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

[RWVBWL]

As Machiavelli has generously and correctly conceded, Amanda was already 'strongly suspected' when she entered the questura on the night of the 5th. The other day I came across a short clip of an interview between Vogt and Mignini in which he asserted that she was questioned only as a witness. If Mach is right (which he is, for once) that makes Mignini a liar or an idiot, most likely the former IMO.

Now, Mach wants to place weight on what Amanda said in her 'interview' and, since she has finally lost the Italian phase of her case (forget about the ISC upsetting Nencini) we should forget about nice questions of admissibility and just chuck it into the pot and look squarely at it.

What I would like Mach to explain to a non-fascist is what, in his opinion, the safeguards normally afforded to suspects are actually for. Does he think having access to a lawyer is just a formal thing or is it an important and necessary right? If the latter, why is it important and necessary? What sorts of things does having a lawyer guard against? As someone who has advised many clients in police custody I am interested to know what Mach thinks I might have been there for.*
Bearing in mind the ECHR is quite capable of overturning this entire farce solely because of the deprivation of this one right, this question has profound importance. I would even suggest that, if he pretends to intellectual honesty, Mach should support the inevitable ECHR appeal even if he retains his irrational belief in guilt since a decent, intelligent, civilised person should be able to see that everybody, guilty and innocent alike, is entitled to a fair trial.

* to save time, my answer to this question is:

- to ascertain brief particulars of the offence of which my client is suspected and, if possible, gain some idea of the supporting evidence
- to take instructions (i.e. get the client's story)
- to explain to the client the nature of their situation
- to explain the client's rights, including the right to silence and the desirability (or otherwise) of exercising it
- to witness the interrogation
- to guide the client during the interrogation
- to ensure fair play and/or record and react to foul play
- to ascertain the intentions of the police after the interview
- to explain the further course of proceedings to the client, especially if detained
- to obtain contact details of friends and family to alert them to the client's status, if detained
- to maintain a record of all of the above and be ready to testify if necessary.

Hi Anglolawyer,
I wonder why,
when the police rushed out and arrested Mr.Lumumba based on Miss Knox's confused statements, that this businessman was not able to have a lawyer present when he too was interrogated?

 

[Diocletus]

I covered this in my post, in the part you did not quote. I asked for an explanation that might make sense to a non-fascist. I see you are suggesting Mach's standard rebuttal (which you correctly frame) might not pass muster with the ECHR. What an interesting thought! It would be really funny if Italy's case is that although they knew she did it they hadn't formally classified her a suspect by signing the right piece of paper and were thus entitled to scream at her throughout the night.

The problem for Italy and the one that brought Mach to make his stunning admission (received with amusing incredulity at the loony sites, where it was thought that I had said it rather than their hero) is that the guilters attach weight to all the suspicious things they did on and around the 1st and 2nd - weird behaviour, mops, phone calls, etc - and these force them into an impossible conflict. If these things are so suspicious, how could they not be suspects? There is no solution to this puzzle.

Indeed, as far as I can see, this appears to be Italy's one and only defense: they hadn't yet filled out the paper designating her a "suspect." It's a Stalinist position, and one that is not consistent with the ECHR or the decisions thereunder. In fairness to Mach, this seems to be an institutionalized practice in Italy, used to the maximum prejudice of the defendant in this particular case.

I expect that Knox's application to the ECHR was crafted by some good lawyers and is very well-reasoned. Let's see if the ECHR lets Italy get away with murder.

 

[Diocletus]

Hi Anglolawyer,
I wonder why,
when the police rushed out and arrested Mr.Lumumba based on Miss Knox's confused statements, that this businessman was not able to have a lawyer present when he too was interrogated?

Come on, RW: how would the police have been able to beat Patrick's ass if his lawyer was there?

 

[Diocletus]

"if Amanda had gone to work, probably the murder would never have happened"

-- Alessandro Nencini

Makes my head explode.

Yeah, yeah, American babes: give 'em fifteen idle minutes and they murder someone.

So basically, this whole thing is Lumumba's fault?

BTW, did Nencini actually say that. If so, he's a retard.

 

[Wildhorses]

Olshaker's comments pretty much exactly mirror my own thoughts.

I would add that, even though Knox and Sollecito should clearly have been acquitted based on the prosecution and defence cases as presented, I think that the defence lawyers made it far easier for the wrongful convictions to happen. I think the defence teams were extremely poor - and I think that most of the damage was done in the first (Massei) trial. I think the defence teams were always fighting an uphill battle once they had performed so dreadfully in the trial that mattered the most - the Massei trial that imposed the original convictions.

I also think that Knox and Sollecito themselves did various things that did neither of them any favours. I think that some of their words, actions and choices were poor and ill-advised. I think that they should essentially have remained silent and under the radar pending the culmination of the judicial process, and that instead they should have issued statements (including attacking the prosecution case) through their lawyers only. I think that this was yet another failing on the part of their lawyers. I wonder if Knox and Sollecito (and their families) had lost faith in their lawyers outside the courtroom, and therefore felt justified in taking matters into their own hands?

But I reiterate that even in spite of these (in my opinion) mistakes and poor performances from the defence lawyers and the defendants, there should never have been convictions.

What do you consider the fatal error in the first trial?

I've had conflicting thoughts about that trial. One the one hand, it struck me as non-stop chaos. Calumnia charges. Tabloid suits. So, so many misperceptions/mistranslations to handle. Then, the LCN info came to light -- late in the game.

On the other hand, I don't recall why but I distinctly remember thinking the defense team did not believe AK/RS were innocent until the very end. It seemed to me they upped their game at some point, perhaps after it became apparent Steffanoni was playing games. Perhaps after the forensic videos became available.

On the third hand, the defense hung Knox out to dry by letting her accuse the police of misconduct/coercion without filing charges. We'll never know if they thought that through. It's possible they thought a cuff or two on the head wasn't serious enough to risk blowback from Mignini and the police. They may have believed they were shielding Knox.

Also, IIRC there was tremendous confusion regarding the admissibility of Knox's confession/accusation. It's possible their strategy was to hope those issues would disappear. They didn't.

Knox and Sollecito's inadvisable behavior: I agree. That's a whole nother subject. Briefly, IMO much on Knox's part reflects the Seattle/Perugia culture clash.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh, wow. Lookee: the EU has come out with a new directive on right to counsel, since it appears that (ahem) some member states have been a bit cavalier on this issue:

Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32013L0048:en:NOT

Interesting parts below:

(21) Where a person other than a suspect or accused person, such as a witness, becomes a suspect or accused person, that person should be protected against self-incrimination and has the right to remain silent, as confirmed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. This Directive therefore makes express reference to the practical situation where such a person becomes a suspect or accused person during questioning by the police or by another law enforcement authority in the context of criminal proceedings. Where, in the course of such questioning, a person other than a suspect or accused person becomes a suspect or accused person, questioning should be suspended immediately. However, questioning may be continued if the person concerned has been made aware that he or she is a suspect or accused person and is able to fully exercise the rights provided for in this Directive.

(40) A waiver and the circumstances in which it was given should be noted using the recording procedure in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned. This should not lead to any additional obligation for Member States to introduce new mechanisms or to any additional administrative burden.

(49) In accordance with the principle of effectiveness of Union law, Member States should put in place adequate and effective remedies to protect the rights that are conferred upon individuals by this Directive.

(50) Member States should ensure that in the assessment of statements made by suspects or accused persons or of evidence obtained in breach of their right to a lawyer, or in cases where a derogation from that right was authorised in accordance with this Directive, the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected. In this context, regard should be had to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which has established that the rights of the defence will, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction. This should be without prejudice to the use of statements for other purposes permitted under national law, such as the need to execute urgent investigative acts to avoid the perpetration of other offences or serious adverse consequences for any person or related to an urgent need to prevent substantial jeopardy to criminal proceedings where access to a lawyer or delaying the investigation would irretrievably prejudice the ongoing investigations regarding a serious crime. Further, this should be without prejudice to national rules or systems regarding admissibility of evidence, and should not prevent Member States from maintaining a system whereby all existing evidence can be adduced before a court or a judge, without there being any separate or prior assessment as to admissibility of such evidence.

(51) The duty of care towards suspects or accused persons who are in a potentially weak position underpins a fair administration of justice. The prosecution, law enforcement and judicial authorities should therefore facilitate the effective exercise by such persons of the rights provided for in this Directive, for example by taking into account any potential vulnerability that affects their ability to exercise the right of access to a lawyer and to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty, and by taking appropriate steps to ensure those rights are guaranteed.

Do we think that the ECHR might be interested in this issue?

 

[Bill Williams]

Nencini it seems is saying the motive is that they had nothing better to do. The question about Raffaelel's statements is addressed as well with the judge saying he has never been questioned and even his statements in front of Matteini are not usable.

http://goo.gl/e35HfV

I see this as Nencini still playing with his cards close to his chest, not really revealing what may or may not be in the motivations. These comments still allow for the possibility that he sees "premeditation"; Nencini can write something which says they still thought up the motive for the murder back at Raffaele's. It also still allows for some other more innocent reason for heading over the the cottage... where the dispute only then breaks out.

Nencini is not really saying anything here, as it should be.

What was more troubling to me was the lay jurors' admission that they were a contaminated jury pool. "We see so much on tv?"

So this was not a case considered on the evidence brought before them at court.....

 

[Kestrel]

Original charges were
A. Murder
B. Transporting a large knife
C. Sexual assault
D. Theft of money, credit cards, and cell phones
E. Staging a burglary
F. (Amanda only) Accusation of Patrick

If the prosecution imagined it happened a certain way, the court accepted it despite the lack of evidence.

 

[Wildhorses]

So basically, this whole thing is Lumumba's fault?

BTW, did Nencini actually say that. If so, he's a retard.

Yes, he said it. It's in the article Rose posted.

(I was gonna say he blamed Lumumba: visions of his nutty lawyer stopped me.)

 

[RoseMontague]

I see this as Nencini still playing with his cards close to his chest, not really revealing what may or may not be in the motivations. These comments still allow for the possibility that he sees "premeditation"; Nencini can write something which says they still thought up the motive for the murder back at Raffaele's. It also still allows for some other more innocent reason for heading over the the cottage... where the dispute only then breaks out.

Nencini is not really saying anything here, as it should be.

What was more troubling to me was the lay jurors' admission that they were a contaminated jury pool. "We see so much on tv?"

So this was not a case considered on the evidence brought before them at court.....

I think what he is saying is the court still could not settle on a motive, as it should be when they were not involved at all. He is happy to get all that horrid mess behind him however as he does have a family. I sure hope none of his kids get arrested in a foreign country and get treated like Amanda was.

His Motivation should be a pure joy to dismantle. I can't wait to see it.

 

[billyryan]

I'm more interested in the motive for the crime that nencini just committed.

Thank you Diocletus on this sad day you still managed to make me laugh,one thing that Thursday has taught me is that it is not possible to get justice in Italy,this case can now only be satisfactorily dealt with in the ECHR,O how it must be pissing off Nencini and his fellow kangeroo's that this case could finally end up in a fair court

 

[Machiavelli]

I am sure Mach will give his standard response that Amanda had not been "officially" named a suspect, even at the point where they come from Raffaele and tell her that the alibi no longer holds water.

I think the ECHR will have no problem seeing that she was indeed a suspect at this point despite the tap-dance the Italian cops allow themselves to entrap people.

You are saying she should have been declared a suspect and arrested; now tell us 1. on what evidence 2. above all, on which charge

P.S. Sollecito signed his statement withdrawing Knox's alibi at 3am

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just curious. If you new the facts, then you would know that Amanda didn't actually do "cartwheels" That is what was reported in the papers. She did a yoga split.

And that makes her look better how exactly?

 

[RoseMontague]

You are saying she should have been declared a suspect and arrested; now tell us 1. on what evidence 2. above all, on which charge

P.S. Sollecito signed his statement withdrawing Knox's alibi at 3am

When did he say it, not sign it? BTW, would be a real scoop if you have this 3AM statement. Let's see it.

 

[Diocletus]

You are saying she should have been declared a suspect and arrested; now tell us 1. on what evidence 2. above all, on which charge

P.S. Sollecito signed his statement withdrawing Knox's alibi at 3am

Well, let's see. What evidence did they use to justify her arrest for murder at 6 am?

Anyway, the issue is not when she should have been declared a suspect. The issue is when she should have been afforded counsel. No one cares about some phony Italian writ, especially the ECHR.

 

[Machiavelli]

And she didn't lie. You are not understanding that at that moment, the truth of what the police were saying outweighed her personal truth. If you say she lied by repeating what the police said, then you are saying the police were encouraging her to lie, and they were lying themselves.

The police never told her there was blood on Sollecito's hands. They never named Patrick Lumumba. They never said Patrick wanted to have fun and wanted to have sex with Meredith, never told her Meredith uttered a terrible scream covering their ears, never told her that she was crouching in the kitchen knowing ("imagining") what was goind on. Never told her that Lumumba is a bad person and that she should be very afraid of him.

What they told her, as for her own testimony, is that they didn't believe her, that Sollecito withdrew her alibi, that she was acting as a stupid liar, that they hit her twice at the back of her head, that they may consider her an accomplice if she didn't tell the truth, that they did not belive her when she said she didn't meet anyone, and also objected she sent an sms in Italian suggesting an appointment that evening.
That's all what they said. The rest is Amanda's.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Correct me if I am wrong, but any petition to ECHR can only be filled after Italy has completed its judicial process?

If this case does come to a close in spring 2015 how quickly could a case be lodged with the ECHR? I vaguely recall reading somewhere the ECHR has a backlog of cases measured in years.

Although I understand the nature of focus here on the US\Italy extradition process, I assume Raffaele would start his sentence next year if the Italian Supreme Court confirm the verdicts. A new dynamic, Amanda fighting extradition whilst Raffaele is serving his sentence, his families worst fears unfolding.

Also, does anyone know whether the US\Italian extradition treaty allows the defendant to serve time in their own country?

 

[RoseMontague]

You are saying she should have been declared a suspect and arrested; now tell us 1. on what evidence 2. above all, on which charge

P.S. Sollecito signed his statement withdrawing Knox's alibi at 3am

Also, I never said she should be arrested or charged. The cops considered her a suspect even long before this point. That is obvious.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Almost 150 people world-wide want Killer Knox safeguarded from serving her 28.5 year sentence.

This is why you "guilters" aren't taken seriously. You lie. The number is actually 306 people, double what you claim. Out of the 2.5 billion people with Internet access, that's a start. The world is getting behind this.

 

[Diocletus]

Basis for Arrest

The following are the bases given for the arrest of Amanda Knox:

1) The lack of cell phone traffic
2) The SMS
3) The confession of meeting with Lumumba

That's it.

Obviously, this evidence was all in place prior to the police asking her to sign the 1:45 statement. Therefore, she should have been provided with a lawyer prior to the 1:45 statement.

Italy broke the law.