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

[Diocletus]

Unlike London John I am frequently wrong. It turns out the right to a fair trial is an absolute right:

We'll see how absolute it really is.

Could there be a more obvious breach of this concept than using the results of Guede's non-jury, fast-track trial, on an uncontested issue, as binding against Knox and Sollecito? It's just silly. And it's really mind-boggling that it was a nation's supreme court that came up with this garbage.

 

[RoseMontague]

Another lie by Machiavelli. Let's break it down.

1. Mignini did nor summon Raffaele.

Perhaps true, perhaps not. Given the record of what PLE left behind of the process they used to entrap Raffaele, it really is hard to tell.​

2. Sollecito first agreed but then, when he came he invoked his right to remain silent.

When did Sollecito ever invoke his right to remain silent? If Machiavell has actual evidence of this, he should present it. Most certainly we cannot review the tapes of his interrogation, the one where he was threatened with a beating.

What happened was the Sollecito was presented with a right to give confusing evidence, most particularly by PLE refusing to allowing him to consult a calendar, so that he could distinguish the days of the week, and dates of the month, one from the other, prior to the horrible murder.​

Machiavelli, however, just like the courts in this wrongful conviction, do not deal with "evidence", they deal with prosecutorial assertion and it is up to the defence to prove them wrong.

I think Machiavelli is referring to a different point in the investigation, not his initial questioning over four days before he was arrested. Most likely his lawyers decided it would not be a good idea after they saw what the prosecution was up to.

 

[RoseMontague]

We'll see how absolute it really is.

Could there be a more obvious breach of this concept than using the results of Guede's non-jury, fast-track trial, on an uncontested issue, as binding against Knox and Sollecito? It's just silly. And it's really mind-boggling that it was a nation's supreme court that came up with this garbage.

It is beyond any craziness I have come across with other cases anywhere.

 

[Strozzi]

The lie is that Mignini says budgetary constraints, but logic states it doesnt cost anything to record.

We know recording equipment was already bought and the actual recording , pressing a record button, has no cost.
Theres no cost in recording the audio or video.... and its a murder investigation, so they determine the budgetary issues only for a few hours.

Most cell phones will even record audio these days, for free. The Mignini ordered wire-tapping is by far more advanced recording equipment and time consuming, in addition to the fact they were recording Amanda and Raffaele in the Questura proves they had the equipment available in the Questura.
Again the cost of recording is not the issue, the issue is Mignini and the pack is lying.

So Mignini is lying on video, the CNN interview, about this topic of the interrogation recording. The ECHR will see this easily.

Mignini and all those officials who were there, they all choose to take part in the skullduggery....


I would feel confident any fair system would see this lie quickly, its child like lying, but with the ECHR Mignini and the "system" wont be able to bully people around

Let me also point out that they were interrogating a foreign girl who spoke little Italian and few of the police spoke much English. There was a significant languate barrier. The police intended to interrogate her in detail and of course needed to be sure that they got it right and didn't miss anything said due to language difficulty. Of course they recorded the interrogation. But they could not allow the Italian people or American people to hear what they did to her in the interrogation so the recording "disappeared".

 

[Diocletus]

Budgetary constraints I thought. That should play well in the ECHR too. Do you think it possible Italy has wrecked its economy solely in order to make this claim more credible?

But we do have a record of what she said (or at least the cops' version of what she said): the statements themselves. And, what the statements do not say is that she was apprised of a right to counsel and waived it.

Too bad they forgot to add the part about "being duly apprised of my rights according to law, etc.," because now we have a written record that should mention waiver but doesn't, and therefore, waiver never happened.

 

[anglolawyer]

We'll see how absolute it really is.

Could there be a more obvious breach of this concept than using the results of Guede's non-jury, fast-track trial, on an uncontested issue, as binding against Knox and Sollecito? It's just silly. And it's really mind-boggling that it was a nation's supreme court that came up with this garbage.

Yes, there could.

• Holding the 'confessions' to be inadmissible but allowing the professional and popular judges to hear all about them anyway.
  
• Refusing perfectly proper and unexceptionable defence requests for disclosure of scientific material.
  
• Not providing adequate funding to the defence teams, thereby forcing both families into dire financial distress.
  
• Holding the threat of prosecution over lawyers for statements made in the course of advancing heir client's case.
  
• Ditto as regards statements of the defendants themselves.
  
• Ditto as regards statements of family members.
  
• Polluting the media with lies and exposing the professional and popular judges thereto.
  
• Prolonging proceedings excessively.
  
• Failing to hold the prosecution properly to the burden of proof.
  
• Displaying manifest bias against the defendants.

There are more of these, in fact dozens more. The main initial problem with an ECHR appeal is going to be where to draw the line.

 

[Diocletus]

It is beyond any craziness I have come across with other cases anywhere.

Even the Italian press seems to be on to this issue, as I believe that this is one of the questions that was posed to Nencini. Nencini's answer seems to have been to basically shrug he shoulders and say "the Supreme Court said that it should be so." So, Nencini wants no ownership of this issue, and we can see very clearly what his Motivation is going to say.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the importance of substrate controls

Thanks to you and the posters who responded. When discussing the case with friends who obviously get their information from the media it is helpful (especially for a non scientist) to have some rationale for my point of view.

toto,

One final problem with the work of the forensic police. They could have done substrate controls by sampling for DNA near the stain but not in the stain. If they had found DNA in the substrate control, then it would falsify the hypothesis that the stain and the DNA are related.

 

[anglolawyer]

But we do have a record of what she said (or at least the cops' version of what she said): the statements themselves. And, what the statements do not say is that she was apprised of a right to counsel and waived it.

Too bad they forgot to add the part about "being duly apprised of my rights according to law, etc.," because now we have a written record that should mention waiver but doesn't, and therefore, waiver never happened.

Quite. As I said at IIP, valid waiver requires full knowledge. Did she know she was a suspect and of her right to a lawyer when she supposedly waived the right? According to her she was simply assisting the police right up to and beyond speaking to Mignini who she thought was the mayor. As you say, where is the record showing she was properly cautioned (in American = given a Miranda warning)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

they had enough money to record lots of conversations

Is her interviews over that night, not recorded, the standard for murder investigations?

They recorded a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda one or two days before the interrogation. They recorded Amanda talking to her parents in the days after the interrogation. 'nuff said.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli vs. Maundy

Machiavelli and internet poster Maundy seem to have different takes on the deprivation of counsel issues.

According to Mach, no right to counsel attached during the interrogation, and even if did, exigency justified the denial of counsel.

Maundy, on the other hand, concedes that right to counsel attached, but says that Knox waived the right to counsel.

Curious.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, there could.

• Holding the 'confessions' to be inadmissible but allowing the professional and popular judges to hear all about them anyway.
• Refusing perfectly proper and unexceptionable defence requests for disclosure of scientific material.
  
• Not providing adequate funding to the defence teams, thereby forcing both families into dire financial distress.
  
• Holding the threat of prosecution over lawyers for statements made in the course of advancing heir client's case.
  
• Ditto as regards statements of the defendants themselves.
• Ditto as regards statements of family members.
  
• Polluting the media with lies and exposing the professional and popular judges thereto.
• Prolonging proceedings excessively.
  
• Failing to hold the prosecution properly to the burden of proof.
  
• Displaying manifest bias against the defendants.

There are more of these, in fact dozens more. The main initial problem with an ECHR appeal is going to be where to draw the line.

Good list. The highlighted ones are my personal favorites.

 

[Vibio]

They recorded a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda one or two days before the interrogation. They recorded Amanda talking to her parents in the days after the interrogation. 'nuff said.

Keep right on knocking yourselves out over this, but interrogations in the questura are not taped. Even if phone conversations and prison conversations are.

Furthermore, in 2007, (just so you all know) only a handful of US jurisdictions required taped interrogations

But hey : please continue...

 

[anglolawyer]

Machiavelli and internet poster Maundy seem to have different takes on the deprivation of counsel issues.

According to Mach, no right to counsel attached during the interrogation, and even if did, exigency justified the denial of counsel.

Maundy, on the other hand, concedes that right to counsel attached, but says that Knox waived the right to counsel.

Curious.

Surely they are simply arguing in the alternative. You know:

1. the accused was afforded the right to counsel but waived the right, alternatively
   
2. the accused was denied the right to counsel but was not entitled to such right, alternatively,
   
3. the accused was denied the right to counsel and was entitled to the right but the denial caused no prejudice because the accused was later able to say what she meant to say, alternatively
   
4. the accused is guilty anyway and the court ought not to be distracted by all these stupid rights.

 

[Diocletus]

Keep right on knocking yourselves out over this, but interrogations in the questura are not taped. Even if phone conversations and prison conversations are.

Also, ass-whoopins in the Questura are not taped.

It might be written down, though. E.g., like Amanda wrote down within hours of the interrogation "I don't know why you hit me" (or whatever)--you know, the part that is in the memorial that the ISC said is admissible and to which the cops never responded.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

at the questura

but interrogations in the questura are not taped. Even if phone conversations and prison conversations are.

Amanda's conversation with Raffaele took place at the questura.

 

[Mary_H]

For god's sake

Machiavelli and internet poster Maundy seem to have different takes on the deprivation of counsel issues.

According to Mach, no right to counsel attached during the interrogation, and even if did, exigency justified the denial of counsel.

Maundy, on the other hand, concedes that right to counsel attached, but says that Knox waived the right to counsel.

Curious.

It would be nice if someone would read my posts once in a while.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9811487&postcount=6248
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9811508&postcount=6255

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...ix-Amanda-Knox-s-guilt-will-881847.php#page-3

ETA: I have cited that article (by Andrea Vogt, no less) at least six times in four years. If you have not read it by now, you have missed some of the strongest bases for this argument.

 

[Diocletus]

ECHR Ruling

So, let imagine that the ECHR accepts Knox's appeal and declares that Knox's human rights were violated during the interrogation, and that the human rights violation renders the ensuing proceeding infirm. What happens:

1. In Italian public opinion
2. In US public opinion
3. In the extradition analysis
4. to the Italian criminal proceedings

I see this as a complete game-changer on all fronts. Potential headline: "International court rules that police violated Amanda's Knox's human rights." Ouch.

 

[Vibio]

Amanda's conversation with Raffaele took place at the questura.

I'll say it again, this time let's see if you get it: Interrogations in the Questura are not taped.

And this by the way is not just Italy. It is the same for Germany (from what I remember I believe it's because of their Nazi past... although at this moment I can't find verification on that)

( And by the way: did the Knox defense team file a complaint about this... or was it even mentioned during the trail?)

But please, insist...

 

[anglolawyer]

So, let imagine that the ECHR accepts Knox's appeal and declares that Knox's human rights were violated during the interrogation, and that the human rights violation renders the ensuing proceeding infirm. What happens:

1. In Italian public opinion
2. In US public opinion
3. In the extradition analysis
4. to the Italian criminal proceedings

I see this as a complete game-changer on all fronts. Potential headline: "International court rules that police violated Amanda's Knox's human rights." Ouch.

1 no idea
2 probably good things
3 forget it - not a chance of extradition for a conviction ruled to have been obtained unfairly by a court to whose rulings Italy is obliged by treaty to submit.
4 I don't see how they could be rerun because the effect of the unfairness cannot be erased

So I agree. Still much to play for and excellent prospects of knocking over this farce. And the ECHR will be a totally different ball game since the spotlight will be on Italy to justify its actions.