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

[Machiavelli]

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

They say nothing of sort.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, but the ruling acknowledges the principle that the right to obtain counsel immediately is not absolute. You are right that the application was ruled inadmissible because does not meet the preliminary conditions. But the merit rules that the right to obtain legal advice is not absolute.

Wow, that's some revisionism at work right there! Didn't someone mention Stalin some place upthread....? Perhaps Machiavelli might want to revisit his original (and discredited) claim, and perhaps be so honourable to state that he either misunderstood or misrepresented the ECHR ruling on this matter. Or maybe not.............

 

[LondonJohn]

They say nothing of sort.

Yes they do. Need a cite?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
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.

A side note. I point out a detail that those who agree with you tend to omit: based on the very same principles, the jury would not have known anything about Rudy Guede's being investigated or suspected of other alleged crimes, and also the public would not know anything about rumors or suspicions of Guede committing theft or burglaries. A significant portion of the innocentisti campaign is based on information about Guede that would be considered inadmissible and prejudicial in the same jurisdictions.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes they do. Need a cite?

If you want to quote something that disproves your claim, you're welcome.

 

[andreajo]

A side note. I point out a detail that those who agree with you tend to omit: based on the very same principles, the jury would not have known anything about Rudy Guede's being investigated or suspected of other alleged crimes, and also the public would not know anything about rumors or suspicions of Guede committing theft or burglaries. A significant portion of the innocentisti campaign is based on information about Guede that would be considered inadmissible and prejudicial in the same jurisdictions.

That would have been fine. He would have been convicted based on the physical evidence anyway.

 

[Machiavelli]

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"

The lawyer is appointed immediately, but the suspect can be prevented contact with his lawyer for up to five days under art. 104. cpp.

 

[acbytesla]

The lawyer is appointed immediately, but the suspect can be prevented contact with his lawyer for up to five days under art. 104. cpp.

That's clever, you can have a lawyer, but you can't talk to them?

What a joke!

 

[Machiavelli]

That would have been fine. He would have been convicted based on the physical evidence anyway.

However, he was not convicted on the physical evidence, that exists, but alone would be insufficient; he was convicted because his explanations were not credible, because he lied. Moreover there is no physical evidence of break in. The court did not believe he had an appontment with Meredith and had consensual sex, and they did not believe his story about an unknown intruder. If he had a plausible story that fits the evidence, there would be reasonable doubt.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you want to quote something that disproves your claim, you're welcome.

You don't understand that if the SC had agreed that the 5.45am statement was spontaneous (in law), its contents would have been ruled admissible against her in the murder trial? You don't understand that the very fact that the SC ruled the 5.45am statement inadmissible in the murder trial means -by definition - that they considered that it did not meet the criteria of a "spontaneous declaration"?

You aren't aware that Mignini's sole aim in coercing the 5.45am statement was to get Knox to repeat everything she'd said earlier in the 1.45am statement, since he already knew that there was no chance that the contents of the 1.45am statement would be allowed in evidence on the murder charge, and was therefore trying to make it admissible through the concoction of a "spontaneous declaration" that repeated the same self-incriminating information but this time in a court-admissible fashion? You aren't aware that the SC saw straight through this blatant abuse of process?

I suppose it's true what they say proverbially: there are none so blind as those who will not see.........

 

[Diocletus]

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"

They say nothing of sort.

Yes they did. If the statements had been spontaneous then they could have been used in the murder case. But they weren't allowed. So they weren't spontaneous.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's clever, you can have a lawyer, but you can't talk to them?

What a joke!

This section of the law - contrary to Machiavelli's claims - was specifically introduced to try to combat endemic witness tampering and justice perversion by organised criminal outfits. And given that it implicitly assumes the corrupt complicit behaviour of the defendants' lawyers, it's even more clear that this law was aimed squarely at organised criminals (most specifically the Mafia) who also used corrupt lawyers.

There is no way whatsoever that this section of the law should or could have been properly used in the case of Knox or Sollecito. It was another blatant abuse of process by Mignini. The ECHR will be extremely interested in it, I imagine.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes they did. If the statements had been spontaneous then they could have been used in the murder case. But they weren't allowed. So they weren't spontaneous.

Exactly so. But some will still try to argue that black is white. Strange.

 

[Diocletus]

The lawyer is appointed immediately, but the suspect can be prevented contact with his lawyer for up to five days under art. 104. cpp.

At this point, no one cares about 104 cpp. Whatever it says us subject to the ECHR. The ECHR tells us that the right to counsel was violated prior to 1:45. The ensuing statements were improperly used to the prejudice of the defendant.

 

[andreajo]

However, he was not convicted on the physical evidence, that exists, but alone would be insufficient; he was convicted because his explanations were not credible, because he lied. Moreover there is no physical evidence of break in. The court did not believe he had an appontment with Meredith and had consensual sex, and they did not believe his story about an unknown intruder. If he had a plausible story that fits the evidence, there would be reasonable doubt.

Ummm... His hand and shoe prints in her blood and his DNA on and in her are insufficient evidence for a conviction? I am feeling generous, so I will throw in the lack of any known reason for him to be in the cottage and the behavioral evidence of lack of ambulance calling. The previous B & E history should not be required for a conviction. If that history was not admissible, that would still be fine. We'd still know who did it.

Go Hawks!

 

[Diocletus]

A side note. I point out a detail that those who agree with you tend to omit: based on the very same principles, the jury would not have known anything about Rudy Guede's being investigated or suspected of other alleged crimes, and also the public would not know anything about rumors or suspicions of Guede committing theft or burglaries. A significant portion of the innocentisti campaign is based on information about Guede that would be considered inadmissible and prejudicial in the same jurisdictions.

This is silly. The defendants obviously were entitled to introduce this evidence of guede's MO in court in support of their defense.

That's way different than the police releasing the fruits of their illegal interrogations in order to prejudice the defendants.

 

[toto]

Independent newspaper article

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gainst-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html

This article talks about the bra clasp and the knife, but I would appreciate any comments on the aspect of the mixed stain as quoted below. I understand Luminol does not just change colour to show blood, but the author thinks it significant as you can read below. There are comments on the website: one says: "Very concise reasoning as to how Knox is complicit."



Leila Schneps
Sunday 2 February 2014

"It's not right to say there is ‘no evidence’ in the case against Amanda Knox. There's plenty"

Although not visible to the naked eye, the chemical Luminol which flashes blue on contact with blood revealed a spot in the room of the flatmate whose window had been smashed and room rifled. Swabbing the spot produced a mixture of Amanda and Meredith’s DNA. This is a clear proof that the murderer entered that bedroom after the murder, as someone must have brought Meredith’s blood into the room, contradicting the defence theory that Rudy Guede broke into the house and then committed the murder. The usual defence explanation for mixed DNA stains in the bathroom and corridor, namely that the house would have been coated in Amanda’s DNA given that she lived there, does not necessarily apply to a flatmate’s bedroom. It is much harder to leave traces of DNA than is commonly conceived, and hardly any of Amanda's DNA was found in her own room - where she surely spent a lot more time than in her flatmate's.​

 

[LondonJohn]

Ummm... His hand and shoe prints in her blood and his DNA on and in her are insufficient evidence for a conviction? I am feeling generous, so I will throw in the lack of any known reason for him to be in the cottage and the behavioral evidence of lack of ambulance calling. The previous B & E history should not be required for a conviction. If that history was not admissible, that would still be fine. We'd still know who did it.

Go Hawks!

It's fair to say that one needs to couple the physical evidence with Guede's known actions (and lack of actions) after the murder, in order to find for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply put, the physical evidence alone means that Guede cannot deny that a) he was there at or (at worst) very shortly after the murder, and b) he had some sort of sexual contact with Meredith. Hence his cock-and-bull story about the date and the fumbled foreplay, followed by the "stranger" killing Meredith while he was on the toilet. But his claims are totally discredited by the known facts that he utterly failed to alert any authorities, that he went out dancing within a couple of hours of the murder (seemingly without anything troubling his conscience), and that he fled to Germany within 48 hours.

It's all this together which guaranteed his safe conviction for murder. His prior acts should not have had any bearing on the murder case, and nor were they needed to find for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, these prior acts DO come into play in any post-conviction discussion of the likely safety of the murder conviction, together with any post-conviction discussion which seeks to get closer to the factual truth of what happened on the night of the murder.

 

[Dan O.]

I am a bit tired of being accused of lying on the basis of idiotic ravings.

Then don't make idiotic ravings.

 

[andreajo]

It's fair to say that one needs to couple the physical evidence with Guede's known actions (and lack of actions) after the murder, in order to find for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Simply put, the physical evidence alone means that Guede cannot deny that a) he was there at or (at worst) very shortly after the murder, and b) he had some sort of sexual contact with Meredith. Hence his cock-and-bull story about the date and the fumbled foreplay, followed by the "stranger" killing Meredith while he was on the toilet. But his claims are totally discredited by the known facts that he utterly failed to alert any authorities, that he went out dancing within a couple of hours of the murder (seemingly without anything troubling his conscience), and that he fled to Germany within 48 hours.

It's all this together which guaranteed his safe conviction for murder. His prior acts should not have had any bearing on the murder case, and nor were they needed to find for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, these prior acts DO come into play in any post-conviction discussion of the likely safety of the murder conviction, together with any post-conviction discussion which seeks to get closer to the factual truth of what happened on the night of the murder.

Agreed!