made such statement. I always repeated I have no definitive position about Curatolo's testimony. But there is something which I do reject, and this is the reasons put forward by posters on this board in order to discredit Curatolo. It is possible - but bear in mind this is not a judgement, merely a teorethical scenario based on the fact I did not listen to the whole CUratolo's testimony - that Curatolo is wrong in identifying the two suspects and gets the wrong people. This is an intrinsic danger. However, I do not accept the theory that he is unreliable because a drug user or possessor, nor that he is lying.
I also reject the reasoning that Curatolo might exonerate Raffaele and Amanda in some cases: it cannot, in principle, because a false alibi constitutes itself always evidence of guilt. And guilt is a wider concept depending on the concept of responsability, not directly depending from a scenario. A false alibi is the covering of a crime.
In this case, also the several different ways for how the two suspect can have participated to the crime, allow us to consider various scenarios, among them also a (teorethically possible) one where Curatolo sees the two after the crime is committed instead of before; and we may also consider that only one of them may have been present in the house as Meredith was killed. This shall not change the verdict by the law, in my opinion.
The verdict of guilt comes from the demonstration that both took part to the cleanup and alteration of the scene, both cover the event by tampering with evidence and lie about their knowledge of facts. And also, both physically touched things and the victim's body and committed crimes in the context of the murder, and there is evidence at least one second person took part to the aggression. There is also obvious physical and logical evidence that the third suspect (who had a link to Knox) did not leave all the physical evidence on the crime scene.

I agree, I do not dismiss Curatolo because of his drug use, though it does make him extremely unreliable at best. Personally, I still believe their alibi as it makes perfect sense; two young kids, dating only a week, and incredibly they both get unexpected notice that they are not needed that evening. Hmmm... get high and make love or head over to the cottage and kill Meredith. Easy choice for me. But let's assume for a moment that Curatolo was correct and Knox and Sollecito lied about their alibi. That most definitely is NOT evidence of guilt. It simply means what they were really doing they didn't want others to know. Yes, this *could* mean they were busy killing her roommate. But it could also mean a host of other things. It's only you who chooses to automatically assume this must mean they were busy killing Meredith.

The point is, you want it all ways. You want Curatolo's evidence to be accurate enough to prove they are lying about their alibi, but no so accurate as to prove they couldn't have been there. You are cherry picking and massaging the data to fit your version of events.

 

[Kaosium]

Yet none of the above changes the central issue: at which point is a defendant to be considered definitively convicted or acquitted in an Italian court (or when does the U.S. considers that to be the case)? That's clearly a matter of interpretation, not something which is clear-cut - the article is worded loosely enough to allow either argument to be made.

It was in the second link I provided, after the quote from Freddy. There's a few exceptions to the rule, they all basically amount to never having actually gone through a real trial and been acquitted, which would not be the case with a trial of the Second Instance. What happens in a case of double jeopardy anyway? Another court decides for whatever reason they want to retry the offender, and even if it includes a prosecution appeal, it is disallowed on grounds of double jeopardy.

The question of double jeopardy itself is not at issue, since not only do the U.S. and the ECHR consider double jeopardy a violation of human rights, but so does Italy. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (of which Italy is a member) includes the paragraph:

I stand corrected, I was remembering reading the rumblings of (probably) defense lawyers and other criminal coddling bleeding hearts ( ) unhappy about the current circumstances, this case suggests that the ECHR would include the potential circumstances of Amanda's Trial of the Second Instance as not violating the ECHR provisions. With extreme prejudice I might add! To wit:

As for the applicant’s argument concerning double jeopardy, the Court reiterates that the principle of ne bis in idem is embodied solely in Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see, inter alia, Ponsetti and Chesnel v. France ((dec.), nos. 36855/97 and 41731/98, ECHR 1999 VI). The Court will therefore examine the complaint under that provision.

Accordingly, the Court considers that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

So the issue is not whether someone should be tried again for the same offence; it's that under the Italian system, a person is held to be innocent until definitively convicted, and this definitive conviction/acquittal occurs only at Supreme Court level - and whether the U.S. recognizes that fact or not. Double jeopardy being a Bad Thing is a given which all parties accept.

In a case of extradition from the US (or anywhere) the issue is not the laws of the requesting state, but the laws of the ones being requested of. Most all states offer their citizens and those in their country certain rights, thus they don't just hand over anyone asked for, in this case the Canadian government wouldn't release 'Bambi' until she was guaranteed another review, even though she too was a convicted murderess. I mentioned Roman Polanski in my last post as well. In Amanda (or Raffaele's) case the authority is the highest in the land, the Constitution itself, notably the Fifth Amendment. The one that government (in the US) cannot break, theoretically at least.

It doesn't change because an appellate court, which is the role the Court of Cassation serves in this case, wants to retry someone on prosecution appeal, any more than it would here under the same circumstances. The issue here is not the dignity of the Italian Court System, but the rights of the accused.

I have no idea whether there have been previous extradition attempts in which the double jeopardy rule has been an issue. Hence my question.

From yours and other responses, I assume an extradition has never been denied on the grounds of double jeopardy, although as CDHost says, this is no doubt mainly due to there having been few extradition cases in general.

I have no idea whether it has or not, and would suspect if it hasn't another likely reason was because they knew it would be refused. It wouldn't surprise me if someone tried it as a political ploy.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest this is what Comodi was referring to when she said there was no extradition treaty, to be honest (it was a fairly unambiguous statement!). I think she was simply either wrong or lying.

That could be too, however she seemed to know that Amanda would be released and they wouldn't be getting her back, which was the point of her statement. She could have also gotten lucky and told a true lie or stupidly hit upon the truth.

I'm curious when you say that the "ECHR currently makes an allowance for a prosecution appeal in the Trial of the First Instance" - do they really make an "allowance" for this aspect of the Italian system, in the sense that it's almost an exception to the rule? Or is it just that the ECHR recognizes Italy's final verdict as that given by the Supreme Court, and the double jeopardy rule wouldn't come into play until after that point?

Yes to the latter, as noted above that Menelaou decision by the ECHR demonstrates the double-jeopardy provision is not one of them, and I was apparently reading the wishes of those who would very much like that changed, perhaps in part due to that decision.

I know that the ECHR has given Italy a hard time over the length of time its trials take, but I'm not aware it has ever challenged it on the grounds that its system is in violation of the double jeopardy principle which Italy signed up to.

Italy also dominates EU member nations in the 'Right to a Fair Trial' category. Turkey and the Ukraine are the the only ones who surpass it of the nations subject to the ECHR.

Incidentally, I don't think it's necessary that the Supreme Court order a retrial following an annulment of the second degree judgment; as I understand it they can also just let the first degree judgment stand, which in this case would be Massei's (perhaps Machiavelli can correct me if I'm wrong on this). Presumably no double jeopardy argument could be made in that case.

No, as the case I posted above shows, what they do is (on points of law) void the result of the Trial of the Second Instance, and remand it back to the Court of Court of Assizes for a retrial on that level. Amanda would still be considered innocent under Italian law, and as Machiavelli posted recently they would not even ask for extradition until the whole thing had been through the courts again and she was convicted guilty in finality through the Court of Cassation. They would try her in absentia.

However, none of this matters, nor would it were she in Great Britain, Mexico, India--or even Oz! Double jeopardy protections prevent it, just because one cannot sue through the ECHR doesn't mean common-law countries also subject to the ECHR automatically bow to the majesty of the Italian Court System, their laws supersede it. What happens in Italy (and other vestiges of inquisitorial systems) cannot happen in those countries because of that stricture. Just because a prosecutor can appeal a trier of fact in Italy doesn't mean that elsewhere everyone must subsume their own law to that. Canada is one common-law legal system that doesn't have that stricture and would consider the trial not completed until the Court of Cassation approved it, that makes it unusual in that respect.

 

[TruthCalls]

It's said to be from his Nov. 4 interrogation.

"Just then, Amanda went into the big bathroom and came out looking scared. She clung to me and said that when she was showering earlier, there had been stools in the lavatory bowl but now it was clean. I wondered what was going on and went out to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window. I tried to force the door but I couldn’t open it. Then I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a lieutenant in the carabinieri. She told me to call 112 but by this time the postal police had arrived. In my earlier statement, I told you a whole lot of rubbish because Amanda convinced me about her version and I didn’t think about the contradictions.”

"I’ve known Amanda for a fortnight. She’s been sleeping at my flat since the evening we met. On 1 November, I woke up at about 11 am. I had breakfast with Amanda and then she left. I went back to bed. I got to her place at 1 or 2 pm. Meredith was there but she left in a hurry about 4 pm without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at 6 pm or so but I can’t remember what we did. We were in the town centre until 8.30 or 9 pm. At 9 pm, I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That’s when we said goodbye. I went home, smoked a joint and had dinner but I can’t remember what I ate. At about 11 pm, my dad called on the landline. I remember that Amanda hadn’t come back yet. I surfed the net for another two hours after dad called and only stopped when Amanda got back, at about 1 am, I suppose. I can’t remember what she was wearing or if she was wearing the same clothes she had on when she said goodbye before dinner. I can’t remember if we had sex that night. The following morning, we got up at about 10 am and she told me she wanted to go home, have a shower and change. She left at around 10.30 and I went back to sleep. When Amanda left, she took an empty carrier bag, saying she needed it for her dirty washing. She came back about 11.30 and I remember she had changed her clothes. She had her usual bag with her”.

Well, we know this can't be correct because there were two eyewitnesses who saw Amanda at Raffaele's place, the last one was at 8:40. So really, this statement is rubbish. Kind of makes me wonder where/how it came to be. Surely Raffaele knew Amanda spoke with Jovana Popovic so why would he say he was in the town centre with Amanda at that time?

 

[RandyN]

And speaking of silly lets examine the above "logic".

Mach says..…“The “absolute” right to remain silent in fact does not exist at all for normal citizens in Italy, there is not even the slightest right to remain silent,"

Funny how just yesterday he argued that Quintinvale the shop keeper decided to remain silent when he was questioned by police shortly after the murder. And you further stated that this is normal behavior because no one wants to become involved in a police matter..(whew...I can certainly understand why) But this seems to indicate that Mignini failed to do his duty to the law against this shop keeper. When he finally discovered that Quintinvale has kept silent...in fact Quintinvale lied to police in those early days? So why is it that Mignini did not do his job? Why can this Italian citizen keep silent which according to you is certainly not allowed? Why can he lie and be discovered by the PM and yet he is free as a bird? Why? You aren’t going to tell us that Quintinvale was a formal suspect are you? SO WHY?


The only proof that we have that Amanda was not questioned after 1:45 AM is the word of a convicted criminal abuser of office named Mignini. Why should we believe this mans word? And save me the three phases of innocence in Italy. Right now a court has found him guilty and he currently awaits an appeal trial.

It seems to most logical people and countries that a suspected…no convicted (once) liar and abuser who is found guilty should at least be barred temporality during his appeal from the office which he was found guilty of abusing...and the reasoning is a highly likely propensity to recommit his crime. This would be like returning the schoolmaster found guilty of abusing children back to his job of overseeing children. The risk is high that the abuse would continue.

So how hard is it for a known criminal to lie about asking a few questions? Certainly there is a tape for this part right?? Granted the only reason to lie is that Mignini would breaking the law by doing so as it would clearly violate the suspects right to a lawyer. And so is it possible he made up the spontaneous statement story...? What did they do from 1:45 until 5:45? More tea and cake?

Finally how is it that RS was never allowed a lawyer until his first appearance in court?
And what of Lumumba? He was certainly a suspect and so where was his lawyer during his interrogation on 6 Nov 2007? Do you know his name so that we can question this lawyer about the methods and treatment of Lumumba during this interrogation? Can we see this video? No one is stupid enough to forget to record 3 separate but important murder suspect interrogations right?

Can you understand why we think something is not right about these stories? Why it appears that the officials seem to act like thugs? Why Hellmann called the Massei report unsustainable fiction?

Tell us please what the ruling of the Supreme Court means in regards to statements made by Amanda on Nov 5 and 6 2007? And will the Supreme Court in reviewing Massei somehow be able to ignore the fact that its own ruling was ignored by the judge and prosecutor? How would it be possible for them to ignore this?

I think based on this matter alone the Supreme Court must throw out the charges against Amanda in Lumumbas case. And once there are no statements then it follows that the case must dissolve as there is no cause to even bring it.

 

[Kaosium]

Based on the article that I linked to it seems that the US Supreme court has decided that a failure to inform an individual of their right to request the notification of their consul is not grounds for reversal of the conviction. One might disagree with the decision, but the US Supreme Court decided that the US does not need to comply with the treaties it has signed to convict somebody.

ETA:
From the article:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume6_2/Quigley-FinalPDF.pdf

ETA2: I just realized that none of this is exactly on point. The issue raised is whether the statement of an individual could be used against him in the US if had not been informed of his right to consular notification. I tried to find something on that exactly and I didn't.

I did find that Patrick Leahy (US Senator) has introduced a bill to increase compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular relations. http://www.humbertoleal.org/consular-notification-compliance-act.html You can sign a petition for it there.

It might be that circumstances here are a bit different which could impact on this issue. This link from somewhere you might be familiar with suggests just why it's not simply automatic, and just like Leahy it appears they also think it important.

Just a comparison here, Italy's police are national, there's about a dozen different departments as opposed to the 19k in the United States. It ought also be noted that despite all the arrests, the percentage of foreign-born in American prisons is quite a bit below the rate for natural-born, so either we're really easy on them or they're 'introduced' to their consular representative.

Italy's foreign-born prison population is 30%, in the United States it's about half that of natural-born as a percentage of the population, about 6%. So perhaps the reason the Vienna Convention is not as widely disseminated in the US is because of the absolute unwieldiness of all our state, local and federal law enforcement agencies and because other laws allow the ability of the accused to contact their consulate if they want to, and in some cases the authorities will be contacting their consulate whether they like it or not!

 

[Ammonitida]

Well, we know this can't be correct because there were two eyewitnesses who saw Amanda at Raffaele's place, the last one was at 8:40. So really, this statement is rubbish. Kind of makes me wonder where/how it came to be. Surely Raffaele knew Amanda spoke with Jovana Popovic so why would he say he was in the town centre with Amanda at that time?

I think I have an idea of how it came to be.

“I certainly couldn't have imagined that, rather than protect me, the police would act with violence and coercion."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...lecito-claims-assault-by-police-16059848.html

That makes three suspects claiming abuse at the hands of their interrogators.

1. Patrick Lumumba's statements alleging physical violence and racial abuse in an interview to the Daily Mail

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1ciaBiS8e

He later denied making these statements but thanks to the inquiries of a certain poster here, we know that Hoyle stands by her article -- insisting that he made those statement to her.

2. Amanda's allegations that she was interrogated for hours (6 to 7 hours) in which she was yelled at, physically assaulted, and eventually coerced into giving a confused account that was later recanted on Nov.7 in a handwritten statement.

"But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home" Nov.7 handwritten statement

"The development of this state of confusion
followed the fact that for hours and hours and hours, they called me a
stupid liar." From trial testimony

3. Sollecito's account of violence and coercion.

 

[Antony]

On the DOT.net we are told Amanda can't sell her story because of Son of Sam laws.

Seriously, who ever took these people seriously? It's like they are self parodying at this point. I actually enjoy reading PMF on occasion now because they are so freaking funny.

Can you explain "Son of Sam" for someone not from the US?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Can you explain "Son of Sam" for someone not from the US?

It's a law passed to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. Named after the "Son of Sam" killer David Berkewitz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law


Of course, since Amanda wasn't convicted of a crime, she's not subject to said law and will make a mint off her story. I just read in TV Guide that she's shopping her first televised interview and sh'es going to get paid.

Ka-ching! $$$$

 

[RoseMontague]

_______________________

Rose,

Even stronger words in another Italian Editorial: The Printing of Trash, HERE. This writer don't approve of the Kerchers, the Mayor of Perugia, press coverage of the case,.....and don't think the case against the lovebirds should have ever been brought to trial.

///

Thanks for this one, and another great quote:

In short, the Kercher does not recognize the ruling of the Court of Assizes of Perugia and appeal and did not make it in this way to despise the Italian legal gaming.

Perhaps the poor father of murdered British student is convinced that someone who has spent four years in jail unjustly should not be able to return to a normal life.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you aware that Saul Kassin reviewed Amanda's interrogation for the defense and that his report was submitted in court? Are you aware that his report supported Amanda's position?

Sometime after the supreme court rules, I will post Kassin's work. You should probably stop using him as a reference because it makes you look silly.

Thanks Bruce, this is both interesting as well as somewhat amusing. I look forward to it.