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

[anglolawyer]

As for the ECHR, the cases Salduz versus Turkey (2008), established that the right of a person under arrest to confer with a defence lawyer immediately must not be intended as absolute; there are various possibilities where other needs may force a delay.
The Simons versus Belgium case (2012) was considered inadmissible on this principle.

Italian procedure: Art. 104 c.p.p (used by Mignini) provides for the possibility to delay the right of immediate counsel for up to 5 days, and jurisprudence establishes what the "exceptional circumstances" are (danger of jeopardizing investigation). The justice comittee of Low Chamber of Italian parliament deemed the law compatible with ECHR standards. Found compatible with HR statute and Constitution by Constitutional Court too.

Thanks. I'll look those up. I would be surprised if anybody thought these rights were 'absolute'. The word used by the ECHR in its own guidance is 'fundamental'. I argued a few posts above that it would have to be shown, at the very least, that deprivation of this fundamental right was reasonably necessary to the furtherance of an investigation and that this could not be shown here.

A further point is that the ensuing course of the proceedings did not reduce or eliminate the prejudice arising from the police misconduct. On the contrary, the prejudice was exploited to the max with the calunnia charge and the various devices by which the judges were made aware of the 'confessions'. In a jury trial here, the jury would have known nothing about them and there would have been no risk of prejudice from such knowledge (which does not mean no prejudice at all) but in Italy:

1 the confessions were immediately made public, for no conceivably proper reason
2 the same tribunal heard the calunnia charge and was thereby informed of the confessions
3 ditto the parallel civil claim by Patrick, which had no place in a criminal proceeding.

 

[anglolawyer]

I already said this is false. Mignini was not there, he arrived after 2am. Maybe you need to learn a bit of the language you try to read.

Citation?

 

[Diocletus]

Mignini said she had the right (and the duty) of appointing a lawyer, not a right to immediate counsel. The art. 104 procedure code is not a "mafia law".

So migini told her she could have a lawyer at some indefinite time in the future? By which he meant in two days?

Did he tell her that he couldn't have a lawyer right away?

Why did he tell griffin that he said "defense counsel must be appointed"

 

[Diocletus]

I said that Amanda Knox decided to release a statement.
Which is what she did.

Not according to the Supreme Court. They said the statement was not spontaneous.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm really curious... I figure the Americans are about to sign off to watch the Super Bowl. Out of curiosity. Just how many of your Europeans will stay up late to watch the game? I have to believe that it has to be on one of the cable channels.

Go Hawks!!!!

 

[Poppy1016]

Petition to the White House

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/protect-amanda-knox-extradition/3vdzDmLN

Progress

 

[platonov]

If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent as most of us believe that she is, then THEY ARE VICTIMS as well as Meredith. Both Amanda and Raffaele spent 4 years in prison and both have had a 4th of their life defined by the accusation as well as living under a cloud that they could spend many more years behind bars.

If you cannot see that, then I think it is time to take the guilt glasses off.

Hold the phones - you guys think Amanda is innocent.
[Why ???]


Wow - Now I get it .....Why didnt someone say something !

 

[Mary_H]

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.

The lack of a recording makes the interview unreliable and the conviction (re-conviction) unsafe. No wonder there are such conflicting accounts of what took place.

This is essential. Once it is determined laws were broken by detaining and interrogating the defendants, there is no need to debate further evidence (all of which was collected after the arrests). According to the Italian law experts cited in this article laws were broken.

Unfortunately, most Italian laws have loopholes written in for the benefit of the most powerful players. Clever people should be able to establish the unconstitutionality of the loopholes.

 

[platonov]

But to be serious for a moment

It should be very apparent to any right thinking person* that this latest verdict is an attack on and an affront to the (english speaking) white race.

* This is a legal term which means .. well, someone who agrees with the speakers viewpoint.

I dont use it lightly but I have if (I say so myself) a formidable legal background.

 

[acbytesla]

Hold the phones - you guys think Amanda is innocent.
[Why ???]


Wow - Now I get it .....Why didnt someone say something !

Very good. LOL.

I love the sarcasm platonov. Really I do.

Take it easy and GO HAWKS!!!!!

 

[Strozzi]

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.

Machiavelli, thank you for explaining that. Yes, the need to catch a violent criminal is a compelling reason. I see the nuances to which you refer. You know a lot about the legal process. Do you teach law?

 

[RandyN]

I am a bit tired of being accused of lying on the basis of idiotic ravings.
Knox decided to release a statement. It's what I said, never changed, and this assertion will remain there unchanged.

It is a plain lie that Mingnini ordered to stop the interrogation; it is false that he says that in the Draw Griffin interview. He did not this in the Draw Griffin interview, it is not in the English translation of it, and by all reports Mignini was not even there at the police station until after 2 am.

Well this should be easy enough to confirm. They do have video recording of the comings and goings at the Questura right? Security cameras outside...that sort of thing? What time do they show Mignini rolling in then?

Let me guess. These tapes are missing too right? Along with Migninis application... also missing...to deny lawyers to the defendants as they are being held in solitary confinement (Is that even legal to do to a girl in Italy?...silly me...the police hit girls so why not solitary). And Lumumba? At what point was he made aware of his right to an attorney?

These Italian lies are holes that they just cant seem to stop themselves from digging ever so deeper. Don't worry no one will likely notice...

ETA....there must be phone records proving the notification times of Mignini that night. I suppose those would be hard to get though...unless someone brought a case of abuse of office and corruption by a judicial official. Who brought the last case of abuse against Mignini? A case which he has apparently completely dodged BTW...amazing Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

It should be very apparent to any right thinking person* that this latest verdict is an attack on and an affront to the (english speaking) white race.

* This is a legal term which means .. well, someone who agrees with the speakers viewpoint.

I dont use it lightly but I have if (I say so myself) a formidable legal background.

I'm not sure I buy this argument platonov. There may be a bit of political correctness at play. But I don't see race really as a major element. I do see resentment of America at play....but not race.

I do think this latest verdict is an affront to anyone who believes that guilt must be proven BEYOND a reasonable. doubt. Even if you are suspicious of Amanda and what I would say are minor contradictions..which can easily be attributed to memory and misunderstandings, I find it unfathomable that anyone would say that the evidence in this case rises to that level.

 

[anglolawyer]

As for the ECHR, the cases Salduz versus Turkey (2008), established that the right of a person under arrest to confer with a defence lawyer immediately must not be intended as absolute; there are various possibilities where other needs may force a delay.
The Simons versus Belgium case (2012) was considered inadmissible on this principle.

I looked at Simons -v- Belgium now. It does not say what you say it says. She stabbed her boyfriend and, without a lawyer, admitted it to the police and a judge. Under Belgian law she had no right to a lawyer. She was remanded in custody. Her subsequent application to the ECHR was ruled inadmissible because she had not exhausted her domestic remedies, not because the right to legal advice is not absolute. Moreover, she invoked two human rights:

to liberty, and
to a fair trial

The court held that the relevant Belgian law did not transgress the first but on the second the decision reads:

The Court noted that, according to its case-law, accused persons had the right to be assisted by a lawyer from the start of their time in police custody or pre-trial detention, and when being questioned by the police or the investigating judge. While some restrictions on that right might be justified in certain conditions, the fact of being unable to obtain the assistance of a lawyer in such circumstances by virtue of a rule of domestic law was incompatible with the right to a fair trial.

 

[Mary_H]

Mignini said she had the right (and the duty) of appointing a lawyer, not a right to immediate counsel. The art. 104 procedure code is not a "mafia law".

So migini told her she could have a lawyer at some indefinite time in the future? By which he meant in two days?

Did he tell her that he couldn't have a lawyer right away?

Why did he tell griffin that he said "defense counsel must be appointed"

As I understand it, the "right" to a lawyer cannot be waived, so it's really more a procedure than a right, which Mignini of all people is aware of. In order to honor the spirit of the law that seeks to protect the rights of the defendant in the process of investigation and arrest, Mignini should not have accepted anything from Amanda, verbal or written, regardless of her insistence or "spontaneity." He was aware of the requirement that she have a lawyer for her own protection; she was not. He behaved unethically, and I believe, illegally.

This claim can be tested by asking whether Amanda was able to make free-will decisions under the circumstances. No. She was confined by the state without counsel; the state and the prosecutor were in charge, not Amanda. Unless she had the freedom to release herself from custody, nothing she said or wrote should have been accepted or admitted in any court in any trial.

 

[Strozzi]

It should be very apparent to any right thinking person* that this latest verdict is an attack on and an affront to the (english speaking) white race.

* This is a legal term which means .. well, someone who agrees with the speakers viewpoint.

I dont use it lightly but I have if (I say so myself) a formidable legal background.

I didn't realize you have a formidable legal background. Please tell me what is your timeline of the crime? Do you believe food remains in the stomach for, say, 4 - 5 hours before it begins repeat begins transiting into the duodenum in a healthy young adult? Where are the missing electronic data files that show how Stefanoni tested the DNA samples? How do you evaluate the credibility of witnesses who earlier said they knew or saw nothing and then came forward eight months later after having the memories encouraged by a journalist seeking stories? Have you ever been through a hostile or manipulative police interrogation?



How would you like to debate several of our

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm really curious... I figure the Americans are about to sign off to watch the Super Bowl. Out of curiosity. Just how many of your Europeans will stay up late to watch the game? I have to believe that it has to be on one of the cable channels.

Go Hawks!!!!

If I didn't have to be up early tomorrow I would watch.

 

[Mary_H]

I'll catch you up, anglo. You know it's a cold day in hell when even I am watching a football game.

Go Hawks!

 

[acbytesla]

If I didn't have to be up early tomorrow I would watch.

Is it on tv there ? And do you think many Brits will watch?

 

[moije2]

Mignini said she had the right (and the duty) of appointing a lawyer, not a right to immediate counsel. The art. 104 procedure code is not a "mafia law".

Oh come on. Even you have to smile at this one. Hmm. Right to appoint, but not the right to actually have one. I guess you folks can hash out the legal application of this one for a few more wasted pages of nonsense. Me thinks you have defending too long.