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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
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



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

Thanks for pointing out the Andrea Vogt article.

She seems to agree with Machiavelli on the waiver issue, since Machiavelli has never raised it and Vogt says that waiver is impossible. I guess ol' Maundy is out in the cold on that one.

So, now we are left with Machiavelli claiming that the right to counsel never attached, but he's outvoted by Maundy and Vogt, who seem to agree that it did.

So, all that poor Machiavelli has left is his exigency argument: they couldn't get her a lawyer in the 7 days after the murder because there was a murder and it was an emergency!

There's also the argument that if Knox could talk to her lawyer, while all of the murder suspects were locked in jail, that this might prejudice the case, which BTW was already "chiuso," or maybe Knox might smuggle out some instruction to have the judge whacked. I don't really understand that one, and Mignini never bothered to write down his reasoning.
 
Vibio said:
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...
Click to expand...

Well, Germany has a law that would have made this particular interrogation illegal. So, there would have been no need to tape it because it never would have happened.
 
Vibio said:
I'll say it again, this time let's see if you get it: Interrogations in the Questura are not taped..
Click to expand...
A falsehood doesn't become true just because someone parrots it.
ETA
Using Google books, I found a mention of this on p. 52 of Barbie Nadeau's book. IIRC it is also in Candace Dempsey's book, but I don't have it handy at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Right.

(BTW In 2007 taped interrogations were not even required in NY city.)

But keep going...
 
anglolawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and for this reason I think that Italy would not try to extradite.

But selfishly, I would love to see it, because it would be a great example of my point that the US government cannot enter into a treaty that obligates it to violate an individual citizen's constitutional rights, e.g., snatching the citizen off the street at the whim of a foreign government who has convicted the citizen in a proceeding that violates the citizen's human rights.

People died so that could never happen.
 
Vibio 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.
Click to expand...

Pretty silly of them to build a control room in the questura to handle such things then.
 
Diocletus said:
Agreed, and for this reason I think that Italy would not try to extradite.

But selfishly, I would love to see it, because it would be a great example of my point that the US government cannot enter into a treaty that obligates it to violate an individual citizen's constitutional rights, e.g., snatching the citizen off the street at the whim of a foreign government who has convicted the citizen in a proceeding that violates the citizen's human rights.

People died so that could never happen.
Click to expand...

Pity the treaty makers didn't put that in.
 
anglolawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

BTW, it occurs to me that this case is dynamite for the ECHR.

First, police interrogation appears to be an issue of pressing interest to the ECHR as witnessed by the recent issuance of a directive on this issue.

Second, Italy is a serial offender of human rights.

Third, this would probably be one of the highest-profile decisions ever by the ECHR, and thus the perfect tool to emphasize its authority and to provide a teachable moment to other ECHR members.

I like it.
 
Yeah right, especially after the US State Department monitored the trials and found no irregularities.
 
RoseMontague said:
Pretty silly of them to build a control room in the questura to handle such things then.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Vibio will enumerate all the advantages of not taping since, even if it is not mandatory (and I have not checked for myself) it must be at least desirable. After all, Amanda might have made an admission but refused to sign a written version of it. What then?

What proper and credible reason could there be for not taping? So, not forgetfulness and not budgetary constraint. If no proper and credible reason then why should we not draw adverse inferences?
 
anglolawyer said:
Pity the treaty makers didn't put that in.
Click to expand...

No problem. It's already in the Constitution.

I suppose that Italy might feel a bit snookered if it finds out that its extradition requests are subject to the other party's Constitution, but I don't really see them complaining that they should be able to "get" people whose human rights they have violated.
 
Nadeau on the taped conversation

Vibio said:
Right.
Click to expand...
Here is a link to a passage in Nadeau. She says that they set up a surveillance camera in the waiting room. If you don't have any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you provide a gracious withdrawal and an apology. Of course, once Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito became suspects in name (they were already suspects in fact), then any defense of a lack of recording just becomes even more risible.
 
Diocletus said:
BTW, it occurs to me that this case is dynamite for the ECHR.

First, police interrogation appears to be an issue of pressing interest to the ECHR as witnessed by the recent issuance of a directive on this issue.

Second, Italy is a serial offender of human rights.

Third, this would probably be one of the highest-profile decisions ever by the ECHR, and thus the perfect tool to emphasize its authority and to provide a teachable moment to other ECHR members.
I like it.
Click to expand...

Dynamite. I like it too.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
No problem. It's already in the Constitution.

I suppose that Italy might feel a bit snookered if it finds out that its extradition requests are subject to the other party's Constitution, but I don't really see them complaining that they should be able to "get" people whose human rights they have violated.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know when it became not a problem. It certainly seems to have been a problem when all those judges were locking people up just on the basis there was a request, what with that comity of nations thing an' all.

ETA how are we pronouncing 'constitution'? Is it constitooshun or constitewshun?
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Hopefully Vibio will enumerate all the advantages of not taping since, even if it is not mandatory (and I have not checked for myself) it must be at least desirable. After all, Amanda might have made an admission but refused to sign a written version of it. What then?

What proper and credible reason could there be for not taping? So, not forgetfulness and not budgetary constraint. If no proper and credible reason then why should we not draw adverse inferences?
Click to expand...

As Mary_H pointed out, it is even in the statutes. How could they record it if they didn't have such recording equipment available. They recorded Amanda and Raffaele in the waiting room of the Questura but somehow couldn't record them in the interrogation rooms? Just more silliness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom