Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[JREF2010]

I can not speak intelligently about Macs which I believe Raffaele's computer was. However, Windows PCs keep log files for startup and proper shutdowns. (If one merely unplugs a PC, that isn't recorded, however the next logon is recorded.)

more details are in his book on this subject.
we all know the incompetent/and or corrupt, polizia were destroying critical evidence.... but here again it seems Guilty until proven Innocent is in play.
the destruction and overwriting of the information only strengthened the Prosecutions case, which could be the motivation for corruption. It could be incompetence of the police too. who knows?

 

[acbytesla]

more details are in his book on this subject.
we all know the incompetent/and or corrupt, polizia were destroying critical evidence.... but here again it seems Guilty until proven Innocent is in play.
the destruction and overwriting of the information only strengthened the Prosecutions case, which could be the motivation for corruption. It could be incompetence of the police too. who knows?

There is little doubt that the Perugian authorities were NOT equipped to deal with this kind of crime. I do believe that they are corrupt, but they are even more inept.

 

[Bill Williams]

The point is that the callunia charge doesn't even need to stick to serve Mignini's agenda. He'll get the defence lawyers to shut up about the slapping, and he'll tie down Amanda's parents with a burdensome court case so that they have less resources to devote to the murder charge.

There's no downside, even if the charge is ultimately thrown out for being of no merit. It's win-win either way for him. What is there "not to understand" about the cops' supposed hurt feelings?

It's called SLAPP. Try Wiki for a definition.

 

[Grinder]

It's called SLAPP. Try Wiki for a definition.

This is not about SLAPPS.

The term strategic lawsuits against public participation, known by the acronym SLAPPs

This isn't about governments suing people but rather people with vested interests suing people to keep them out of the public debate debate usually about a government action.

An example might be a developer suing an activist that wants to stop the permitting of new mall that requires the taking of some public land. The suit is intended to stop the activist by costing him money and time.

ETA - In a typical SLAPP, an individual or citizens' group—the target (using Pring and Canan's terminology), or defendant—is sued by the filer, or plaintiff, for alleged wrongdoing simply because that individual or group has used constitutionally protected rights to persuade the government to take a particular course of action. SLAPPs have been directed against individuals and groups that have spoken in public forums on a wide variety of issues, particularly against real estate development, the actions of public officials, environmental damage or Pollution, and unwanted land use. They have also been used against those who have worked publicly for the rights of consumers, workers, women, minorities, and others. SLAPP defendants have been sued for apparently lawful actions such as circulating a petition, writing to a local newspaper, speaking at a public meeting, reporting violations of the law, or participating in a peaceful demonstration.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is not about SLAPPS.

The term strategic lawsuits against public participation, known by the acronym SLAPPs

This isn't about governments suing people but rather people with vested interests suing people to keep them out of the public debate debate usually about a government action.

Thanks for the clarification.

The analogy still applies. Ask anyone of the people who've been SLAPP'ed with defamation or calunnia what their appetite is for criticizing the Italian legal system or its prosecutors when they are in Italy.

When Mignini charged Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, the message could not have been any more clear. Mess with me and you'll never see your daughter again.

The kicker was that neither John Follain the piece's author, nor the publisher were similarly charged. The intent could not have been more naked.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for the clarification.

The analogy still applies. Ask anyone of the people who've been SLAPP'ed with defamation or calunnia what their appetite is for criticizing the Italian legal system or its prosecutors when they are in Italy.

When Mignini charged Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, the message could not have been any more clear. Mess with me and you'll never see your daughter again.

The kicker was that neither John Follain the piece's author, nor the publisher were similarly charged. The intent could not have been more naked.

I understood your confusion. There is a similar effect.

The fact that people can't be sued for defamation in court is also a problem. I've seen a person named as a conspirator with another person unknown to the first and it implied that the person named was helping the other person stalk the accuser. But because it occurred in court the only charge would be perjury, which is very hard to prove and needs to be brought by the government.

So here Amanda could accuse the police with anything and not be libel which also presents systemic problems. There is no perfect solution. In general I believe that people should be able to prove accusations against others.

Before anybody gets some underwear twisted, I believe that the interrogations should all be recorded and if one asks for an attorney questioning should stop.

 

[Bill Williams]

Before anybody gets some underwear twisted, I believe that the interrogations should all be recorded and if one asks for an attorney questioning should stop.

Also, that if someone even asks, "Should I be getting a lawyer?" they should be provided with one, rather than told things would be worse if they got one.

And if there is a dispute, for instance the interrogators say, "She never asked for a lawyer," then the onus should be on the interrogators to demonstrate (via a videotape) that this is so.

Italy, IIRC, has solved the dispute by not making it optional. Suspects get lawyers, period. There are guilters that argue this doesn't apply to Knox, Sollecito, or Lumumba because they were "soft suspects", which IIRC is not a concept in Italian law!

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, it should not even be necessary for someone to ask for a lawyer. A suspect (this would include someone the police strongly suspect - Machiavelli) should be cautioned. That means informing them of the right to remain silent and of the consequences of doing so or not. They should also be informed of their right to a lawyer and provided with the means to choose one and not interrogated until they have had access to confidential advice (no monitoring). They are also entitled to brief particulars of what is alleged against them and I would advise any client to remain silent without such particulars.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #47

"for me it was a kind of surreal I didn't see MK body I didnt realise anything I didn't realise it was a hideous murder"

"What do you think? They cut her throat... She . . . . . bled to death!"

 

[MichaelB]

"for me it was a kind of surreal I didn't see MK body I didnt realise anything I didn't realise it was a hideous murder"

"What do you think? They cut her throat... She . . . . . bled to death!"

They were both told in the car on the way to the police station Meredith's throat had been slit like a farm animal.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #48

They were both told in the car on the way to the police station Meredith's throat had been slit like a farm animal.

"AK . . . at the police station, . . . . was sitting on RS' lap, playfully making faces"

"for me it was a kind of surreal I didn't see MK body I didnt realise anything I didn't realise it was a hideous murder"

 

[MichaelB]

"AK . . . at the police station, . . . . was sitting on RS' lap, playfully making faces"

"for me it was a kind of surreal I didn't see MK body I didnt realise anything I didn't realise it was a hideous murder"

I think we might have a failure to communicate here cuki. Are you quoting from her book? A kindle location for it so I can see the context of the quote would be helpful. Is she referring to standing around outside when the cops first arrived?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, it should not even be necessary for someone to ask for a lawyer. A suspect (this would include someone the police strongly suspect - Machiavelli) should be cautioned. That means informing them of the right to remain silent and of the consequences of doing so or not. They should also be informed of their right to a lawyer and provided with the means to choose one and not interrogated until they have had access to confidential advice (no monitoring). They are also entitled to brief particulars of what is alleged against them and I would advise any client to remain silent without such particulars.

Ok now I'm confused. I thought in Italy there was "a person informed of the facts" and "a suspect".

Are you (or this mythical Machiavelli) saying there are two more legal categories? "Soft suspect" and "strongly suspected"?

At which point along this line from "didn't do it" to "caught red-handed" is one entitled to a lawyer?

 

[Grinder]

Ok now I'm confused. I thought in Italy there was "a person informed of the facts" and "a suspect".

Are you (or this mythical Machiavelli) saying there are two more legal categories? "Soft suspect" and "strongly suspected"?

At which point along this line from "didn't do it" to "caught red-handed" is one entitled to a lawyer?

I believe Mach said there is a formal process to declare someone a suspect and that just being a suspect isn't enough to guarantee suspect rights. As a person with information or a witness statements made to the police can't be used directly against that person but may be used against others.

There is a downside for the ILE to not declare a person a suspect in that they can say anything about the crime and they can't use that in court.

Perhaps Mach will return and help us out. Although I think he may be busy working on the case as we type.

 

[anglolawyer]

I believe Mach said there is a formal process to declare someone a suspect and that just being a suspect isn't enough to guarantee suspect rights. As a person with information or a witness statements made to the police can't be used directly against that person but may be used against others.

There is a downside for the ILE to not declare a person a suspect in that they can say anything about the crime and they can't use that in court.

Perhaps Mach will return and help us out. Although I think he may be busy working on the case as we type.

This is my understanding also. According to Mach, and I am happy to treat him as a source for now, you only become a suspect when the PM says you are one. That, so far, is fine so far as Italy is concerned but I find it hard to believe the ECHR wold take the same view. A suspect, to anyone of common sense, is one whom the police suspect. That must be so because the reason it is necessary to make the classification is precisely so that the right to a fair trial, which Italy has by treaty promised other European nations it will provide, is not prejudiced by the kind of impropriety a lawyer would have prevented here.

 

[Grinder]

This is my understanding also. According to Mach, and I am happy to treat him as a source for now, you only become a suspect when the PM says you are one. That, so far, is fine so far as Italy is concerned but I find it hard to believe the ECHR wold take the same view. A suspect, to anyone of common sense, is one whom the police suspect. That must be so because the reason it is necessary to make the classification is precisely so that the right to a fair trial, which Italy has by treaty promised other European nations it will provide, is not prejudiced by the kind of impropriety a lawyer would have prevented here.

This is not a disagreement with the above, but I do see some value in the Italian system and I believe that the US is moving in that direction. As long as what one says to the police before being declared a witness can't be used against. People should have some sense of the law and should realize that they shouldn't speak freely with the police and certainly not to memorialize it in notes to the police.

Had Amanda hired a lawyer after a couple of days and had that lawyer told her not to speak to the police without his/her presence how different the case would have been. How Raf's family could have missed the importance of having a witness during the interviews is beyond me. How could his sister not have gone immediately to Perugia and accompanied Raf to all interviews or insisted on a attorney.

I'm not throwing all the blame on the kids but I do see some value in the ILE system.

 

[Bill Williams]

I believe Mach said there is a formal process to declare someone a suspect and that just being a suspect isn't enough to guarantee suspect rights. As a person with information or a witness statements made to the police can't be used directly against that person but may be used against others.

There is a downside for the ILE to not declare a person a suspect in that they can say anything about the crime and they can't use that in court.

Perhaps Mach will return and help us out. Although I think he may be busy working on the case as we type.

Fortunately, Mignini himself covers this well in his CNN interview with Drew Griffin. The key for Mignini is that if he, "does not ask her questions," then she still can be treated as if only a person informed of the facts.

Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down* [Translator’s note: This seems to imply Mignini was not sleeping at home but instead somewhere on a higher floor at the Questura.] and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.

2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

The strange this is that previously in this very same interview, Dr. Mignini gives the very reason why "the students" were suspected, pretty much from the beginning.

The two youths were, let’s say they became objects of…[missing words?] the perpetrators of the murder, based on the findings that emerged at the beginning of the investigation, namely the simulation, the contradictions found especially in Amanda’s story, especially when she tells of having spent some time in the house, having taken a shower, in spite of everything. And then the call, the behavior that they maintained, especially the girl, upon the arrival of the postal police......

There is, in the detention order and in the hearing before the Judge of the Preliminary Investigation [GIP] on the validity of the detention and then in the first months, the first weeks of investigation, that is our belief, mine and the flying squad, that the behavior of two young people and in particular, this actually is [missing words]... it was a detail that was even more obvious regarding Amanda, [we thought] was such that the two were considered involved in the crime. Thus before that, it was an initial assessment of those elements that we had at the beginning to orient the investigation toward them. Then confirmations came. And there were many elements of corroboration at the end; they were very significant, very numerous. But at the beginning we had these elements, again, in particular the issue of simulation.

Cripes. He even repeats it for emphasis. They were suspected from the beginning.

So whether true or not, Dr. Mignini claims to Drew Griffin that Knox and Sollecito were in their sights pretty much from the beginning - at least that's the way Mignini tells the story in 2011.

It's no wonder Machiavelli wants to develop a category called, "strongly suspected", but I don't have a copy of Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in front of me.

 

[Grinder]

Fortunately, Mignini himself covers this well in his CNN interview with Drew Griffin. The key for Mignini is that if he, "does not ask her questions," then she still can be treated as if only a person informed of the facts.

The strange this is that previously in this very same interview, Dr. Mignini gives the very reason why "the students" were suspected, pretty much from the beginning.

Wasn't this the interview that finally opened your eyes to bogus nature of the calunnia conviction?

Being suspected doesn't make make someone a suspect under Italian law.

Cripes. He even repeats it for emphasis. They were suspected from the beginning.

So whether true or not, Dr. Mignini claims to Drew Griffin that Knox and Sollecito were in their sights pretty much from the beginning - at least that's the way Mignini tells the story in 2011.

It's no wonder Machiavelli wants to develop a category called, "strongly suspected", but I don't have a copy of Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in front of me.

Really it isn't that far-fetched to see that there is a difference between a suspect and a formal suspect - in the US people are not Mirandized until arrested.

For your pleasure:

Article 63 . Indizianti statements .
1 . If in the courts and the police
a legal person is not charged or a
person under investigation makes
statements which disclose evidence of guilt in his
load, the investigating authority shall interrupts the exam,
warning her that as a result of such statements
may be carried out investigations against him and the
invites you to appoint a defender . the preceding
statements can not be used against the
person who made ​​them .
2 . If the person had to be felt from the outset
as a defendant or person under
investigations , his statements can not be
utilized.
Article 64 . General rules for interrogation.
1 . The person under investigation , although in
remanded in custody or detained for another
cause, intervenes free interrogation , subject to the
precautions necessary to prevent the danger of escape or
violence .
2 . They can not be used, even with the
consent of the person interrogated , methods or techniques
likely to affect the freedom of self-determination or
to affect the ability to remember and to evaluate the facts.
3 . Before the start of the interrogation , the person
should be warned that:
a) his statements will always be
used against him ;
b ) Subject to Article 66 , paragraph 1, has
right not to answer any question , but
however, the process will run its course ;
c) make statements of material facts that concern the
other responsibilities , will assume , with regard to those facts,
the position of witness , subject to the incompatibility provided
Article 197 and the guarantees laid down in Article 197 -bis .
3 -bis . Failure to comply with the provisions referred to in subsection
3 a) and b ) , makes it unusable statements
made by the respondent . in the absence
the warning referred to in paragraph 3, letter c ) , the
any statements made ​​by the person
questioned on the facts that relate to the responsibilities of
others can not be used against them and the
interviewee can not assume, in order to
those facts , the office of witness.

http://legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes

 

[Bill Williams]

Wasn't this the interview that finally opened your eyes to bogus nature of the calunnia conviction?

Yup!

Being suspected doesn't make make someone a suspect under Italian law.

Really it isn't that far-fetched to see that there is a difference between a suspect and a formal suspect - in the US people are not Mirandized until arrested.

I actually do not know the lay of the land even here in Canada. I perhaps know enough to get into trouble.

What I know is that Royal Inquiries into miscarriages of justice seem to focus in on points like this, and when the need for a lawyer and for "Chartering" (as we call it) comes into play. Unlike Italy, need for lawyers come at arrest. Very often investigators will advise someone that they may want to speak to a lawyer even if they are only suspected, but usually this is to get it on the record that the investigator does not later want to be seen as hijacking the suspect.

No doubt it is an inexact science, and it is easy to sit up in the bleachers and criticize cops for having to play the game on the field.

One of the landmark cases in Canada is the Susan Nelles one, where she was wrongly arrested for infant deaths, at the hospital where she worked as a nurse. She has been more than vindicated and now counsels other nurses in legal issues. More narrowly, Wikipedia summarizes the issue at hand here as, "Nelles asked for legal counsel when she was arrested. Her request was interpreted by the investigating police officers to be an indication of her guilt, but the court later ruled that such requests should not be interpreted as evidence of guilt."

There is reason to believe that Nelles was arrested only because she asked if she should see a lawyer. Wikipedia's authors spin it differently.

But as the Royal Commissions point out, common themes emerge from miscarriages of justice like with Nelles and with Sollecito/Knox. In the Nelles case (perhaps) she was arrested because she asked for a lawyer.

In Italy, the law says that suspects have to have a lawyer. Knox claims she asked if she should be asking for one and claims she was told it would go harder on her if she did. (I strongly suspect this was true!)

True, being suspected and being a formal suspect are two different animals, not just in Italy BTW.

But when Dr. Mignini admits to Drew Griffin the suspicions gthey had from the beginning - and unlike the United States where lawyers necessarily come into play at arrest, in Italy lawyers come into play when someone becomes a "formal suspect". That leaves a lot of grey area......

... and it's not as if the Italian Supreme Court has ruled on this issue! One interpretation of the Italian Supreme Court is that it says that nothing can be used prior to Nov 6th since the defendants were denied the right to an lawyer!

How do you read what the ISC ruled? Seems clear to me that the ISC regards Knox/Sollecito as being formal suspects far, far before others are willing to admit.

 

[GreyFox]

duh

"for me it was a kind of surreal I didn't see MK body I didnt realise anything I didn't realise it was a hideous murder"

"What do you think? They cut her throat... She . . . . . bled to death!"

So, big deal ! I don't see anything wrong with her response. Are you implying that no one knew her throat was cut ? Was it too strong, should she have just said duh ?

What's your point ???

Guilters bring this up all the time as if it means something and I would just like to be clear as to where this is headed.
Thanks in advance !