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

[babycondor]

You might want to elaborate on that. Frenzy, bond of power and feel invincible? Not part of my life experience that I would relate to anything, much less a new love situation. That is something you have experience with, or at least can identify with?

Going back and looking at the context, the question originally asked was whether it was credible that a couple who had only dated for six days would remain loyal to each other (not turn on each other) throughout this whole ordeal. In response, it was suggested that their romantic passion created a powerful bond that remained "invincible" despite the circumstances. Not that they remained a couple, obviously, but that they stayed true to their mutual innocence of the murder.

Young people in general seem to believe they are invincible. Like Amanda, they believe that the truth will prevail and they will be treated fairly. Youthful idealism, and all that. I see this also in that report mentioned upthread that Amanda slept well, even sang and danced on occasion, while incarcerated. If that is true, then here is indication of a spirit that refuses to be crushed in the face of terrible injustice. My heart goes out to her and Raffaele.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Use of the word 'demonstrated' shows the burden will be on Italy to explain why they were denied legal assistance. Mach admits she, at least, was strongly suspected of an array of very serious offences (but not 'formally' as if the ECHR will give a crap about that ) and I am unaware of anything remotely amounting to 'compelling reasons' (such as membership of a criminal organisation, imminent terrorist threat etc) so why is this not a slam dunk?

First: The ECHR gives a lot of attention to "formally", because the actual point related to this, is a difference between subjective and objective. To say that the police believed Knox to be performing some cover up activity, is equivalent to saying that they had a subjective opinion on her, which means: nothing. Being the object of suspicions by investigators means nothing and being the object of an investigation means nothing, as for being objectively a suspect, or not.

Second: The need to catch a rapist and murderer is not a compelling reason? The Italian procedure provides even for secrecy of the status of suspect, that is for keeping even formal suspects unaware about their status of suspects, for a limited period of time, whenever there is a serious danger to jeopardize the investigation. Such legislation is considered compliant with human rights under the ECHR standard.

 

[moije2]

Originally Posted by moije2 View Post
You might want to elaborate on that. Frenzy, bond of power and feel invincible? Not part of my life experience that I would relate to anything, much less a new love situation. That is something you have experience with, or at least can identify with?

I think wasapi was just kidding. Most young lovers in a new and passionate relationship want to spend time with each other and not other people, and a lot of that time in bed with themselves. I can't think of any offhand that have gone out and robbed a bank much less murdered their room mate.

Oh well, I missed that humor!

Conversely, I can't think of a better situation of being in a new love relationship to argue against any anti-social behaviour! Maybe that was wasapi's point...

 

[Machiavelli]

Is Nencini referring to the failure to testify in the Massei trial? I understood that Mignini declined to schedule him for cross and Bongiorno launched a broadside at Mig about that in her closing submissions before Hellman. There are a bunch of things that puzzle me about this:

1 why didn't Mig want to question Raffaele?
2 why didn't Raffaele's lawyers put him up anyway?
3 why didn't Raffaele override their advice and put himself up? - ultimately the client makes these decisions, not the lawyer

To draw adverse inferences from the exercise of a right to silence in a jurisdiction in which defendants are permitted (some say expected) to lie is utterly bizarre.

I interpreted Nencini's observation as a suggestion that Sollecito's decision to answer question might have influenced the outcome trial, but depending on what Sollecito would say. I have this interpretation because of the other thing Nencini apparently said, that is: Sollecito's defence seem to have put some distance between him and Knox. So the inference is: in order to make this defensive strategy be effective, Sollecito should have testified.

I add a note, a factual point: Mignini did summon Sollecito for questioning, Sollecito first agreed but then, when he came he invoked his right to remain silent.

 

[babycondor]

Babycondor,

But a defendant is expected to lie, and that is why defendants are not sworn in IIUC. Therefore, it is not clear that a jury would take testimony from a defendant seriously.

So he is assumed to lie if he testifies, and he is assumed to be guilty (has something to hide) if he does not.

The term "Kafkaesque" comes to mind.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're wrong Machiavelli. I have always known the details of the decision. The simple fact that the court ruled that the "amorous nature of their relationship was a mitigating factor" alone is atrocious. It shouldn't be considered as a "mitigating factor".

Well in that case you need to petition a change to the law, because the child sexual abuse law does provide for a mitigating factor, and the principles for the "minor gravity" mitigating factor is well established in jurisprudence.

 

[Diocletus]

Well in that case you need to petition a change to the law, because the child sexual abuse law does provide for a mitigating factor, and the principles for the "minor gravity" mitigating factor is well established in jurisprudence.

Does the law say that one of the mitigating factors is true love? I don't think so. I think the child rape apologists on the ISC made that one up.

 

[Nessie]

"Accusing" = coerced by abusive police tactics into describing an imaginary scene involving Patrick killing Meredith

That is one area in which the Scottish CJ system is better than the Italian. All interviews for anything more than minor crime is either tape recorded or videoed.

It seems to me from a few hours reading here and elsewhere, the whole case rests or falls on that massive interview. Now I have more information on the interview, I would say the conviction is unsafe and should have remained overturned.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I said exactly what I said, and what I said is entirely consistent. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was stopped at 01:45 because she made statements which could be considered self-incriminating or admission of involvement.

I think it's clear, if you don't add false implications and fals notions to it, and if you are based on the actual procedure code.

I add that the pro-Knoxes have proven repeatedly to ignore the basic meaning of things like a status of "suspect", what is it, how is it instated, what authority decides on it etc. You need to add to your knowledge also the fact that the status of suspect is not determined immediately, it is not determined instantly and often not even in real time, and it is relative (to a charge, to a crime); indeed you can use suspects on other charges as informants.

The matter is rather obvious to all those who are not pro-Knoxes.

-

That confession is the worst confession I have ever heard in my life.

Anyone with half a brain could see it is neither an accusation or a confession. Where EXACTLY is Amanda accusing or confessing to an actual crime.

She says the word murder but she NEVER describes, accuses, or confesses to one. No where.

There is more evidence to suggest that Amanda came over later after the TOD murder at 9:30 and after Rudy had gotten rid of the phones and decided to come back to the cottage for more body moving, money searching, and raping and when Amanda came over and heard that going on, on the other side of Meredith's door; those sounds scared the bejesus out of her and she ran out of the house and never saying anything to anybody about it.

That sounds more like what she's confessing to in her accusation/ confession than what most people are saying, but that's just me,

d

-

 

[anglolawyer]

I said exactly what I said, and what I said is entirely consistent. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was stopped at 01:45 because she made statements which could be considered self-incriminating or admission of involvement.
I think it's clear, if you don't add false implications and fals notions to it, and if you are based on the actual procedure code.
I add that the pro-Knoxes have proven repeatedly to ignore the basic meaning of things like a status of "suspect", what is it, how is it instated, what authority decides on it etc. You need to add to your knowledge also the fact that the status of suspect is not determined immediately, it is not determined instantly and often not even in real time, and it is relative (to a charge, to a crime); indeed you can use suspects on other charges as informants.
The matter is rather obvious to all those who are not pro-Knoxes.

I must have been blinded by being pro-Knox. How could I possibly not have understood these things! Thank you Machiavelli.

Still, I am troubled. She was, in your words, 'strongly suspected' of some serious crimes falling short of murder (btw. how do you know what she was suspected of?) but was not made aware of the rights her status triggered under Italian and human rights law and was deliberately deprived of those rights to her prejudice. There is no doubt at all that she would not gave committed calunnia or implicated herself at all had she received proper advice. You can trust me on that.

Will the ECHR spend much time reflecting on the deep, existential question of how long it takes to transit from witness to suspect when it is beyond question (you do not dispute it) that she had crossed the line before she set foot in the questura on the 5th? Your guys broke the law and should pay for it, Mach. This is obvious to all except the most rabid guilters.

 

[Diocletus]

I interpreted Nencini's observation as a suggestion that Sollecito's decision to answer question might have influenced the outcome trial, but depending on what Sollecito would say. I have this interpretation because of the other thing Nencini apparently said, that is: Sollecito's defence seem to have put some distance between him and Knox. So the inference is: in order to make this defensive strategy be effective, Sollecito should have testified.

I add a note, a factual point: Mignini did summon Sollecito for questioning, Sollecito first agreed but then, when he came he invoked his right to remain silent.

The Italians deprived Knox of her right to counsel. The Italian SUpreme Court has already said as much.

I see only four arguments that the Italians can raise to ward off an ECHR condemnation:

1. They hadn't declared her a "formal suspect" yet. This fails because she obviously was a suspect, and furthermore, every element mentioned in the arrest warrant was in fact in place before the 1:45 statement was signed. It is clear that ECHR law does not require a formal declaration.

2. Waiver: This is he-said/she-said, but the Italians are the ones asserting waiver and will bear the burden. A recording or written waiver in the statements would have been good, but in absence of that, this is a loser. The Italian Supreme court did not find a waiver.

3. Exigency: There was nothing "exigent," and they have never alleged this before. This was four days after the murder. Anyway, they could easily have gotten her a lawyer, but in fact, she didn't get one for two days. They ended up with the wrong guy. The Italian Supreme Court did not find exigency.

4. Remedy: They will argue that the violation goes only to the callunnia. Unfortunately, they joined the callunnia charge in the murder proceeding, used the statements, and then used the callunia conviction to convict of murder.

Italy will lose.

 

[Kestrel]

I said exactly what I said, and what I said is entirely consistent. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was stopped at 01:45 because she made statements which could be considered self-incriminating or admission of involvement.

Then they brought the prosecutor in, resumed the interrogation and extracted another "confession".

 

[anglolawyer]

I interpreted Nencini's observation as a suggestion that Sollecito's decision to answer question might have influenced the outcome trial, but depending on what Sollecito would say. I have this interpretation because of the other thing Nencini apparently said, that is: Sollecito's defence seem to have put some distance between him and Knox. So the inference is: in order to make this defensive strategy be effective, Sollecito should have testified.

I add a note, a factual point: Mignini did summon Sollecito for questioning, Sollecito first agreed but then, when he came he invoked his right to remain silent.

I'll take your word for it but aren't we speaking about two different things? Did Mignini schedule Raf for examination in the course of the Massei trial? I think you might be referring to that funny pre-trial procedure Amanda went through but please correct me if that's wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does the law say that one of the mitigating factors is true love? I don't think so. I think the child rape apologists on the ISC made that one up.

The mitigating factor includes assessment several circumstances and behaviours, one of them is if the victim is not passive but participates. Another factor is the assessment of how much the vitcim suffers. Another factor is the means employed, in other words, if the perpetrator could do worse while he didn't (for example if I brake a jewelery window and I steal a small ring to make a present, I commit a 'minor gravity' crime, because I could have stolen much more and for less noble reasons).

 

[RoseMontague]

I interpreted Nencini's observation as a suggestion that Sollecito's decision to answer question might have influenced the outcome trial, but depending on what Sollecito would say.

I interpreted Nencini's comments as he did what the ISC told him to and he convinced those on the jury with any doubts to go along with the ISC directives.

 

[Dan O.]

I said exactly what I said, and what I said is entirely consistent. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was stopped at 01:45 because she made statements which could be considered self-incriminating or admission of involvement.

Machiavelli's statements prove that he is incapable of telling the truth. At some point in the interrogation the police believed that Amanda had made self incriminating statements. At that point the interrogation should have been stopped immediatly and Amanda afforded console. But instead the police continued the process and typed up an incriminating statement which they then had the suspect Amanda Knox sign without legal representation. For this act in violation of the legal protections afforded to criminal suspects, the Italian supreme court said that the signed statements were inadmissible against her.

 

[Kaosium]

I must have been blinded by being pro-Knox. How could I possibly not have understood these things! Thank you Machiavelli.

Still, I am troubled. She was, in your words, 'strongly suspected' of some serious crimes falling short of murder (btw. how do you know what she was suspected of?) but was not made aware of the rights her status triggered under Italian and human rights law and was deliberately deprived of those rights to her prejudice. There is no doubt at all that she would not gave committed calunnia or implicated herself at all had she received proper advice. You can trust me on that.

Will the ECHR spend much time reflecting on the deep, existential question of how long it takes to transit from witness to suspect when it is beyond question (you do not dispute it) that she had crossed the line before she set foot in the questura on the 5th? Your guys broke the law and should pay for it, Mach. This is obvious to all except the most rabid guilters.

Diocletus used to make an interesting point: if Amanda was (finally!) considered an 'official suspect' when she signed the first statement, how come she wasn't the moment she said that? In other words how come they didn't have to get her a lawyer before she signed that 'witness' statement?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'll take your word for it but aren't we speaking about two different things? Did Mignini schedule Raf for examination in the course of the Massei trial? I think you might be referring to that funny pre-trial procedure Amanda went through but please correct me if that's wrong.

I am actually talking about the investigation, December 2007. Knox had already used her right not to answer before judge Matteini on Nov. 2007.
In December Mignini summoned Knox and Sollecito, they accepted, Knox was interrogated on Dec. 18. At first she was eager to speak, dut her interrogation was a train wreck, because she was unable to explain why she falsely accused Lumumba, her defence lawyer attempted to interrupt the questioning, and then she invoked her right to not answer.
Sollecito, at first he asked himself to be interrogated, but then he changed his mind and he refused to answer any question.

After that Mignini didn't call them for questioning any more.
They did not ask to be questioned at the 2008 pre-trial hearing.
But then, Knox asked to be questioned again in 2009 at the Massei trial, and so she was cross-questioned.

 

[Nessie]

Completely conflicting versions of the interview(s) with Knox on 06/11/2007. The she was not mistreated here

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession

and the she was mistreated here

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html

 

[platonov]

Can we please lay off the Italy-bashing? Yes, the recent ISC decision was atrocious. Yes, other recent decisions have been atrocious. So too have been multiple botched court outcomes in Australia, and in the USA, and in Canada and in the UK.

None of us get to throw stones as far as I'm concerned. The recent attacks on Italy are ugly, verge on racism and add nothing of value to the conversation.

A noble and rational suggestion, which we can see has been immediately rejected by some.....

Absolutely.
Unless perhaps Kevin has evidence that she was actually 12 not 11 [which makes a huge difference apparently] and she set out to entrap this kind 60yr old guy in some kind of 'badger game'.

But not wishing to drag this thread further OT he suggest its better to just drop the issue and concentrate on the real victim here - Britn Amanda.

This is the kind of nobility towards victims for which this thread is famed.