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

[Bill Williams]

No. Because I corrected my statement before anyone came to whisper and before I could know what the actual "truth" was; I did that even immediately, on my own decision, in a second post - I immediately clarified that I do not have information about the detail (it is something that I remember having heared but I never actually investigated). So it's quite the contrary. It's something which you certainly don't do. I always correct myself when I have doubts or when I don't have sources. This immediate correction should prove you that I'm honest and truthful in all my statements, and that I always specify what I know. You are unable to acknowledge even this obvious fact. But above all, you are unable to do that yourself. You cling to your false ideas and false unproven and unreasonable claims.

I thank you, Machiavelli, for your honesty on the issue of the private jet. But to be honest here, it kind of ruins your apology and honesty, when you use it as an excuse to level an ad hominem argument. Sorry, it just does!

But I still wish to meet you. I will come to you and buy dinner, and any bottle of wine you wish.

 

[Diocletus]

And as - over the whole trial - she never provided any description nor complaint nor claim about any alleged illegal 05:45 interogation nor any factual descritpion of coercion.

Her letter, written that very morning, says that the police hit her and mistreated her, does it not?

Any responsible prosecutor/justice system would have investigated this complaint, except these perverts were too busy trying to cook up procedural games and phony evidence so that they could convict this girl of orgy-murder. Weirdos.

 

[Bill Williams]

That (alleged episode) was during the interrogation which ended at 01:45.

The spontaneous statement begun hours later; after he had chamomille tee and pastries, after she was drowsy for a long while squatting in the room and she "lost perception about time". After that while, she was kind of woken or called up again (Anna Donnino testimony) she spoke with Mignini (whom she met for the first time) who told her about her rights, and then she decided to release the spontaneous statement.

This reconstruction of events was undisputed.

The first person who disputes this reconstruction of events is Mr. Mignini himself. Mr. Mignini has given many different accounts of that second interrogation.

But the transcript of his interview with Drew Griffin is clear. These are Mr. Mignini's words, they are not my words, they are not your words, they are not Drew Griffin's words. They are uninterpreted, right there in black and white for all to read.

Mr. Mignini says nothing to Knox about her "rights" save for this... he says to her that if she wishes to continue speaking that he will simply write things down acting as if, "only a notary."

Amanda Knox did not need a notary that night, Amanda Knox needed a Public Minister who would immediately provide her a lawyer. Instead, Mr. Mignini abused his office by briefly relinquishing it in favour of becoming a notary.

However, that highlighted part now goes against EVERYTHING you formerly claimed about Amanda Knox being immune from sleep deprivation issues. Way back in this thread you said that you discerned from her writings that she was able to function without sleep; that she was rested and ready to go to manipulate the interrogators.....

..... NOW you write what you write above. Which is it?

Right now the issue is not if Mr. Mignini can keep his stories straight, it's not if Andrea Vogt can keep her stories straight....

..... can YOU keep your stories straight?

C'mon Machiavelli, this is yet another one of your "private jet" moments. Be honest.

 

[Diocletus]

From minutes of hearing before Judge Matteini of Nov. 8. 2007:

There was no reason to deny her counsel except to prejudice her. Italy's law is not the last word on this:

In Magee v United Kingdom (2000), the applicant was arrested in Northern Ireland under the antiterrorism legislation. He was refused access to a lawyer for more than 48 hours, during which he was interviewed by teams of police officers eight times. He was given the usual caution regarding the possibility of drawing adverse inferences if he remained silent. At first, he maintained his silence, but during the sixth interview he confessed, and during the seventh interview he signed his confession. At his trial he did not give evidence; the trial judge did not draw adverse inferences from this, although he had been entitled to do so. The applicant’s central complaint was that he had been prevailed upon in a coercive environment to incriminate himself without the benefit of legal advice. The Court noted that the applicant had been interviewed for extended periods by trained teams of officers, and that in between times, he had been kept in solitary confinement in a detention centre notorious for the austerity of the conditions. The Court held that as a matter of procedural fairness, the applicant should have been given access to a lawyer at the initial stages of the investigation as a counterweight to the intimidating atmosphere specifically devised to sap his will and make him confess to his interrogators. It concluded that to deny access to a lawyer in such a situation was irretrievably prejudicial to the applicant’s defence rights in breach of Article 6(3)(c) and Article 6(1).

 

[Diocletus]

That (alleged episode) was during the interrogation which ended at 01:45.

The spontaneous statement begun hours later; after he had chamomille tee and pastries, after she was drowsy for a long while squatting in the room and she "lost perception about time". After that while, she was kind of woken or called up again (Anna Donnino testimony) she spoke with Mignini (whom she met for the first time) who told her about her rights, and then she decided to release the spontaneous statement.

This reconstruction of events was undisputed.

Except for the part where the supreme court said that the so-called "spontaneous" statement was actually NOT "spontaneous."

 

[anglolawyer]

From minutes of hearing before Judge Matteini of Nov. 8. 2007:


Quote:
(...) At this point, the defence objects on the basis of nullity of today’s validation hearing because the rights of defence were violated since counsel with the defence attorney under art. 104 c.p.p. was not granted.

The Judge, having heard the Prosecutor who points out that he himself ordered the prohibition of counsel, rejects the objection raised by the defence given that the same art. 104 c.p.p., at paragraph 4, provides that in the event of police arrest, as in the present case,the Prosecutor has the power of preventing the suspect from having counsel with [his or her] defence attorney, until the same [suspect] appears before the Judge; on this date, given that the validation hearing was scheduled today it is obvious that the prohibition of counsel ceases all effects, and the revocation of such prohibition is now ordered anyway.
[The Judge] orders at this point to proceed further.

We should mention 104 paragraph 3 for completeness because paragraph 4 is dependent on it. In fact, let's see the whole of 104.

Article 104. Talks defender with the accused in custody.
1. The defendant in custody has the right to meet with the lawyer from the beginning of the measure.

So, there is the right to a lawyer.

2. The person arrested in flagrante delicto or stop in accordance with Article 384 has the right to meet with the lawyer immediately after his arrest or detention.

And this is the special case where the criminal is caught in the act. The lawyer must be provided immediately after arrest or detention.

3. In the course of the preliminary investigation, when there are specific and exceptional reasons of caution, the court at the request of the public prosecutor may, by reasoned decree, defer, for a period not exceeding five days, the exercise of the right to meet with the lawyer.

And this is our case. 'Specific and exceptional' reasons are required to justify departure from the right to a lawyer. Note that the court must authorise this departure 'by reasoned decree' i.e. in writing setting out the reasons.

4. In the event of arrest or detention, the power required by paragraph 3 and exercised by the prosecutor up to the time in which the arrested or stopped and made available to the judge.

This seems to be badly translated by google but it looks as though the PM may exercise the para. 3 power 'in the event of arrest or detention' but the para 3 power is still presumably subject to the duty to supply reasons. Mignini's reasoned authorisation seems to have gone missing. What 'specific and exceptional' circumstances justified depriving them of access to legal advice?

Maybe you can tell us Mach.

 

[Diocletus]

We should mention 104 paragraph 3 for completeness because paragraph 4 is dependent on it. In fact, let's see the whole of 104.



So, there is the right to a lawyer.


And this is the special case where the criminal is caught in the act. The lawyer must be provided immediately after arrest or detention.

And this is our case. 'Specific and exceptional' reasons are required to justify departure from the right to a lawyer. Note that the court must authorise this departure 'by reasoned decree' i.e. in writing setting out the reasons.

This seems to be badly translated by google but it looks as though the PM may exercise the para. 3 power 'in the event of arrest or detention' but the para 3 power is still presumably subject to the duty to supply reasons. Mignini's reasoned authorisation seems to have gone missing. What 'specific and exceptional' circumstances justified depriving them of access to legal advice?

Maybe you can tell us Mach.

Very good. They broke their own law. That should work out well with the ECHR.

The ECHR will also appreciate that the prosecutor on November 6 received, and hid, lab results that said that a male other than Sollecito and Lumumba was the rapist.

So they broke their own law and they hid evidence, all the while leaking phony evidence.

They wanted this girl in jail and they didn't want her to have any ability to defend herself. Scumbags.

 

[JREF2010]

Whats to be expected when the detectives cant even count circles of a tennis shoeprint?
They need some little girl to do it for them, and figure out the circle counts were off.

So they zoomed back to the cottage to make the infamous comedy video of "pass the bra clasp" around. Why did they feel the need to frame Raffaele so badly?

 

[codyjuneau]

We should mention 104 paragraph 3 for completeness because paragraph 4 is dependent on it. In fact, let's see the whole of 104.



So, there is the right to a lawyer.


And this is the special case where the criminal is caught in the act. The lawyer must be provided immediately after arrest or detention.

And this is our case. 'Specific and exceptional' reasons are required to justify departure from the right to a lawyer. Note that the court must authorise this departure 'by reasoned decree' i.e. in writing setting out the reasons.

This seems to be badly translated by google but it looks as though the PM may exercise the para. 3 power 'in the event of arrest or detention' but the para 3 power is still presumably subject to the duty to supply reasons. Mignini's reasoned authorisation seems to have gone missing. What 'specific and exceptional' circumstances justified depriving them of access to legal advice?
Maybe you can tell us Mach.

.
An act of terrorism, such as a bomb threat phone call perhaps?
.

 

[anglolawyer]

.
An act of terrorism, such as a bomb threat phone call perhaps?
.

My guess is the ostensible reason, if Mignini were forced to cough it up, would be to prevent the accused getting their stories straight via their lawyers. But there is absolutely nothing exceptional about this (meaning that Mignini behaved unlawfully). That would probably be among the real reasons too, the main one of which will have been to ensure they appeared before Matteini at maximum disadvantage. The immediate goal was probably to get them locked up and under maximum pressure.

 

[Machiavelli]

We should mention 104 paragraph 3 for completeness because paragraph 4 is dependent on it. In fact, let's see the whole of 104.

(...)

And this is our case. 'Specific and exceptional' reasons are required to justify departure from the right to a lawyer. Note that the court must authorise this departure 'by reasoned decree' i.e. in writing setting out the reasons.

This seems to be badly translated by google but it looks as though the PM may exercise the para. 3 power 'in the event of arrest or detention' but the para 3 power is still presumably subject to the duty to supply reasons. Mignini's reasoned authorisation seems to have gone missing. What 'specific and exceptional' circumstances justified depriving them of access to legal advice?

Maybe you can tell us Mach.

Actually, it is simply self-evident from art. 104 that preventing talk with the lawyer until the appearence before a judge was legal, and the measure does not constitute any violation.
Moreover, there is a judgement by Claudia Matteini who rejected the defence objection, and so expliticly acknowledged that Mignini's action was legitimate.

The art. 104 (Italian text):

art. 104 Codice di Procedura Penale
Fonti → Codice di Procedura Penale → LIBRO PRIMO - Soggetti → Titolo VII - Difensore (Artt. 96-108)

1. L'imputato in stato di custodia cautelare ha diritto di conferire con il difensore fin dall'inizio dell'esecuzione della misura [297].
2. La persona arrestata in flagranza o fermata a norma dell'articolo 384 ha diritto di conferire con il difensore subito dopo l'arresto o il fermo.
3. Nel corso delle indagini preliminari, quando sussistono specifiche ed eccezionali ragioni di cautela, il giudice su richiesta del pubblico ministero può, con decreto motivato, dilazionare, per un tempo non superiore a cinque giorni, l'esercizio del diritto di conferire con il difensore.
4. Nell'ipotesi di arresto o di fermo, il potere previsto dal comma 3 è esercitato dal pubblico ministero fino al momento in cui l'arrestato o il fermato è posto a disposizione del giudice.

The key word is "cautela" = "caution". On ground of caution the judge can delay talks with the defence attorney, for up to five days. Until there is a jugde's opinion on this, the public minister can exercise such cautionary power (block contacts between suspect and defence attorney, until the judge decides). So it is a kind of cautionary action on the possible cautionary action by the judge.
The power of the judge has some discretional grounds; so that of the public minister. In this case, the reasons for the measure are not specified in the minutes of the hearing, but they are rather obvious to me: the caution was justified because of the following: 1) extreme seriousness of the crime, and 2) the fact that the crime appeared to be committed by multiple accomplices and there were multiple suspects present at the same time (some still possibly releasing statements about each other). So avoiding contact with defence attorneys is essential to avoid indirect exchange of information between suspects, and to make sure that the suspects will talk before the investigating judge without hints (a kind of pollution of evidence) and without possibility of coordination between each other.

 

[RoseMontague]

So avoiding contact with defence attorneys is essential to avoid indirect exchange of information between suspects, and to make sure that the suspects will talk before the investigating judge without hints (a kind of pollution of evidence) and without possibility of coordination between each other.

It's a pollution all right. A pollution of a suspect's right to a lawyer.

 

[RoseMontague]

My guess is the ostensible reason, if Mignini were forced to cough it up, would be to prevent the accused getting their stories straight via their lawyers. But there is absolutely nothing exceptional about this (meaning that Mignini behaved unlawfully). That would probably be among the real reasons too, the main one of which will have been to ensure they appeared before Matteini at maximum disadvantage. The immediate goal was probably to get them locked up and under maximum pressure.

Yes.

 

[RoseMontague]

There was no reason to deny her counsel except to prejudice her. Italy's law is not the last word on this:

I agree.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
But the transcript of his interview with Drew Griffin is clear. These are Mr. Mignini's words, they are not my words, they are not your words, they are not Drew Griffin's words. They are uninterpreted, right there in black and white for all to read.

Mr. Mignini says nothing to Knox about her "rights" save for this... he says to her that if she wishes to continue speaking that he will simply write things down acting as if, "only a notary."

Mignini said (and wrote in dpocuments) exactly what I explained to you. whether you understand it or not. The expression "reading her right" is my colloquialism to make you understand since you are used to another law, it does not actually belong to the Italian legal language.
Mignini did the equivalent of reading her rights, which is not called "reading the rights" it is informally called being put on disposal at the judicial authority. Then he acted as a notary. All that is provided by the law. The problem is that you just don't understand it.

Amanda Knox did not need a notary that night, Amanda Knox needed a Public Minister who would immediately provide her a lawyer. Instead, Mr. Mignini abused his office by briefly relinquishing it in favour of becoming a notary.

No. You just make up the law.

(..) EVERYTHING you formerly claimed about Amanda Knox being immune from sleep deprivation issues.

I never claimed that Knox was immune from sleep deprivation issues. I claimed that sleep deprivation issues were in a degree irrelevant from consequence as for the decisions she actually took (the issue of sleep deprivation is "immune" from relevance).

Way back in this thread you said that you discerned from her writings that she was able to function without sleep;

Well one of the symptoms of severe sleep deprivation is an alteration of extrapyramidal fine movements of hands which are immediately visible as an alteration of the handwriting quality. This is one of the symptoms. It is a fact that Knox's writing does not show any signal of such alteration. But it is just only one of the elements indicating that no serious sleep deprivation syndrome was showing up.
A key point is that, if you want to mention a factor witth some consequence, you must not be talking about any generic mild sense of sleep deprivation (mere lack of sleeping hours), you must be talking about a sleep deprivation picture of a serious degree which was alterating fundamental brain functions. It is manifest that there was no evidence of such syndrome, there was only evidence of the contrary, that is: there wasen't any sleep deprivation syndrome. So you don't have any element, only elements against you. And you would have a burden of proof fr your claim.

that she was rested and ready to go to manipulate the interrogators.....

It is a matter of fact that she wrote a series of manipulative statements. Albeit you won't acknowledge that, I consider that self-evident.

..... NOW you write what you write above. Which is it?

What I wrote above.

Right now the issue is not if Mr. Mignini can keep his stories straight, it's not if Andrea Vogt can keep her stories straight....

Mignini was actually consistent in all his statements. But the problem is that you are unable to understand them. And you also expect explanations to be expressed by reports and interviews rather than by documents an law, maybe you think the law and judicial facts should depend on what Mignini's (translated) says to Griffin; which is wrong; Mignini is not expressing himself in a trial nor a cross questioning, nor you seem to be able to understand what he says. While, the fact that Amanda had a chamomille tee and slept before she started the 05:45 statement, is a fat that derives from documsnts, from on what Amanda said herself, from the documents signed at the police station and from the testimonies (like Anna Donnino).

..... can YOU keep your stories straight?

My stories are all straight. Yet you seem to not understand them (just like the one about sleep deprivation syndrome).

 

[anglolawyer]

Actually, it is simply self-evident from art. 104 that preventing talk with the lawyer until the appearence before a judge was legal, and the measure does not constitute any violation.
Moreover, there is a judgement by Claudia Matteini who rejected the defence objection, and so expliticly acknowledged that Mignini's action was legitimate.

The art. 104 (Italian text):



The key word is "cautela" = "caution". On ground of caution the judge can delay talks with the defence attorney, for up to five days. Until there is a jugde's opinion on this, the public minister can exercise such cautionary power (block contacts between suspect and defence attorney, until the judge decides). So it is a kind of cautionary action on the possible cautionary action by the judge.
The power of the judge has some discretional grounds; so that of the public minister. In this case, the reasons for the measure are not specified in the minutes of the hearing, but they are rather obvious to me: the caution was justified because of the following: 1) extreme seriousness of the crime, and 2) the fact that the crime appeared to be committed by multiple accomplices and there were multiple suspects present at the same time (some still possibly releasing statements about each other). So avoiding contact with defence attorneys is essential to avoid indirect exchange of information between suspects, and to make sure that the suspects will talk before the investigating judge without hints (a kind of pollution of evidence) and without possibility of coordination between each other.

Ex abundanti cautella - yes, I know that one. Article 104 para 3 refers to specific and exceptional reasons. Those reasons are not referred to in Matteini's order because it was Mignini, not Matteini, who decided to block access to a lawyer.

I consider your suggested reasons to be pure ********. If murder were a reason, that would be specified in the article. Nor is it exceptional for there to be multiple suspects. That must happen all the time. Both circumstances are routine. Nobody in the UK or US would dream of advancing this crap as a reason for depriving a suspect of access to advice. There should be Cassazione authority on what is meant by specific and exceptional reasons. Please cite authority to support your claim. Even if Cassazione has so ruled I should regard that as further evidence of the absolute corruption of your system.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 10; please do curse in your posts or alter curse words in a attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[anglolawyer]

A specific and exceptional reason might be, for example, that the police had arrested a terrorist suspect who had information about the whereabouts of a bomb on a plane and who needed to be further interrogated to get at its whereabouts. Or it might be a member of a gang on whom the cops were about to launch a raid and who might tip them off if given access to a lawyer. Or it might be the suspect nominated and insisted on receiving advice from a lawyer strongly suspected on bona fide and substantial grounds of being implicated in the same crime etc etc

It cannot reasonably be the mere fact the charge is serious nor that there is more than one suspect. Neither of those things is in any way exceptional.

 

[Machiavelli]

Her letter, written that very morning, says that the police hit her and mistreated her, does it not?

She said she was hit. Apart from that, she does not say that she was mistreated.

Any responsible prosecutor/justice system would have investigated this complaint, except these perverts were too busy trying to cook up procedural games and phony evidence so that they could convict this girl of orgy-murder. Weirdos.

No. YOu are making upt the law again. A prosecutor cannot act on his own decision on such a charge, on such an element. The victim's lawyer must file a formal complaint, or the victim must fill a form for denouncement. A prosecutor cannot even investigate a charge of rape without a formal complaint by a victim (if the victim is above 18). Even less simple mistreatment. Mistreatment or physical abuses cannot be investigated without a formal request by the victim .

 

[LondonJohn]

She said she was hit. Apart from that, she does not say that she was mistreated.



No. YOu are making upt the law again. A prosecutor cannot act on his own decision on such a charge, on such an element. The victim's lawyer must file a formal complaint, or the victim must fill a form for denouncement. A prosecutor cannot even investigate a charge of rape without a formal complaint by a victim (if the victim is above 18). Even less simple mistreatment. Mistreatment or physical abuses cannot be investigated without a formal request by the victim .

So if a police officer came upon a man in the street who was violently physically assaulting a woman, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the man could not be prosecuted unless and until the woman made a formal complaint?

And of course this is before one even considers the situation of a murder and the "victim complaint".... "I would like to make a formal complaint that this man murdered me"

Total arrant nonsense. Italy is a laughing stock, and Machiavelli's arguing position is both untenable and ridiculous.

 

[Machiavelli]

A specific and exceptional reason might be, for example, that the police had arrested a terrorist suspect who had information about the whereabouts of a bomb on a plane and who needed to be further interrogated to get at its whereabouts. Or it might be a member of a gang on whom the cops were about to launch a raid and who might tip them off if given access to a lawyer. Or it might be the suspect nominated and insisted on receiving advice from a lawyer strongly suspected on bona fide and substantial grounds of being implicated in the same crime etc etc

It cannot reasonably be the mere fact the charge is serious nor that there is more than one suspect. Neither of those things is in any way exceptional.

But Matteini rejected the complaint by the defence, who were claiming violations. You understand that?
Your idea about what "exceptional" means is quite made up by yourself. The article says "specific exceptional for caution".
In Italy the word "exceptional" is quite common as much as the word "emergency": in fact sometimes one thinks everything is made under procedures of emergency or procedures of exception. But this is another story.
The key point is that Matteini disagrees with the defence and with your idea of exceptional reasons for caution, since Matteini accepted Mignini's decision as lawful.
Mignini - this is what I think - explained the reason in the hearing, but the minutes of the heraing just do not report them (in fact the minutes documents doesn't report any argument, from any side; while we know that the defence made quite long arguments).
The judge ordered "proceed further", it's quite clear that your argument about what exceptional means doesn't have merits. I point out that the same defence objection - requesting the annullment of the cautionary measure on grounds of illegitimate procedure - was rejected at all instances, by Massei, by Ricciarelli and by the Supreme Court (in the same riling where they ruled about usability).
So there is no room to assert that there was a violation of art. 104. I point out that I have made no research to establish what "exceptional reasons for caution" means in jurisprudence, but the burden is yours since it's you who claim a violation, and it's a claim about something which was already found as non-existing by courts.