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

[Bill Williams]

Its a relief to find there is nothing going on that could possibly touch on the strict impartiality of these judges.

That's the delicious irony in all of this: Machiavelli apparently cannot see that his "explanations" for the brouhaha against Nencini are, in and of themselves, decisive indicators of endemic corruption, impartiality, contra-judicial behaviours, and an intrinsically broken criminal justice system.

Again I would observe: there are none so blind as those who will not see..........

It's quite the irony. Hellmann himself clamed the quashing of his acquittals on this "backroom war", where (IIRC) he said that the "party of the PMs," is strong.

Machiavelli and Hellmann are in fundamental agreement here. It's just that they are on different sides.

Machavelli blames the "party" Hellmann (apparently) belongs to for corruption. Machivaelli claims to know the exact number of Euros Hellmann was paid to boot the case. All with the help of Masons.

It's quite the intrigue.

 

[Diocletus]

Great Summary of ECHR Deprivation of Counsel Cases

For those so inclined, here is a nice little summary of recent ECHR jurisprudence on the issue of deprivation of counsel: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf

 

[LondonJohn]

These kind of tapes can NEVER be used in court. Either they are of a witness or person of interest and can ONLY be used against someone other than the witness OR they were suspects in which case the whole thing is thrown out because they didn't have lawyers etc.

Comodi wasn't there that night AFAIK and I highly doubt that Mignini "ran the board" in the control room. It stretches credulity beyond breaking to believe that if recording is normal procedure that no one of the police knew it was happening. Even if it wasn't normal procedure, given that any conspiracy some believe in wouldn't have started by that time, poeple in the station at a minimum would know the recording had been made.

As I said earlier, the people preparing the spontaneous statement for Amanda to sign would have used it to write it up.

Without some proof, I will not believe in a conspiracy on the 5th to frame Amanda.

I think we need to be very careful about using words like "conspiracy" without defining exactly what we mean by them. There are "conspiracies" and "conspiracies", for example: conspiracies of silence, conspiracies of complicity, or conspiracies of active malpractice and/or unlawful activities.

My personal belief about the Knox/Sollecito interrogations on the 5th/6th November is this: I think that IF the interviews were not recorded, this was a deliberate decision. And that decision would have been made because the police "knew" that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder, and they wanted to use...... *ahem*.... unorthodox methods to break them into confessing.

And since the authorities were already abusing process to keep Knox/Sollecito as "witnesses" instead of properly declaring them suspects, they knew that there was no legal requirement for recording of the interrogations. Perfect! The police could therefore force Sollecito and Knox to "buckle" (their word) and incriminate themselves, without any pesky recording turning up to show the world exactly what methods they had used in the interrogations. So, boys and girls, let's make sure the video and audio are turned OFF, and let's get to work...........

My belief is that the above scenario is most likely to be what actually happened, and why it happened. However, I think there's also a possibility that the interrogations were recorded. And if that were the case, I think that the authorities would have had a very strong motivation to make the collective decision to protect themselves by destroying the recordings and claiming that no such recordings had ever been made. It should (I would hope) be entirely obvious why this motivation should exist.

In neither of the above scenarios is there a "conspiracy" in the most extreme definition of the term. And I most certainly do not think that the police/PM were out to frame Knox (or Sollecito). Rather, I think the authorities really did think that Knox (in particular) and Sollecito (probably by association rather than direct involvement) were truly culpable. I think that they reasoned that both Knox and Sollecito were capable of lying and bluffing their way through any "orthodox" interviews. I think that they therefore reasoned that the only way to get one or both of them to "buckle" (their word) was to use "different" interrogation techniques that might not look good if exposed later in court. I think that they therefore either chose not to record the interrogations in the first place (most likely in my view), or that they did record the interrogations but subsequently destroyed the recordings and denied that they had ever existed.

 

[anglolawyer]

For those so inclined, here is a nice little summary of recent ECHR jurisprudence on the issue of deprivation of counsel: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf

Very cool. Some humdingers in there. Not much to keep Mach smiling though but you can't have everything

 

[Diocletus]

Very cool. Some humdingers in there. Not much to keep Mach smiling though but you can't have everything

Yup. And I'm going to say right here that if the ECHR takes this case and adjudicates it, then it absolutely will find that Italy violated of Knox's Article 6 rights. In fact, I'd love to see the brief in which Italy tries to defend itself; all of its defenses are easily disposed of:

1) Right to counsel never attached. Yes it did: well before, but certainly no later than just before, she signed the 1:45 statement. Even Mach agrees that they were suspected at least as accomplices or accessories prior to coming to the Questora. Further, the police obviously suspected Knox when they believed that Sollecito retracted support for her alibi. Further, the police obviously suspected Knox as they were typing up the 1:45 statement.

2) Knox waived right to counsel. No, she didn't. Mignini wasn't even there to inform her of her rights when she signed the 1:45 statement. Mignini subsequently purported to justify holding her without counsel on grounds of exigency, not waiver. There are two written records of the interrogation, and both omit any reference to waiver, so the prosecution would not be able to establish its burden of showing a clear and informed waiver even if there is a dispute over what was said at the time.

3) There was exigency. No there wasn't. This was days after the crime, and nothing whatsoever prevented the cops from advising Knox of her rights and providing access to counsel before they had her sign something. This claim of exigency would swallow Article 6 if accepted by the court. Moreover, they did not cure the claimed exigency, but rather, kept her incarcerated without counsel for two days, which led to the "gift" statement and prejudice in the Matteini hearing (resulting in incarceration for up to 1 year).

4) Remedy. For those who think the remedy can't be an overruling of the Italian judgment . . . you're right! What will happen is that the court will declare that Knox's human rights were violated and order Italy to fix the human rights violation subject to the satisfaction of the Commission Ministers. This means that Italy will be required to vacate the callunnia conviction (it's wholly dependent on statements elicited in violation of Knox's human rights), and the murder/rape convictions, because they are premised on the callunnia conviction.

I see no way out of this, and I think that the Italian Supreme Court is going to recognize this issue in the upcoming appeal. Be on the lookout for more Supreme Court shenanigans as they attempt to gainsay their way out of this mess that they have created.

 

[Bob001]

"One of the most egregious technological omissions in the criminal justice is that police departments in New York are NOT required by law to video or audio record police interrogations on felony arrests"

"As of 2002 only two states – Alaska and Minnesota – required electronic recording of custodial interviews. Ten years later, in 2012 sixteen (16) states and the District of Columbia now require these recordings. A number of states – including New York – have bills pending requiring these recordings. But until the New York bill passes defendants charged with felonies in New York still are subject to outdated tactics and potentially inaccurate statements being taken from them. It still remains a game of he said, she said"

http://www.cmgesq.com/blog/police-interrogations-and-video-recording/

Why do you keep chattering about U.S. procedures? Nobody claims that every arrest and prosecution in America's thousands of states, counties, cities and towns is beyond reproach. More than 100 Americans sentenced to death have subsequently been proven innocent. The issue here is whether authorities in Perugia had the capacity to record interrogations related to the highest profile case they had seen in years. It seems pretty clear that they either had the capacity or could have acquired it quickly ("Hey, run down to the Radioelli Shackinini and get a recorder..."). So they chose not to record the interrogations, or they concealed or destroyed any recordings they made. In a case where the most damning evidence -- thin though it is -- consists of statements that the defendants may or may not have made, under or not under duress, there is no recording, no transcript and no independent interpreter or objective witness. It's not unreasonable to conclude that recordings could only have supported the defense.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yup. And I'm going to say right here that if the ECHR takes this case and adjudicates it, then it absolutely will find that Italy violated of Knox's Article 6 rights. In fact, I'd love to see the brief in which Italy tries to defend itself; all of its defenses are easily disposed of:

1) Right to counsel never attached. Yes it did: well before, but certainly no later than just before, she signed the 1:45 statement. Even Mach agrees that they were suspected at least as accomplices or accessories prior to coming to the Questora. Further, the police obviously suspected Knox when they believed that Sollecito retracted support for her alibi. Further, the police obviously suspected Knox as they were typing up the 1:45 statement.

2) Knox waived right to counsel. No, she didn't. Mignini wasn't even there to inform her of her rights when she signed the 1:45 statement. Mignini subsequently purported to justify holding her without counsel on grounds of exigency, not waiver. There are two written records of the interrogation, and both omit any reference to waiver, so the prosecution would not be able to establish its burden of showing a clear and informed waiver even if there is a dispute over what was said at the time.

3) There was exigency. No there wasn't. This was days after the crime, and nothing whatsoever prevented the cops from advising Knox of her rights and providing access to counsel before they had her sign something. This claim of exigency would swallow Article 6 if accepted by the court. Moreover, they did not cure the claimed exigency, but rather, kept her incarcerated without counsel for two days, which led to the "gift" statement and prejudice in the Matteini hearing (resulting in incarceration for up to 1 year).

4) Remedy. For those who think the remedy can't be an overruling of the Italian judgment . . . you're right! What will happen is that the court will declare that Knox's human rights were violated and order Italy to fix the human rights violation subject to the satisfaction of the Commission Ministers. This means that Italy will be required to vacate the callunnia conviction (it's wholly dependent on statements elicited in violation of Knox's human rights), and the murder/rape convictions, because they are premised on the callunnia conviction.

I see no way out of this, and I think that the Italian Supreme Court is going to recognize this issue in the upcoming appeal. Be on the lookout for more Supreme Court shenanigans as they attempt to gainsay their way out of this mess that they have created.

And let's not forget, this is only one of numerous grounds for complaint to the ECHR. The case throws up a whole raft of them.

 

[MDDVS]

It's obvious to me that many people are using this case as ammunition to attack the USA.

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting. So there was a control room. Reminds me of Get Smart for some reason.

[qimg]http://tmsimg.com/showcards/v3/AllPhotos/183916/p183916_n17204_cc_v3_aa.jpg[/qimg]

And the reason there wasn't a recording is that they of course used the cone of silence.

 

[acbytesla]

Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in a legal system that doesn't have either rules of evidence or a requirement that juries not be influenced by their own prejudice, the media, or conversations with their friends about the case?

I'm trying to get my head around a legal process that gives so much power to authorities (whose good faith and competence is NOT TO BE QUESTIONED) and so few protections for accused persons (whose dishonesty is ASSUMED). We get justice wrong all the time in the states, but at least some workable principles exist. Italian courts seem to be a setup for inside-out results.

Extremely well said.Where in the world would statements be ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court and than be read in front of the jury?

 

[acbytesla]

Because they accused her in public and they end up looking stupid if they admit they were wrong.

I don't understand why people have so much trouble accepting that this is the sum total of what is going on in this case. There are so many precedents. I mentioned three of them above.

That explains why the police want her so badly, but not the lynch mob public. That is the result of the prosecution fed media.

 

[Poppy1016]

They didn't spend anything for the cartoons. The cartoon was commissioned and paid by the Procura, not by the police.
And anyway, the cartoon expenses should be refunded by the two convicted perps.

Oh I didn't realize they had been convicted.

 

[Rolfe]

I also wonder about that "two" bit. Wasn't there someone else involved in this....?

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
They didn't spend anything for the cartoons. The cartoon was commissioned and paid by the Procura, not by the police.
And anyway, the cartoon expenses should be refunded by the two convicted perps.

WOW!!! That's an interesting business. Frame two innocents and over pay for all kinds of services and then get the innocents to pay for it. In the land of the Mafia, this seems like a common every day product.

 

[Bill Williams]

Some people are claiming that now, on the basis of yesterday's CNN interview, Raffaele is separating himself from Amanda.

Sheesh.

All on the basis of his comment that he's being convicted because of her behaviour.

In his book, and ever since he's been able to speak publicly for himself, he's never once blamed Knox for this wrongful conviction or the events which led up to it. In his book he is quite clear that in the very first days after the horrible events of Meredith's murder.... he was uncomfortable with Knox's "behaviour", but not because he himself was uncomfortable with it - but because he knew how the police were viewing it. He could interpret the "looks" in a way a foreigner who did not speak the language or knew the culture could.

All the while, Raffaele wondering, "what's all this got to do with me?"

That statement is the one consistent statement from Raffaele which explains all his statements - even the ones which guilters claim are evidence of, "Raffaele constantly changing his story."

Raffaele has never known what this Kercher murder, as completely tragic and evil as it was/is, has got to do with him.

After the interrogations, he's more than likely told that Knox is implying that he'd been involved. They were dangling his Nike's in front of him saying that they'd found Nike footprints in the murder room, and that they were off forensically examining his pocket knife that he (like a doofus) took with him to the Questura.

The statement he said about Knox, isolated from here and completely dependent on what the cops were telling him she was allegedly saying, was, "She told me a pack of lies." Of course he would say that if:

- he was not able to get information directly from Knox as to what she was actually saying
- he was fearing he was being dragged into a situation that had nothing to do with him.​

The only thing other than believing that Knox herself was dragging him into this and her obviously culture-conflicted behaviour that Sollecito wondered about was....

..... did she actually go out that night? The cops initially refused to show him a calendar to distinguish the night of Nov 1 from al the other nights in which she had gone out....

... but Raffaele finally figured it out. She couldn't have gone out without his knowledge. She had no key to get back in. She'd have had to ring him first to be let in.

That, friends, is the sum total of the case against Raffaele.

- Knox's culturally insensitive behaviour prior to arrest (that you can hardly blame her for)
- The Nike shoe prints (eventually discounted as evidence)
- The flick knife he carried (which now no one sees as part of this crime)
- A brief "she told me a pack of lies" statement
- A Y-Haplotype compatible with his, but also compatible with a sizable minority of Italy's male population, and this is not considering contamination OR that other male-DNA was found on that clasp​

And we now know why they never call Raffaele to testify, and/or never ask him questions. Because his answers will always be the same - whether in the press or on the stand under cross examination. I mean, what are they going to ask him under cross examination?

- How do you explain your Y-Haplotype on that bra-clasp?

(You mean the one that matches 10% of Italy's male population as well as the other DNA material from other males?)​

- How do you explain bringing a flick-knife to the Questura?

(You mean the one which matches nothing to do with the crime?)​

- How do you explain the Nike footprint at the scene?

(You mean the one that does not match mine?)​

- How do you explain Amanda's behaviour?

(You mean the culturally insensitive behaviour which even I thought so, but from a foreigner who'd been in the country for eight weeks?​

- How do you explain your, "She told a pack of lies?" statement?

(You mean that the cops told me she was saying, which she denies saying?)​

- Do you ever regret meeting Amanda Knox?

(She did not kill anyone, either. I only regret being drawn into this situation that has nothing to do with me, in an attempt to get at her.)​

It might be useful to expand this list of questions Raffaele would be asked at cross examination, that has not also been asked publicly in other arenas. Go to it.

But at issue is that the case against Raffaele is very different than the case against Amanda....

.... and don't forget, no less than Barbie Nadeau herself criticised them in 2009, and partly blamed the 2009 conviction on it, for presenting separate cases. It led no less than Barbie herself to say that the 2009 convictions were based on, "A weak prosecution case, but the defense cases were weaker."

This is all part of the no win scenario both Knox and Sollecito have faced all through this.

 

[davefoc]

That explains why the police want her so badly, but not the lynch mob public. That is the result of the prosecution fed media.

I think this was a big part of the story. The media had a huge incentive to believe the prosecution. The case was unique and lurid and it would generate huge interest if the prosecution's claims were true. It's been said many times before, but if this case just involves a burglary that elevated into a murder and rape by a routine criminal the public interest in this story would be almost zero. It probably would have been reported in Perugia and it perhaps would have gotten a brief mention in the UK media.

Nothing about the way the case has gone is completely surprising to me with the exception of the supreme court decision. As has been referred to many times in these threads the prosecution of innocent people facilitated by corrupt prosecutors and police investigators is not a new thing. It also isn't surprising that "journalists" would take a view of the case that was in their own interest. It also isn't surprising that once the bogus charges became widely distributed that people would form unfalsifiable beliefs about the case and a portion of the population would believe in AK/RS guilt regardless of any new facts that became available. It also isn't surprising that group biases in the Italian public at large fanned by some recent US government actions would work to insure that a significant portion of the Italian population would continue to believe in AK/RS guilt against reason.

The supreme court action was surprising to me as an American, perhaps this is mostly based on the radical difference in the way the American supreme court functions from the Italian supreme court. However the truth is that most of the major American supreme court decisions aren't based on points of law. The justices decide what the answer should be and then attempt to justify their decisions by claiming they were based on points of law. So in that, perhaps the Italian and American Supreme courts are similar and perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised even by the Italian Supreme Court decision.

 

[Dan O.]

You can hardly blame the guy, according to extracts I have seen from his book, his family wanted him to distance himself from Amanda before the 1st level trial; his initial legal advice was also the same.

I just find the duality here remarkable, might as well rename the thread to the Amanda Knox case.

Having said that, wonder if he regrets not testifying.

Are you saying that you haven't seen any discussion in this thread about the bra clasp or the miscounted shoe rings or the print on the bathmat? Perhaps you have some internal bias that you are not willing to admit.



.

 

[Diocletus]

However the truth is that most of the major American supreme court decisions aren't based on points of law. The justices decide what the answer should be and then attempt to justify their decisions by claiming they were based on points of law. So in that, perhaps the Italian and American Supreme courts are similar and perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised even by the Italian Supreme Court decision.

If you're saying that most US Supreme Court decisions are based on policy, I think that is correct--that has become the court's job over the years. I don't think that you would see the US Supreme Court wading down into the weeds of the weight and credibility to be afforded to individual witnesses and pieces of evidence, like the Italian Supreme Court did here. That's not an appellate court's job, and they have a low level of competency to do that, as evidence by the ISC decision in this case.

 

[Kestrel]

And so it is true, Sollecito is facing 25 years in the slammer for someone else's "behaviour", and not for it, per se, but that it is still the sole "evidence" of even Amanda's involvement.

They are both the victims of how that is being dealt off the bottom of the judicial deck to incarcerate both of them.

It's not as if they have anything else.

The press shares a lot of responsibility in this. The treat pop psychology as equivalent to actual science, testimony from confused witnesses as the literal truth and ignore the need for logical thinking. Few seem bothered by the misinformation used to defame the couple early in this case.

 

[Bob001]

....
In his book he is quite clear that in the very first days after the horrible events of Meredith's murder.... he was uncomfortable with Knox's "behaviour", but not because he himself was uncomfortable with it - but because he knew how the police were viewing it. He could interpret the "looks" in a way a foreigner who did not speak the language or knew the culture could.
....

Raffaele is certainly an innocent victim every bit as much as Amanda. But I have always felt that he was a little more responsible for their situation than Amanda. He was/is three years older than she is and had to be more worldly. He was Italian and had to know more than Amanda about Italian law and police procedures. His own father apparently wanted to get him a lawyer, and he decided he didn't need one. He went back to the police station repeatedly and allowed Amanda to go with him. Maybe he thought that being a doctor's son would protect him. If he had said "Amanda, I'm getting a lawyer and he's gonna be your lawyer too, and by the way stop talking to the cops and stop acting like an idiot," their lives would be different.