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

[acbytesla]

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.

I know...but leave it to a lawyer to use a loophole.


What a game...right now Seattle is doing a number on Denver. Up 8 to 0 and Denver's vaunted offense has been shut down so far.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.​

Schneps fails to point out that the Luminol testing (which was incorrectly conducted, but that's another matter......) was conducted in mid-December, long after the forensics goons had spent days and days trampling throughout the entire cottage - including Filomena's room - without changing their shoe covers. It's therefore absolutely possible that DNA was tracked in-between rooms by these goons.

I think this is yet another area that the defence teams failed to demolish, when they had more than enough good information to enable them to do so. The entire body of "blood/DNA" trace evidence in the cottage could and should have been held up to complete ridicule, and exposed at utterly unreliable and worthless. And all of this should have been put to bed for good in the Massei trial. That the defence teams failed to do so at that point in the process meant that it was successively harder for them to argue against it in subsequent trials.

 

[Kaosium]

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

The top one was written by PMF/TJMK denizens and that version (and its antecedents) has been discussed in these threads endlessly for four years now. It contains a number of factual errors and distortions, not surprisingly suggesting greater guilt when you consider the source. It's also interesting when you follow the sources they don't reflect what the damning prose does. As an example they write this:

Raffaele, when confronted with the inconsistencies in his original statement, decided to attempt to save himself. He told the police that he had lied at Amanda's request, and that the truth was that Amanda Knox had gone out the night of the murder, and he had been home alone from 9:00pm until 1:00am.

But if you follow through you'll find what they're referring to is these two bits which I'll accept as accurate as I've become pretty familiar with them over the course of the past few years.

Amanda and I went into town at around 6 pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 pm or 9 pm. At 9 pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner, but I do not remember what I ate. At about 11 pm per his usual custom my father called the house and Amanda had not yet returned. I spent the next two hours on the computer until Amanda arrived at 1 am.

Note that unlike what they wrote, Raffaele's statement does not say that Amanda left his place at 9 PM, but that they parted at the square and he went home and she went to Le Chic. That's an important detail because it shows he's not just making things up, this is what had happened the night before, on Halloween, now nearly a week in the past. As it accurately states in the false wiki, they thought Raffaele's (and Amanda's) account had 'inconsistencies' because they'd gotten Amanda's phone records and had wiretapped them both and thought Patrick and Amanda exchanging texts ~8:30 on the night of the murder meant they met up that night and Amanda hadn't told them anything about it. In reality there were no inconsistencies except the ones they created through misinterpretation.


Now for the second one, where they claim Raffaele said Amanda told him to lie, here is what Raffaele's statement actually says:

In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the inconsistencies

Raffaele's computer records and an eyewitness confirm that his original statement (November 2nd the day of discovery as posted recently by Charlie Wilkes) where he agreed with Amanda regarding their activities on November 1st was correct, what the police insisted he sign after confusing and intimidating him was not. The police added this to his statement and had him sign it, though he objected to the language they told him they needed it for technical reasons and he signed. However even if you assume that he meant that Amanda convinced him that the night of the murder was the night they watched movies and cuddled, that was what happened, it was not the night they went into town and split up at the square, with him going home as his statements under police coercion suggest. So if Amanda 'convinced him' she was correct to do so.

Here's another one that makes an interesting point:

At this point the police were operating under the belief that Amanda and Raffaele were involved and hiding something, that they were likely not the actual killers but rather were protecting someone else. They based this assumption on an intercepted conversation between Raffaele and Amanda where they discuss a third individual.^5
5Intercepted Nov 04 2007 -- RS: What are you thinking? AK: I don’t want to be here. I want all of this to be over. I want to know who his friends are because he doesn't have many friends. He didn't leave the house much. He didn't talk much.

It's nice of them to provide proof that Raffaele and Amanda had been taped the night before in the Questura but that somehow there's no tapes of them from 10:15 PM on the 5th until 5:45 AM on the sixth when this whole travesty started. As for the recorded quote it would not surprise me that the police in Perugia thought that suspicious at the time and were convinced another man had done the murder and they were covering for him. However these false wiki warriors do not bother to tell you that quote was regarding someone Amanda worked with (not Patrick but I forget the name) who was weird and getting weirder and has nothing to do with the case.

Specifically regarding mistreatment, I suppose that depends on what you mean. As far as physical abuse, all that has been alleged was that Amanda was whupped upside the head. However as regarding being deprived food, water, bathroom etc, that was the situation while she was being interrogated, which was two sessions the first starting around 10:40 PM on the 5th, as Raffaele's first session was concluding ('dropping' her alibi) and the taped conversation with Filomena indicates the police approached her first, as it concludes the call. Then she went into the interview room and described it as normal at first, but becoming very aggressive later, around the time Anna Donnino the interpreter showed up ~12:30 AM. Note that false wiki says Anna Donnino described her as "calm"--that's not quite what she said, it was "initially I saw that she was sufficiently calm, she was answering the questions that were being put to her." which in the context of how she described her later as 'visibly shocked, dejected, frightened, crying as she spoke, exhausted, rather exhausted, shocked, nearly falling asleep, snoozing, particularly prostrate/dejected state' doesn't exactly mean the same as 'calm' as the false wiki states.

It was during those interrogation sessions, from ~10:40-1:45 or so, and then later from ~3AM-5:45AM that Amanda was denied amenities, which I believe were served between sessions and afterward, however as she put it when she was being interrogated she wasn't treated like a human until she'd signed the paper they wanted her to. No food, no bathroom (she was menstruating) no drink, lots of yelling, and at other times carresses and comforting, whatever it took to get what they wanted: a statement incriminating her and Patrick.

Raffaele was denied a lawyer when he asked, Amanda was threatened with it going worse for her if she got one. Raffaele was not allowed to call his father either, and was told if he tried to leave he'd be left in a puddle of blood. I doubt the policeman meant that literally, but it had the intended effect of intimidating Raffaele and precluding his leaving.

Amanda testified to all this knowing at any moment the cops could 'find' those interrogation tapes and prove her a liar which would have probably convicted her of the murder whether she was involved or not. However without the tapes that interrogation session has been the gift that keeps on giving, they scapegoat her for their blundering arrest of Patrick, filed charges on her for calunnia twice, once for Patrick, once for telling what happened in the interrogation, and once on her parents for repeating what she'd said about the interrogation to a British reporter from their Seattle home.

 

[RandyN]

Mignini didn't use that provision because he didn't submit a declaration.
Also, according to Mignini, he exclaimed "stop the interrogation, she must have a lawyer."

Anyway, if she couldn't have a lawyer for up to 5 days, then why did they say that they told her she could have a lawyer and she refused. Are the lying about advising her of the right a lawyer, or are the lying about deciding that she couldn't have a lawyer for several days?

Never let anyone forget this part. It is a major key! Mignini can not produce this declaration and that proves that what he did was completely illegal and a abuse of process and office.

Again though one has to wonder why the defense ignores this blatant abuse of their clients for over 6 years now. Do they expect someone to all of a sudden start doing the legal judicial thing in this case? Ha.

 

[Strozzi]

It is huge here...by far the biggest sporting event. And Seattle has just about shut down for the game.

Party time. Game starts pretty quick.. Thought the game started at 3:30 but they are singing the National Anthem right now which usually means kickoff!!!!

It's now Sunday, 7:30 pm in Washington DC. The city is also watching the Super Bowl, of course. Hardly a car moving on the street. Seattle Seahawks winning 15 - 0 against the Denver Broncos. Early in second quarter.

 

[Kestrel]

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

A lovely law for an authoritarian regime. Perhaps someday Italy will figure out how to be a modern democracy.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Well that this was not "shown" is your opinion. At the EC the State may bring its case saying there was a need to catch a rapist murderer.

As for excerpts of the Salduz vs. Turkey:

(...)
51. The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277 A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008). Nevertheless, Article 6 § 3 (c) does not specify the manner of exercising this right. It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court’s task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial. (…)

52. National laws may attach consequences to the attitude of an accused at the initial stages of police interrogation which are decisive for the prospects of the defence in any subsequent criminal proceedings. In such circumstances, Article 6 will normally require that the accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation. However, this right has so far been considered capable of being subject to restrictions for good cause. The question, in each case, has therefore been whether the restriction was justified and, if so, whether, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, it has not deprived the accused of a fair hearing, for even a justified restriction is capable of doing so in certain circumstances (…)

There are parts that some will like to see as “favourable” to Knox:

54. In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission’s report of 12 July 1984, § 50, Series A no. 96). At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence. In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer whose task it is, among other things, to help to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. (…)

But even the favourable parts contain som conditions and limitations that are of key relevance (like “unduly”)

55. Against this background, the Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” (see paragraph 51 above), Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). 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.

There are also parts of the case that tend to put Knox’s claim definitely off the reach of ECHR standards:

56. In the present case, the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer was restricted during his police custody, pursuant to section 31 of Law no. 3842, as he was accused of committing an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts. As a result, he did not have access to a lawyer when he made his statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively. Thus, no other justification was given for denying the applicant access to a lawyer than the fact that this was provided for on a systematic basis by the relevant legal provisions. As such, this already falls short of the requirements of Article 6 in this respect, as set out at paragraph 52 above.

57. The Court further observes that the applicant had access to a lawyer following his detention on remand. During the ensuing criminal proceedings, he was also able to call witnesses on his behalf and had the possibility of challenging the prosecution’s arguments. It is also noted that the applicant repeatedly denied the content of his statement to the police, both at the trial and on appeal. However, as is apparent from the case file, the investigation had in large part been completed before the applicant appeared before the investigating judge on 1 June 2001. Moreover, not only did the İzmir State Security Court not take a stance on the admissibility of the applicant’s statements made in police custody before going on to examine the merits of the case, it also used the statement to the police as the main evidence on which to convict him, despite his denial of its accuracy (see paragraph 23 above).

As you see, the difference is that Knox was given the opportunity to correct her statements immediately, she did appear before judge Matteini, and she refused to release statement or to answer questions. Then she was given the opportunity to explain herself again on the Dec. 17. Interrogation, and when it came to the false accusation of Lumumba she invoked again her right to not answer questions. The High Court did take a stance about the usability of the statements and the first instance court (Massei) also made a ruling about their usability. The charge for which Knox was accused (calunnia) had not be filed at the time when she released the statements and there was no investigation about it. And finally, Knox did not only release a statement, she repeated further accusations and placed further false evidence against Lumumba again in her written memoriales, which were not statements released to the police and they are considered fully admissible.

 

[smkovalinksy]

From the Daily Mail

Don't know if this has been posted yet:

Talk of Nencini facing disciplinary action:

Amanda Knox's conviction could be QUASHED after judge talked to the media about verdict

Chief judge Alessandro Nencini showed ‘clear evidence of prejudice’

Judge said he believed murder would 'never have happened without her'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vealing-interviews-verdict.html#ixzz2sDMYe4v4

 

[Machiavelli]

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.
(...)

He gave a reason for being in the cottage. The only problem was, the reason was not credible, because contradicted by other testimonies. I suggest not to bring in behavioural evidence, that's not a point where RS and AK seem very strong.
Of course the evidence of his presence on the scene and of sexual contact athemselvesy may be insufficient. It depends on the rest of the evidence. The evidence must be assessed as a whole.
And certainly such evidence would be insufficient to convict him for burglary.
A for what you 'know', well I too know who did it.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

Of course. Who was the law professor who said that?

 

[acbytesla]

Don't know if this has been posted yet:

Talk of Nencini facing disciplinary action:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vealing-interviews-verdict.html#ixzz2sDMYe4v4

That's interesting. I think it's is also interesting how the Seahawks are absolutely demolishing the Denver Broncos at the moment. 22-0.

WOW!!!!

 

[Rolfe]

The Daily Fail?

Oh dear. She's doomed.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course. Who was the law professor who said that?

What do you mean by that?

Are you trying to say that properly-obtained spontaneous declarations cannot (in law) be used in court against the person who made them?

Or are you saying that somehow the SC ruled that the 5.45 Knox statement was indeed a properly-obtained spontaneous declaration, but that they ruled it inadmissible in court regarding the murder charges for other reasons?

Or is it one more attempt at obfuscation, deflection, misdirection and revisionism......?

 

[smkovalinksy]

The Daily Fail?

Oh dear. She's doomed.

Rolfe.

You mean, 'he's doomed' - it would be trouble for Nencini, not Knox....

 

[Diocletus]

Well that this was not "shown" is your opinion. At the EC the State may bring its case saying there was a need to catch a rapist murderer.

So you think that whenever there is a murder, police can just ignore the ECHR? I think not.

As you see, the difference is that Knox was given the opportunity to correct her statements immediately, she did appear before judge Matteini, and she refused to release statement or to answer questions. Then she was given the opportunity to explain herself again on the Dec. 17. Interrogation, and when it came to the false accusation of Lumumba she invoked again her right to not answer questions.

I'm sorry, how is it that you think that all of these events, occurring after the human rights violations were already completed, fix anything? The prejudice comes from the use in Knox's trial of the illegally obtained statements. That is the human rights violation that Italy will be ordered to fix. That's gonna be embarrassing.

 

[Machiavelli]

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"?

This use of "definition" is not legally correct, and however, this is not the same of saying that the declaration was non spontaneous.
You see, you also don't understand that, if the courts declared the 05.45 statement admissible in a calunnia charge, this also means - I could say by definition, but I prefer by 'logical implication' - that they considered the statement to be not coerced.
Had the statement been found to be coerced, aka non spontaneous, it would ave been not usable even in the charge of calunnia.
But it was usable as evidence in the charge of calunnia therefore it means it was found to be not coerced.

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,

Mignini had no means to coerce Knox; in particular had no means to coerce her into saying those parituclary details she said; Knox did not report any factual action of coerction; Mignini and investiogators could not make up the scream; if Mignini wanted her to offer a useful statement and had means to coerce, he would have obtained a consistent statement; Mignini could not force Knox to repeat her false accusations in two hand written notes; Anna Donnino and other consostent witnesses versus Knox; Knox could have claimed coercion before Matteini and on Dec. 17 and she did not; in the subsequent trials she always cleimed false memory syndrome; Knox is totally unreliable by her own definition and is a proven liar, not credible over Mignini and Donnino.

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?

The statement could be usable for the investigation not for a court, it is obviously not something usable as evidence against Knox (she doesn't accuse herself, she accuses Lumumba), and it is obvious that it was not designed by a lawyer/investigator to be usable to some purpose, because it is nebulous, repetitive and fundamentally contradictory.

You aren't aware that the SC saw straight through this blatant abuse of process?

I am aware that they did not see any blatant abuse. It's a pro-Knoxes invention. That defence instance to the SC was actually a failure, their reasons are basically rejected.

 

[Diocletus]

I find this quote from Salduz to be quite important:

The question, in each case, has therefore been whether the restriction was justified and, if so, whether, in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, it has not deprived the accused of a fair hearing, for even a justified restriction is capable of doing so in certain circumstances

So, as we seem to agree, Italy will be shown to have denied counsel to Knox. In its defense, it will be able to argue only that there were some exceptional circumstances that justified restricting Knox's right to counsel. But, in order to prevail, Italy will have to show:

1) that the restriction was justified, AND

2) that the restriction did not deprive Knox of a fair hearing

Also, this:

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.

Will Italy be able to show that the statements made in the absence of a lawyer were not used for a conviction? No. The statements obviously were used, as the underlie the calunnia conviction, and further, the calunnia conviction was used in the murder conviction.

Italy loses on both points.

 

[Rolfe]

You mean, 'he's doomed' - it would be trouble for Nencini, not Knox....

No. The Daily Fail is so wrong so consistently about everything that if they say Knox's conviction may be quashed, what will probably happen is that her sentence will be increased.

Rolfe.

 

[Machiavelli]

So you think that whenever there is a murder, police can just ignore the ECHR? I think not.

Police follow the law and law needs to be compliant with the statutes of HR.

I'm sorry, how is it that you think that all of these events, occurring after the human rights violations were already completed, fix anything? The prejudice comes from the use in Knox's trial of the illegally obtained statements. That is the human rights violation that Italy will be ordered to fix. That's gonna be embarrassing

.

1. There was no violation of HR. 2. Violation of art. 6 must be assessed only within the totality of the whole proceedings, the idea that once an event alleged to be 'violation' occurs, the subsequent trial events after that would be irrelevant to the fariness of trial, is just plain delusional under the light of the ECHR prnciples.

 

[acbytesla]

No. The Daily Fail is so wrong so consistently about everything that if they say Knox's conviction may be quashed, what will probably happen is that her sentence will be increased.

Rolfe.

Hard to argue with this. The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid.... I would take anything they write with a huge dosage of salt.