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

[Mary_H]

<snip>Moreover, even her 01:45 and 05:45 statements are usable. The 01:45 interrogation is just usable against others, hence it is usable indirectly. The 05:45 interrogation is not usable in the charge of murder but it was usable in the charge of calunna. The charge of calunnia itself - Massei and the SC ruled - is usable in the charge of murder so even the 05:45 is in fact indirectly usable.
Moreover, the hand written memoirs are fully usable (what is described there - what there is, and what there is not) are to be used to assess her consistency.

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.

I get the hang of it. It explains a lot about Cassazione's view of "logic." It's based on the old saying, "All roads lead to Rome," only in this case it means, "The defendant is never right, the prosecution always is, regardless of any other factors." Of course Hellmann wasn't logical if he acquitted!

<snip>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.

No, it's this story. Drug companies must make a killing on blood pressure medication over there.

 

[Briars]

No you don't. You are simply making that up after the fact. If Amanda had not mentioned blood from preparing the fish you would claim that she was hiding something. It leaves us wondering what it was that you did to your sister.

Is that a point? Now if Sollecito had talked about washing blood or fish blood off his hand it would be. DId he or did Amanda just throw in that irrelevant bit of information to give us a visual?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, I record it if a client phones me to ask whether I sent that letter yet. Lawyers record everything, whether appealable in 48 hours or not. Sorry, but I pull rank here. Such an order is an important part of the record and should be written. And you will have to prove that the reasons were adumbrated at the Matteini hearing. I do not accept a bald assertion that they were.

In this case, the deprivation of access to advice goes to the root of the whole affair. It is strongly arguable they would never have been convicted of anything (certainly not calunnia) had they received timely advice.

I'll delay answer to the points (I remind you about the burden of proof: you claim a violation). I don't have the document you require, but I have the PM decree of arrest. The decree contains itself quite some details. At the end of the decree you can see evidence that the document you require indeed exists, this because the decree itself mentions it, as "separato atto" (a separate paper).
He sends the three suspects in prison awaiting a hearing before Matteini, saying he will be submitting an arrest validation request:
"come da separato atto" => "as [you will read] in a separate document".
So there is certainly a further document, mentioned by the decree, that is a motivation document similar to the decree itself, which Matteini received, but I don't have it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'll delay answer to the points (I remind you about the burden of proof: you claim a violation). I don't have the document you require, but I have the PM decree of arrest. The decree contains itself quite some details. At the end of the decree you can see evidence that the document you require indeed exists, this because the decree itself mentions it, as "separato atto" (a separate paper).
He sends the three suspects in prison awaiting a hearing before Matteini, saying he will be submitting an arrest validation request:
"come da separato atto" => "as [you will read] in a separate document".
So there is certainly a further document, mentioned by the decree, that is a motivation document similar to the decree itself, which Matteini received, but I don't have it.

I have proof that Mignini is in fact a group of nine squirrels in a human suit.

What proof do I have, you ask? Well, years ago I said that I would provide proof at some future time in some separate paper. Case closed!

 

[Mary_H]

Oh come on. Are you suggesting there is no obligation to record in writing the judicial authority for depriving a suspect of access to advice? What if there is an appeal but the PM dies, or goes insane or gets bumped on the head and can't remember.

Never mind. I know where the order is. It's in the bottom left hand draw of Mignini's desk with his pencil sharpener, spare long johns, paper clips, Dansette tape recorder instruction manual, the EDFs, the missing telephone recordings, an signed and framed picture of Matteini, a rough draft of his memoirs, an old mouse trap, ear muffs (to blot out the screams) and other detritus.

Frozen custard, piano bench, pretzels and a monkey wrench
Tennis racket, army cots, pumpkin seeds and coffee pots
Watermelons, goal post, a rabbits foot and French toast
Fire hydrant, ash can, TV set, electric fan....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blVmPxVLpRs

 

[RandyN]

I'll delay answer to the points (I remind you about the burden of proof: you claim a violation). I don't have the document you require, but I have the PM decree of arrest. The decree contains itself quite some details. At the end of the decree you can see evidence that the document you require indeed exists, this because the decree itself mentions it, as "separato atto" (a separate paper).
He sends the three suspects in prison awaiting a hearing before Matteini, saying he will be submitting an arrest validation request:
"come da separato atto" => "as [you will read] in a separate document".
So there is certainly a further document, mentioned by the decree, that is a motivation document similar to the decree itself, which Matteini received, but I don't have it.

I see in this attached document Mignini titles himself as Doctor Mignini. Is Mignini a doctor or is he just lying about that... as usual?

I see this lie in Italy often. What qualifies someone as a doctor in Italy? Is there any standard at all? Is it title applied after a great deal of study or it just something Italians decide to honor themselves with?

What do you call real actual Doctors? You know perhaps a surgeon or a person who has attained a doctorate level of education from a certified university...lets me guess...those you call clowns meanwhile the real sub-educated clowns like Mignini and Stefanoni call themselves doctors and in Italy this is normal and perfectly logical right?

 

[Dan O.]

Is that a point? Now if Sollecito had talked about washing blood or fish blood off his hand it would be. DId he or did Amanda just throw in that irrelevant bit of information to give us a visual?

Briars, you have never had a feeling for time have you. What was Mignini saying to Amanda in that second interrogation that lasted from about 3 to 5:45? Read through that second declaration and time yourself. How long did that "Spontaneous" statement take? What filled the rest of the time?

Amanda wrote the "gift" shortly after this second interrogation as an answer to the questions that were still open. Mignini has denied us the facts of what happened in that interrogation. I'm going to claim that somewhere in that 165 minutes of questioning that Mignini brought up the question of blood on somebody's hands. It would be a natural line of questioning given that they had a bloody palm print so knew somebody had blood on their hand. Did you notice blood on your sister or were you told?

 

[RandyN]

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.

He cant tell you and neither can Mignini. This decree would have to be prepared AND presented for approval by a judge. When did this occur? What judge decided that Mignini had good reason to deny lawyers? There has to be a paper trail and yet there is nothing!

There is nothing because I believe this was a dirty deal between Mignini and Mattini. And the issue should somehow be raised by the defense and demanded as proof that no alleged corrupt actions took place between the judge and prosecutor because to the whole thinking world it appears quite reasonable to assume that judicial corruption had taken place.

If not true then all should be a simple matter of providing the decree along with the judges reasons for accepting such a crazy decree in the first place. Quite simple actually but we will never see it...because it would require proof that the judiciary acted properly and that appears impossible since it clearly has not.

Nothing Yummi has explained comes close to extraordinary. Why not explain the basis for this exceptional action that requires exceptional circumstances. Maybe a mafia lawyer carrying a threat to a witness? Maybe. No matter there was nothing exceptional about these defendants or this case that could in any way be twisted so as to fall under this 104 meaning.

Rather it is a strong indication that judicial abuse has taken place to skirt the law that requires a lawyer be provided...remembering that a defendant can never even waive this right. That is a pretty strong indication that this law was meant to be strictly adhered to by whoever wrote it. And yet Mignini wipes it away with a wave and a promise he wrote the decree. Fine show it to us then. Provide the judges name who approved it. Simple for any honest official to do. Harder for the corrupt liar.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'll delay answer to the points (I remind you about the burden of proof: you claim a violation). I don't have the document you require, but I have the PM decree of arrest. The decree contains itself quite some details. At the end of the decree you can see evidence that the document you require indeed exists, this because the decree itself mentions it, as "separato atto" (a separate paper).
He sends the three suspects in prison awaiting a hearing before Matteini, saying he will be submitting an arrest validation request:
"come da separato atto" => "as [you will read] in a separate document".
So there is certainly a further document, mentioned by the decree, that is a motivation document similar to the decree itself, which Matteini received, but I don't have it.

Thank you Mach. So we agree, just like I said, there is a document. The document that records his specific exceptional reasons for denying access to a lawyer. Where is it? Also, I am intrigued. Where did you get this one from? Have you got the EDFs too?

 

[anglolawyer]

Want to know my fish blood theory? I think that story proceeds from the same cause as the 'knife pricked her hand' story. It's to do with believing as an article of faith that the police would never lie. If they don't lie and they tell you they found blood on a knife the pathetic human brain will start desperately making **** up. I bet we all have this experience when confronted with something that is not allowed to be not true.

 

[RandyN]

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.

Oxymoron of the day..."In Italy the word exceptional is quite common." Thus explaining Italian logic perfectly. I hope Dave can understand why I seem puzzled by typical Italian logic. I dont care what it does or does not do for this case.

Everyone of the less well informed typical persons of the world who know a little about this case expects that the police and prosecutor and judiciary must have something. And they can never understand the bat ---- crazy that has to be overlooked to get away with this charade. Not enough has been investigated and reported about the corrupt officials in this case. The defendants lawyers cant even raise these issues because they fear being destroyed by the predictable torture that would soon follow. A life ending legal battle funded by the Italian taxpayer for the prosecution but which bankrupts the defense and the defendants and anyone who wishes to report the truth about that.

Proof of that? Where is Perugia Shock? Silenced how? How about by the Goodfellas?

 

[RandyN]

I'm afraid that's the case.
The aggerssor can be physically stopped, but not prosecuted. Not without complaint.
The law offers some "protections": for example, in case of rape or in case of domestic violence against a woman, the victim cannot withdraw the complaint. However, the law still requires a complaint. Otherwise, no prosecution. Maybe unfortunate, but true.



Obviously, complaint is required for most crimes against the person, but not for all of them. Some of the the most damaging (murder, attemtped murder, manslaughter etc.) have a mandatory prosecution.

Dont forget the callungus charges...they are automatic.

 

[JREF2010]

Want to know my fish blood theory? I think that story proceeds from the same cause as the 'knife pricked her hand' story. It's to do with believing as an article of faith that the police would never lie. If they don't lie and they tell you they found blood on a knife the pathetic human brain will start desperately making **** up. I bet we all have this experience when confronted with something that is not allowed to be not true.

That's a large part of this case, because none of us have ever been in this situation that Amanda and Raffaele were put in.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oxymoron of the day..."In Italy the word exceptional is quite common." Thus explaining Italian logic perfectly. I hope Dave can understand why I seem puzzled by typical Italian logic. I dont care what it does or does not do for this case.

Everyone of the less well informed typical persons of the world who know a little about this case expects that the police and prosecutor and judiciary must have something. And they can never understand the bat ---- crazy that has to be overlooked to get away with this charade. Not enough has been investigated and reported about the corrupt officials in this case. The defendants lawyers cant even raise these issues because they fear being destroyed by the predictable torture that would soon follow. A life ending legal battle funded by the Italian taxpayer for the prosecution but which bankrupts the defense and the defendants and anyone who wishes to report the truth about that.

Proof of that? Where is Perugia Shock? Silenced how? How about by the Goodfellas?

Just a note to see if my new signature phrase works... sorry RandyN for butting in.

 

[RandyN]

The rulings actually - as I understand them - links the risk to the presence of multiple suspects that may "agree" a defensive version among themselves (or anyway a suspect that communicates with another suspect). Which does not imply that the defence attorney is a criminal. The attorney is a privileged contact that serves the interest of the accused, but is also a potential - obvious - source of information, because he/she knows things (related to other suspects' actions) that the suspect is supposed not to know. At least, not prior to appearing before the judge.

Using this logic then why ever allow the defendants to speak with lawyers? Heck, why bother with the nasty too long trial which Italy certainly can not afford given the current economic status there.

If you suggest that the lawyer is not a criminal then how else would the two defendants confer to the determent of the case? Especially since this case was apparently so "rock solid". Case closed...we don't need no stinking evidence...we do it with logic and intuition. I suppose you disagree Giobbi said this to TV cameras as well.

The denial of lawyers is one more bit of evidence that Mignini is corrupt and willing to do anything to win a case in spite of overwhelming evidence that he does not understand the case yet...a huge clue was the DNA report of Nov 6th of a suspect who had his DNA found inside the body of Miss Kercher...memba her? Funny how this DNA did NOT match PL or RS or AK for that matter.

Did PL have access to a lawyer while being illegally held in jail? Why no investigation of PL home and wife? Didnt Mignini think MRS Lumumba might alter and destroy evidence? Or was that just another example of stupidity?

 

[RandyN]

Because this is what one side does - they try to make a case. They can make the case by omitting, twisting, bending.... you know, all the stuff Machiavelli does. Each side tries to argue as if this is the only sane and logical interpretation....

What is clear is that Machiavelli argues very close to what Galati argued in the prosecution appeal to the ISC. And what is clear is that the ISC reversed the Hellmann acquittals because of that argument.

What is missing is that now the ISC seems to be condoning things, as AngloLawer pointed out, that if two people do any equivalent crime, they can now be held in solitary confinement, denied access to lawyers right up to their first appearance before a judge, all because EVERY crime can now be interpreted as extreme.

The ISC seems to be siding with fascism, all to protect Mignini's errors.

Do you want to live in a country which condones this? Apparently Machiavelli and Mach 2 do.

Forget living there...would you want to do business with anyone in this country given the hostile illogical judiciary? Oh and then there are the police who other than a few beatings treated Knox quite well....WTF???

Who wants to deal with people who cant even be honest to themselves? Well Mignini must have been correct because Mattini upheld his position.

This is a time when I wish this site allowed foul language...because foul ideas like this deserve only foul replies...As in *$&@*^$*P%@*@^$*P!$^!@P$^$@ hole. Your argument and its honesty is fraudulent.

No business for you!

 

[codyjuneau]

Forget living there...would you want to do business with anyone in this country given the hostile illogical judiciary? Oh and then there are the police who other than a few beatings treated Knox quite well....WTF???

Who wants to deal with people who cant even be honest to themselves? Well Mignini must have been correct because Mattini upheld his position.

This is a time when I wish this site allowed foul language...because foul ideas like this deserve only foul replies...As in *$&@*^$*P%@*@^$*P!$^!@P$^$@ hole. Your argument and its honesty is fraudulent.

No business for you!

.
Next!
.

 

[Antony]

Just a note to see if my new signature phrase works... sorry RandyN for butting in.

Don't forget Mach's views about how and why the bra-clasp was allowed to rust. Something like: "the item is a non-conservable piece of evidence", "the police lab did not have the resources to preserve it".

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh come on. Are you suggesting there is no obligation to record in writing the judicial authority for depriving a suspect of access to advice? What if there is an appeal but the PM dies, or goes insane or gets bumped on the head and can't remember.

Never mind. I know where the order is. It's in the bottom left hand draw of Mignini's desk with his pencil sharpener, spare long johns, paper clips, Dansette tape recorder instruction manual, the EDFs, the missing telephone recordings, an signed and framed picture of Matteini, a rough draft of his memoirs, an old mouse trap, ear muffs (to blot out the screams) and other detritus.

You are of course correct. The same SC judgement that both Machiavelli and I quoted from earlier makes it perfectly clear that where a PM enacts the 48-hour-maximum restrictions under 104, (s)he must supply a written motivation for that decision to the court:

Quanto alle modalità, il comma 3 richiede che la dilazione del colloquio con il difensore sia disposta con decreto motivato. Il richiamo al comma precedente, contenuto nel comma 4, induce a ritenere che anche il provvedimento del p.m. debba presentare una motivazione (in questo senso Cass., Sez. I, 26.3.1992, Morreale).

Concerning the method, paragraph 3 requires that the delay of the interview with the defender is prepared by reasoned decree (i.e. written motivation). The reference to the preceding paragraph, contained in paragraph 4, suggests that the decision of the prosecutor should also be supported by a motivation (viz. Cass., Sec. I 26.3.1992 , Morreale).

 

[LondonJohn]

.
Next!
.

PS: Does that count as a Godwin....?