I have posted case law here before now to the effect that the right to legal counsel at the investigative stage is part of the right to a fair trial. The ECHR is capable of ruling that a conviction has not been arrived at by fair means. In this case the unfairness directly affected the course, conduct and outcome.
But it is quite well capable to rule in the opposite direction, and I believe it is what they will do in this case. They will rule that the trial was fair, that there was no violation of the ECHR standard to right to counsel, and that anyway this point may not automatically make the proceedigns become unfair.
I saw you replied to Rose. but not me, asking about 'evidence' and 'charges'. You should address this question to yourself. It was you who said she was strongly suspected when she arrived for questioning.
And I had explaind about it.
I already set out the evidence: it is the same evidence that, viewed osmotically, makes such a compelling case: mops, bathmat boogie, staged burglary, phone call anomalies, weird behaviour, duvet over body (ergo female assailant), clear evidence of multiple attackers, no forced entry, inconsistencies, purchase of underwear, doing the splits and more.
It's not exactly the same evidence.
There is still no autopsy. No luminol prints. No bathmat print. No DNA. No blood DNA traces in bathroom.
There was also no overall assessment about several things such as testimonies, like those of the British girls and of Filomena. There was not yet a withdrawal of Knox's alibi by Sollecito, and there was not yet a repeated and changing testimony against Lumumba.
As for 'charges' what are you talking about? Murder, faked burglary, theft of phones - what's the problem?
The charges for which Knox was informally "strongly suspected" were false declarations to investigators (art. 371) and
favoreggiamento personale (covering up for a criminal person) (art. 378), and also possibly of an alteration of the murder scene.
Again, drilling down into this crucial period further: why was Raffaele called in late on the 5th?
Raffaele was called earlier, but interrogation was delayed to after dinner basically because he delayed it.
What was put to him was that he could not be sure she had stayed at his place the whole night. Why would the cops be pursuing that line of enquiry unless they suspected her of involvement and him of covering for her?
The point is: her involvement in what? They suspected she left his apartment and he was covering for her. It's obvious, because his testimony was too fuzzy, therefore not credible. They both did not remember what they ate for dinner, not a single thing that they did, not even if they had sex, got wrong the dinner time. This complete fog is obviously suspicious.
But leave to do what? Not to commit a murder, they did not have evidence to believe this. But they belived she was elsewhere and knew somethign about the murder.
Anyway, thanks for dropping the silly paperwork argument. That will not wash anywhere outside the loony forums. The ECHR will certainly not be detained by it. Do you agree Mignini is lying when claiming they were not suspects?
Not even remotely. Mignini says exactly the same things that I am telling you. That she was not at all a suspect for tha charge of murder.
But everybody agrees that she was "attenzionata" (put under attention) from minute one because she was not credible, and because she is was related to a staging, therefore assessed to be a probable false witness, covering up for the murderer.
