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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vibio said:
No Mignini is correct. It is not done by the police at the time of interrogation.

BTW: What did Knox's defence team have to say about the fact that her interrogation was not recorded? It's been discussed for 100s of pages here... so her lawyers must have really made a stink about it...if it's so unusual... what exactly did they have to say?
Click to expand...

Oh goodie! You have the Supreme Court judgment on admissibility of the 'confessions'? Then we'll know! Please link us to this mysterious document!
 
anglolawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll have more of an answer any time now.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...states-federalisms-limits-on-the-treaty-power

Similar issue presently pending before the Supreme Court, and causing a bit of excitement (at least among law professors).
 
Chris_Halkides said:
anglolawyer,

Barbie said (p. 52) that they installed a camera (which apparently could also record sound) in the waiting room because they were suspicious of the pair. Maybe that consumed their entire budget.
Click to expand...
This should go down great in the ECHR. I can only imagine an English court scene in which the judge, high up on the bench, asks counsel for the state:

Judge: Mr Pilchard - at what point will you be showing us the video tape of the interview with Miss .. er .. Knox?

Counsel: there is no such tape my lord

Judge: then we must make do with a tape recording I suppose?

Counsel: there is no tape recording my lord

Judge: why not?

Counsel: budgetary constraint my lord, alternatively forgetfulness, alternatively she was not a suspect so it was not thought important

Judge: (looks at counsel over spectacles then makes note) Thank you Mr Pilchard. Please continue.
 
Could be a matter of best practices for premeditated coercion.

If you know you're gonna play hardball with a suspect, you're probably better off not recording. Who wants a video of a young woman screaming and begging for a lawyer lying around?
 
anglolawyer said:
This should go down great in the ECHR. I can only imagine an English court scene in which the judge, high up on the bench, asks counsel for the state:

Judge: Mr Pilchard - at what point will you be showing us the video tape of the interview with Miss .. er .. Knox?

Counsel: there is no such tape my lord

Judge: then we must make do with a tape recording I suppose?

Counsel: there is no tape recording my lord

Judge: why not?

Counsel: budgetary constraint my lord, alternatively forgetfulness, alternatively she was not a suspect so it was not thought important

Judge: (looks at counsel over spectacles then makes note) Thank you Mr Pilchard. Please continue.
Click to expand...

This annoying penchant for English reserve and understated reaction is what's wrong here.

In Canada they would eventually have had to call paramedics to deal with the burst blood vessel in the judge's eye. He/she would have gone beet-red with rage, and opposing counsel would need to be treated for eardrum damage.

This reminds me of Judge Begbie here in colonial days. He was called "The Hanging Judge", because he'd start his sessions in a converted saloon with, "bring in the guilty bastard." (Sort of like Nencici.)

But Begbie was a noted noose enthusiast because he once threatened to hang the jury..... literally. All of them. That's the way we do justice up in these mountains.

No understated note taking. The judges here also take care of their own courtroom security by using the butt of a .45 revolver as a gavel.
 
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


Quote:
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/artic...847.php#page-3
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

I hilited the word you are ignoring. Since Amanda walked into the police station of her own free will she was not a suspect at that time.
 
Diocletus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's imagine the murder never happened.
 
tsig said:
I hilited the word you are ignoring. Since Amanda walked into the police station of her own free will she was not a suspect at that time.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The question is not whether she arrived of her own free will but how she was viewed by those conducting the investigation. But it's interesting that you take this point as it may very well explain why despite Giobbi being 100% certain he ordered them both in, they only asked Raf. That would allow them the fiction of pretending they had not even wanted to talk to her (despite having scheduled a night shift for a dozen or so cops for - what else? - the very purpose of the interrogation).
 
anglolawyer said:
Nonsense. The question is not whether she arrived of her own free will but how she was viewed by those conducting the investigation. But it's interesting that you take this point as it may very well explain why despite Giobbi being 100% certain he ordered them both in, they only asked Raf. That would allow them the fiction of pretending they had not even wanted to talk to her (despite having scheduled a night shift for a dozen or so cops for - what else? - the very purpose of the interrogation).
Click to expand...

How did they know she would show up?

ETA: why would it take a dozen cops to interrogate her? Generally one or two does the job.
 
Last edited:
The code reads this way..

Art. 63. Dichiarazioni indizianti.
1. Se davanti all'autorità giudiziaria o alla polizia
giudiziaria una persona non imputata ovvero una
persona non sottoposta alle indagini rende
dichiarazioni dalle quali emergono indizi di reità a suo
carico, l'autorità procedente ne interrompe l'esame,
avvertendola che a seguito di tali dichiarazioni
potranno essere svolte indagini nei suoi confronti e la
invita a nominare un difensore. Le precedenti
dichiarazioni non possono essere utilizzate contro la
persona che le ha rese.
2. Se la persona doveva essere sentita sin dall'inizio in
qualità di imputato o di persona sottoposta alle
indagini, le sue dichiarazioni non possono essere
utilizzate.

Google translation

Article 63. Indizianti statements.
1. If in the courts and the police
a legal person or a non-imputed
person under investigation makes
statements which disclose evidence of guilt in his
load, the authority concerned shall stop the examination,
and warned that as a result of such statements
may be carried out investigations against him and the
invites you to appoint a defender. previous
statements can not be used against the
the person who made ​​them.
2. If the person was to be felt from the outset in
as a defendant or person under
investigations, his statements can not be
utilized.
Click to expand...

Amanda's defense used number 2 above to claim a violation. I would have to agree with that.
 
Consequencs of Violation of Right to Counsel

ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA http://echr.ketse.com/doc/4429.09-en-20110628/view/

(b) Use of the applicant’s alleged confession to the police in his criminal trial

258. The applicant further complained that the fact that his conviction was based on his alleged confession given to the police without the presence of defence counsel ran counter to the guarantees of a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

259. The Court reiterates that its duty, according to Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting States to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140).

260. It is therefore not the role of the Court to determine, as a matter of principle, whether particular types of evidence - for example, evidence obtained unlawfully in terms of domestic law - may be admissible or, indeed, whether the applicant was guilty or not. The question which must be answered is whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was obtained, were fair. This involves an examination of the “unlawfulness” in question ... (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V, and Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, § 48, 25 February 2010).

261. In the light of the above principles, the Court must determine whether the domestic courts’ admission of statements obtained in the absence of a lawyer during the applicant’s questioning by the police impaired his right to a fair hearing.262. The Court notes that during the entire criminal proceedings in question the applicant was unequivocal in his defence submissions that the content of his alleged confession to the police had been fabricated by the police. The Government denied these allegations and invoked the national courts’ findings. The national courts based their conclusion that the applicant was questioned in a lawyer’s presence on the fact that a statement to this effect had been given by State officials who had a duty to act in accordance with the laws well known to them. However, the Court cannot endorse such a conclusion in the light of the fact that the national courts failed to examine the obvious discrepancy between the alleged time of the presence of lawyer E.Č. and the time of the applicant’s actual questioning (see above, paragraphs 255 and 256).

263. The applicant had access to a lawyer after being remanded in custody and during the ensuing criminal proceedings; he thus had the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s arguments. Nevertheless, as noted above, in convicting the applicant the domestic courts admitted in evidence statements which the applicant had subsequently retracted and which had been obtained during police custody in the absence of a lawyer. They based the applicant’s conviction to a significant degree on this evidence. Thus, in the present case, the applicant was undoubtedly affected by the restrictions on his access to a lawyer. Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer, nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings, could remedy the defects which had occurred during the applicant’s custody (see Salduz, cited above, § 58; Amutgan v. Turkey, no. 5138/04, § 18, 3 February 2009; and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 33, ECHR 2009-...).

264. In view of the foregoing, even though the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him at the trial and subsequently on appeal, the admission of dubious evidence into the case file affected the applicant’s right to a fair trial to a degree incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.
265. There has accordingly also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the admission of evidence given by the applicant to the police without the presence of defence counsel and the reliance on that evidence for the applicant’s conviction.
Click to expand...



272. The Court also considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for the consequences of its violation in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. In the case of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, applicants should, to the fullest extent possible, be put in the position they would have been in had the requirements of the Convention not been disregarded (see Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 89, 10 August 2006, and Putter v. Bulgaria, no. 38780/02, § 61, 2 December 2010).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
How did they know she would show up?

ETA: why would it take a dozen cops to interrogate her? Generally one or two does the job.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. Why did it take a dozen cops? That's how many were determined eligible to participate in the civil calunnia suit against her, though only eight did as I recall.
 
tsig said:
How did they know she would show up?

ETA: why would it take a dozen cops to interrogate her? Generally one or two does the job.
Click to expand...

Now that we have Giobbi's actual testimony, it does confirm that he was mathematically certain he ordered the cops to bring both Amanda and Raffaele in that night.
 
tsig said:
How did they know she would show up?

ETA: why would it take a dozen cops to interrogate her? Generally one or two does the job.
Click to expand...

It was a fair bet she would, since they were joined at the hip as the cops well knew, and no biggie if their hunch proved incorrect. They would know where to find her if need be.

You might put your second question to the cops themselves. It's called 'tag teaming' I think. The suspect grows weary and confused but the cops stay fresh by switching every so often. It's a tactical thing, as I understand it. Steve Moore discusses it over at IIP. You should find and read his piece. You might learn something.
 
tsig said:
Let's imagine the murder never happened.
Click to expand...

Your analogy makes zero sense because the murder happened and therefore imaging that it didn't happen is a fantasy. The ECHR accepting the appeal and ruling in Knox's behavior is contingent, and therefore this occurrence is a possibility.
 
Kaosium said:
That's an interesting question. Why did it take a dozen cops? That's how many were determined eligible to participate in the civil calunnia suit against her, though only eight did as I recall.
Click to expand...

We know that they had 12 because of the defamation law suit lawyered by Maresca.

If they had budget issues why would they have an extra 12 or even 6 interrogators hanging out?

If they couldn't move a little audio recorder into the room or even the superior video system why hasn't the transcript of the questioning been produced.

Has anyone one seen the notes taken to produce the "spontaneous" statement?

Btw, regarding the police chief's statement - even Mach doesn't deny it was made. He says he said the chief said SOME things we knew to be correct. It's pathetic that six years after the fact, unable to explain what the chief meant, the PGP now deny he said it. Next they will deny the press conference and 'case closed".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom