Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
For some reason you skipped this paragraph:



The principle that 'good cause' may cause restrictions of the right to access a lawyer is encapsuled in this ruling.
This acknowledgment of a principle should not be lost along the way.

Now, as a critical reader, I would just note a few differences that jump out before my eyes between Salduz and Knox: 1. Salduz was interrogated by an investigating judge without being assisted by a lawyer and before he had access to a lawyer.
Knox was interrogated by an investigating judge with the assistence of lawyers and on the same day when she gained access to lawyers.
2. Salduz, before the investigating judge, claimed his written confession was obtained thorugh coercive violent actions, and retracted his statement immediately and completely.
Knox refused to answer before the investigating judge, and she refused to make statements (she did not retract her previous statement before the investigating judge).
3. Salduz claimed his hand written statements were lies he was forced to sign under coercion and retracted his statement completely.
Knox claimed she wrote her hand written statements voluntarily on her own initiative and gave them voluntarily to the police.
4. Salduz claimed to having lied as he had been subjected to coercion that forced him to lie, he claimed this imediately as soon as he could speak with the investigating judge.
Knox did not claim to have been forced to lie, instead she claimed to be affected by a false memory syndrome (and presented this defensive theory not immediately but years later).
5. Salduz released his statement while being interrogated by the police.
Knox released his statements on multiple occasions, among them while releasing spontaneous statememts before a magistrate without being questioned, at the presence of witnesses.
6. Salduz released a confession.
Knox accused another person and carved for herself an innocent role.
7. Salduz was a juvenile.
Knox was an adult.
8. Salduz was one person releasing incriminating statements during interrogation.
Knox and Sollecito were two people (also another suspect released incriminating statements).

{Bold and highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,

There are 40 ECHR cases that satisfy the criteria listed below. They are all based on the Salduz case and all violations of Article 6.3c.

Because your reading skills are so good, vast one could say, just like your legal, forensic, biological, logical, and translation skills, I suggest you look over the 40 cases and analyze the similarities and differences. Then you may write a small essay, no fewer than 2000 words please, about common law and how it is used.
Language: English
×
Keywords: (Art. 6-3-C) Defence...
×
Document Collection Id: Grand Chamber,Chambe...
×
Strasbourg Case-Law: SALDUZ
×
Conclusion: violation
×

Document Title Application Number {Some letters didn't translate well.}
CASE OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 50541/08 50571/08 50573/08 40351/09CASE OF ARAS v. TURKEY (No. 2) 15065/07
CASE OF BLAJ v. ROMANIA 36259/04
CASE OF DZHULAY v. UKRAINE 24439/06
CASE OF YURIY VOLKOV v. UKRAINE 45872/06
CASE OF DVORSKI v. CROATIA 25703/11
CASE OF BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA 47152/06
CASE OF BANDALETOV v. UKRAINE 23180/06
CASE OF NAVONE AND OTHERS v. MONACO 62880/11 62892/11 62899/11
CASE OF KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA 33192/07 33194/07
CASE OF S√úZER v. TURKEY 13885/05
CASE OF TITARENKO v. UKRAINE 31720/02
CASE OF DİRİÖZ v. TURKEY 38560/04
CASE OF GÜVEÇ v. TURKEY 70337/01
CASE OF NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE 42310/04
CASE OF TRYMBACH v. UKRAINE 44385/02
CASE OF TODOROV v. UKRAINE 16717/05
CASE OF STOJKOVIC v. FRANCE AND BELGIUM 25303/08
CASE OF HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN 35485/05 35680/05 36085/05 45553/05
CASE OF ≈ûAMAN v. TURKEY 35292/05
CASE OF ADAMKIEWICZ v. POLAND 54729/00
CASE OF HÜSEYİN HABİP TAŞKIN v. TURKEY 5289/06
CASE OF HOVANESIAN v. BULGARIA 31814/03
CASE OF DAYANAN v. TURKEY 7377/03
CASE OF PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA 7025/04
CASE OF KATRITSCH v. FRANCE 22575/08
CASE OF LOPATA v. RUSSIA 72250/01
CASE OF BARAN AND HUN v. TURKEY 30685/05
CASE OF PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA 42371/02
CASE OF YOLDAS v. TURKEY 27503/04
CASE OF ALEKSANDR ZAICHENKO v. RUSSIA 39660/02
CASE OF SAVAS v. TURKEY 9762/03
CASE OF CAKA v. ALBANIA 44023/02
CASE OF YUNUS AKTAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY 24744/03
CASE OF PREZEC v. CROATIA 48185/07
CASE OF ÖZCAN ÇOLAK v. TURKEY 30235/03
CASE OF SEYİTHAN DEMIR v. TURKEY 25381/02
CASE OF GÖK AND GÜLER v. TURKEY 74307/01
CASE OF SOYKAN v. TURKEY 47368/99
CASE OF BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY 71912/01 26968/02 36397/03
CASE OF SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE 16404/03

Mach,
I bumped this down to remind you about that essay (see highlighting in quote). Your vast reading skills will make it very informative for all.

As a hint, there's a lot of detail and cites in the Ibrahim et al. v UK judgment that will steer you in the right direction!

Hope to see your essay soon!

 

[Bill Williams]

One thing that intrigues me significantly is Machiavelli's claimed level of access to many of the main actors in this strange drama, and his claims that they are willing and able to answer his questions and supply him with information.

In my opinion, if this is true, it implies either that a) Machiavelli is a public official of some importance, which would explain why these people are ready and able to share case-sensitive information with him; or b) Machiavelli is just a common-or-garden member of the public (or journalist), in which case one surely has to wonder why public officials are so (apparently) readily doling out case-sensitive information with him.

Of course I'm heavily inclined to think that (b) is the right answer. But I'm then left at a loss. I feel absolutely certain, for example, that if I were to approach senior police officers and prosecutors who were involved in (say) the investigation and prosecution of Vincent Tabak (who murdered Joanna Yeates in Bristol in 2010), they wouldn't be prepared to tell me anything that wasn't already in the public domain - and even then I suspect they'd be very wary indeed of discussing the case with a member of Joe Public. And if they did do so, it would (in my view) seriously compromise their professional integrity and ethical commitment to their position. And that example, in addition, is of a case that is now entirely concluded: the Knox/Sollecito trials are still very much in progress!

I simply can't conceive of why, for example, Mignini would be willing and able to discuss - with a random member of the public - his movements on the night of the 5/6 November interrogations of Knox and Sollecito. If we are indeed talking about a regular, unaccredited member of the public (as I feel very confident that we are), then it speaks very badly in my view to the abject lack of professionalism of people such as Mignini. Mind you, Mignini himself certainly has form in his willingness to discuss this case in plenty of detail with all and sundry. Funny how I don't remember any UK Crown Prosecutors acting in the same way............

.... and add to all this: why post detailed rebuttals to innocentisti arguments here on this wee corner of the internet?

 

[MichaelB]

MichaelB,

Didn't Dan O. finally point out the hand print on the pillow case, or am I mistaken? RoseMontague might remember.

I'm not sure. Do you have a pic of it DanO?

 

[acbytesla]

Draw attention away... from the fact that... are considered by some...
.. "Considered by some" becomes "a fact"...
But don't be ridiculous about the Milan episode because that really is worth to make a fool of oneself: you are calling "dangerous burglar" a chap who was carrying a stolen laptop. And what are the charges? Do you think you could keep a person in prison on those charges? It's absolutely grotesque. I suggest you climb down from the apple tree and have a look at reality.

He wasn't carrying a stolen laptop. He had broken into a business and was found in possession of stolen items from another burglary. Clearly, Rudy Guede was a dangerous burglar unless you think that Rudy didn't kill Meredith. Oh that's right...you think "poor Rudy", like Mignini.

 

[Dan O.]

Notice that Machiavelli is not actually responding with evidence of the convictions of these three persons who were "caught", merely some references to an attorney and newspapers.

Let's see some actual court papers that show what the three individuals were convicted of, how they were caught, where they lived, when they met Amanda. Otherwise, everyone will realize that this is merely another guilter hoax.

It is a curious fact that Machiavelli never provides evidence.

The allegation that Amanda had contact with known drug dealers before and after the murder was leaked to the press quite early. Some press statements even put a name to that drug dealer - Rudy Guede.

At that time we only had the short phone record for November 1 up to the early evening of November 2. More information came out later. We got the longer phone record from October 1 past November 6. We got some spotty information including possible names involved and the hint that the subject used a WIND SIM. This allowed us to narrow down the possible calls. A highlighted version of the phone list was posted.

There is finally the document purportedly filed in the drug case explaining that it was the phone calls between the subject and Amanda Knox that led to the subjects phone being bugged and information gathered in that intercept led to the discovery of a drug ring.

This is all old news that was covered several months ago. Why do the guilters bring it up again? Machiavelli we know has a long term memory issue in that each incarnation simply forgets what has already been covered. The others keep bringing it up perhaps because this irrelavent unrelated side issue is the best they have.

The only piece of all this that is at all relavent in this thread is the depth to which the police were going in tapping phone calls. If the police were that interested in the people Amanda had contacts with in the previous month, they surley would have been very interested in the text exchange that occured just prior to Meredith's murder.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not sure. Do you have a pic of it DanO?

There should exist a quality photo of the print and the reference print that the police made the comparison to. Since we don't have those I can only presume that they were sealed along with the rest of the evidence and transcripts from Rudy's trial.

What we do have are the photos of the whole pillow. Several in the room and the front and back of the case alone. In these photos we can see a mark that is very likely a partial palm print on the center of the right edge of the pillow as viewed when entering the room.

if you look at the palm of your hand you will see the obvious crease lines. Some of these are visible in the apparent palm print. But I don't believe there is enough information available to automatically ID a suspect. If you look closer, there are also friction ridges on the palms just like the fingers. These would contain plenty of identifying information for a computer search to pick out the suspect I'd they could be resolved in the print. The technology to do this from a print on fabrick does exist today but not in 2007.

There was also a minor note perhaps in Perugia-shock that mentions an officer comming from Rome or Milan and bringing Rudy's identity card with the reference print for comparison. This is what settles for me that the print was used to confirm it was Rudy's and not to identify Rudy.

 

[acbytesla]

Do you realize that you just spewed a series of unsupported defamatory accusations against prosecutors and innocent people, insinuated about a series of plots and conspiracies, nothing of which you cared to back with anything resembling a shred of evidence?
You do.
Who are you to expect from me to provide you "evidence" of things?
Amanda Knox's phone contacts and the conviction of three drug dealers as a consequence of her sexual and social lifestyle, is information reported by local newspapers, La Nazione, Il Giornale dell'Umbria and Umbria24 in 2010. Later the police paper was picked again by Giallo magazine. The names of the attorneys are public. Federico Martini is one of the people, born in Rome in 1975. And you demand that I should "prove" you things? Do you research on your own. Speak with journalists and with attorneys. You have all information you need.

None of what Numbers said is any more unsupported than the entire case against Amanda and Raffaele. And just because something is printed in a newspaper does not make it correct. We've read countless lies about Amanda and Raffaele in many of those rags.

 

[Kauffer]

As I said, one thing you fail to accept is that a malicious false accusation against an innocent is not an "incriminating statement", it is a crime.
Just one of the things.

Perhaps you didn't read the last part of the the response to the draft directive:

"The Directive must set out as a clear binding standard in the body of the text that any incriminating statement made in violation of the right of access to a lawyer cannot be used for a conviction. By failing to do so, the Directive would fail to reflect the already-existing obligations of all EU Member States and the EU under the ECHR. This would create potential gaps in protection in practice in some Member States, undermining the stated objectives of the Directive, and eroding respect for ECHR case-law.13"

So - "any incriminating statement.....for a (meaning ANY) conviction"

The incriminating statement in this case IS the crime. It's actually an important point - there is no other evidence against Ms Knox for callunia.

Remember, the ECHR is concerned with the overall character of the trial in terms of its fairness. So, we have - statements "elicited" without a lawyer, admissability issues with ISC and dubious application of admissible/inadmissible statements on one charge and the conviction on that charge applied as evidence of guilt in another; defamatory statement to cover up a murder, it was alleged - the same "jury" hearing all the evidence across concurrent multiple trials and expected, astonishingly, to apply a selection criteria, closing their ears to some evidence depending on which charge they were considering.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you realize that you just spewed a series of unsupported defamatory accusations against prosecutors and innocent people, insinuated about a series of plots and conspiracies, nothing of which you cared to back with anything resembling a shred of evidence?

Christ almighty. Just when I think your BS can't possibly get any dumber, it does.

Now it's "defamatory" to doubt malicious gossip about Amanda Knox.

Go ahead, file the papers, bring charges. We're shaking in our boots.

 

[Vibio]

This is all old news that was covered several months ago. Why do the guilters bring it up again?

Oh please. Every issue of this trial has been brought up over and over and over and over again. And this issue will be brought up again too. Tough.

The drug connection was brought up again in a comment made by me in post 4610

The tgcom article Mach refers to is this: http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cron...con-cui-aveva-anche-fatto-sesso_2060361.shtml

I was the one who doubted the veracity of the police report (comic sans) but it does check out and is legit.

As far as last names go: the police report has them blacked out and newspapers here, for some reason often only give first names or just the las initial. I don't know how it works in the rest of Europe.

But any way... wow: new girl in town, "doesn't speak Italian" and already has the numbers of a few drug pushers in her list of cell phone contacts.

 

[Samson]

Oh please. Every issue of this trial has been brought up over and over and over and over again. And this issue will be brought up again too. Tough.

The drug connection was brought up again in a comment made by me in post 4610

The tgcom article Mach refers to is this: http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cron...con-cui-aveva-anche-fatto-sesso_2060361.shtml

I was the one who doubted the veracity of the police report (comic sans) but it does check out and is legit.

As far as last names go: the police report has them blacked out and newspapers here, for some reason often only give first names or just the las initial. I don't know how it works in the rest of Europe.

But any way... wow: new girl in town, "doesn't speak Italian" and already has the numbers of a few drug pushers in her list of cell phone contacts.

From first hand experience in my community, the anecdotal drug evidence has damaged Amanda's position. If you are quite certain of your facts, you should corroborate them, because there is a risk you are aiding and abetting a miscarriage of justice by merely speculating.

 

[Kauffer]

Here's a prediction.

I say:

1) The ECHR will admit Ms Knox's application
2) Her application will have referenced the Salduz judgement
3) A violation of Article 6(1) will be found by the court
4) A violation of Article 6(3C) will be found by the court
5) The court will reference the Salduz judgement in support of it's findings in respect of one or both of these violations

 

[Samson]

Here's a prediction.

I say:

1) The ECHR will admit Ms Knox's application
2) Her application will have referenced the Salduz judgement3) A violation of Article 6(1) will be found by the court
4) A violation of Article 6(3C) will be found by the court
5) The court will reference the Salduz judgement in support of it's findings in respect of one or both of these violations

The unpaid labour here will unlikely be replicated by 400$/hour lawyers. Let us imagine a new judicial paradigm, where final truth emerges from just such a thread as this.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Here's a prediction.

I say:

1) The ECHR will admit Ms Knox's application
2) Her application will have referenced the Salduz judgement
3) A violation of Article 6(1) will be found by the court
4) A violation of Article 6(3C) will be found by the court
5) The court will reference the Salduz judgement in support of it's findings in respect of one or both of these violations

Can you add item 6 and provide a prediction of an actual year any of this will happen?

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's a prediction.

I say:

1) The ECHR will admit Ms Knox's application
2) Her application will have referenced the Salduz judgement
3) A violation of Article 6(1) will be found by the court
4) A violation of Article 6(3C) will be found by the court
5) The court will reference the Salduz judgement in support of it's findings in respect of one or both of these violations

Funnily enough, the ECHR has just ruled on a relevant application, made by the would-be terrorists who were involved in the second (botched) London attacks in July 2007.

The applicants had complained that their human rights had been denied because statements that they made in police custody without access to counsel were used against them in trial. The ECHR dismissed the application on the specific grounds that (my bolding for emphasis):

"It has been convincingly established that at the time of the impugned police interviews there was an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety, and that this threat provided compelling reasons which justified the temporary delay of all four applicants' access to lawyers."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30493640

Note to pro-guilt commentators: this is precisely the sort of scenario in which it is acceptable to temporarily deny suspects in police custody access to legal counsel. There was clearly an organised terrorist situation ongoing in real time, and therefore there was a clear and credible ongoing danger to public safety. To suggest that anything even remotely approaching the same circumstances existed in the case of Knox/Sollecito/Lumumba is indicative either of extreme stupidity/ignorance or of mendacious bias.

I repeat that I have virtually no doubt that the ECHR will find that the denial of legal counsel to Knox was, in the circumstances, a breach of her human rights (among several other obvious breaches).

 

[Samson]

Can you add item 6 and provide a prediction of an actual year any of this will happen?

6) This will all happen in 2014.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and there's another issue of relevance in this ECHR judgement!

One of the four applicants was arguing that his human rights had been breached because he was being interviewed as a witness but then started to incriminate himself, but he was not arrested and cautioned (and provided with access to legal counsel) at that point.

However, the ECHR ruled that in the exceptional circumstances of the situation, the police were justified in not terminating the "witness" interview and arresting/cautioning the now-suspect, since the person being interviewed was providing important information that might have helped prevent further attacks. The ECHR ruled that it was reasonable, in those circumstances, for the police to decide that had this person been arrested/cautioned, he might have "clammed up" and stopped talking, and that as a result the police might have missed out on obtaining further important information from him. Therefore the imminent threat to public safety was a justifiable reason to keep interviewing him as a witness and not arresting/cautioning him (my bolding again):

Abdulrahman had argued that he should have been arrested and offered access to a lawyer when he began incriminating himself in an interview as a witness.

The court said the decision not to arrest him at this stage was not unreasonable "based on the fear that a formal arrest might lead him to stop disclosing information of the utmost relevance to public safety issues".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30493640

Again, note how the circumstances are hugely, dramatically different from those concerning Knox (and Sollecito and Lumumba). In the case of Abdulrahman above, there were extreme, exceptional and specific circumstances related to public safety and national security, and the known involvement of organised terrorist cells.

And once again, I repeat my assertion that the ECHR will find, in Knox's case, that - in the total absence of anything remotely approaching these sorts of exceptional and extreme circumstances - Knox's human rights were indeed breached when she was not arrested, cautioned and provided access to a lawyer at least as soon as she made her first oral "confession/accusation". In fact, I think the ECHR will go further and rule that Knox should have been arrested, cautioned and provided with counsel at (or very near) the start of that interrogation on 5/6 November, since it's abundantly clear that they were interviewing her as a suspect rather than as a witness.

 

[Kauffer]

Can you add item 6 and provide a prediction of an actual year any of this will happen?

In the interests of justice it should happen before the ISC meets next year. There is much pressing business before the court. Who knows how pressing the court finds this case compared with others. But I think it might.

 

[Machiavelli]

(He also stole a knife from the kitchen and the Nursery school owner, and others present all said they thought Guede was dangerous, IIRC. But I agree, the whole of this case can be seen in this Milan incident. Mignini and the Perugian authorities freeing Guede from Milan to return and kill meredith is what this case is all about, and why Mignini, the Perugians and the Judiciary are so determined to hide the truth of their own responsibility for Ms Kercher's murder ...

NOBODY from Perugia freed Gued from the Milan incident, but in fictional stories by Preston or Sollecito.
Nobody is detained on the charge of having stolen good. The theft of a knife would be an even smaller offence, and is not prosecuted unless the owner of the knife submits a formal complaint (a ludicrous complaint) and the defendant would be acquitted, since didn't actually steal the knife.
There is zero charge - absolute zero - fro which one would need to be "freed". Nobody actually goes to prison for those accusations. Even less cautionary custody!

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

However, the ECHR ruled that in the exceptional circumstances of the situation, the police were justified in not terminating the "witness" interview and arresting/cautioning the now-suspect, since the person being interviewed was providing important information that might have helped prevent further attacks. The ECHR ruled that it was reasonable, in those circumstances, for the police to decide that had this person been arrested/cautioned, he might have "clammed up" and stopped talking, and that as a result the police might have missed out on obtaining further important information from him. Therefore the imminent threat to public safety was a justifiable reason to keep interviewing him as a witness and not arresting/cautioning him (my bolding again):

Abdulrahman had argued that he should have been arrested and offered access to a lawyer when he began incriminating himself in an interview as a witness.

The court said the decision not to arrest him at this stage was not unreasonable "based on the fear that a formal arrest might lead him to stop disclosing information of the utmost relevance to public safety issues".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30493640

Again, note how the circumstances are hugely, dramatically different from those concerning Knox (and Sollecito and Lumumba). In the case of Abdulrahman above, there were extreme, exceptional and specific circumstances related to public safety and national security, and the known involvement of organised terrorist cells.

And once again, I repeat my assertion that the ECHR will find, in Knox's case, that - in the total absence of anything remotely approaching these sorts of exceptional and extreme circumstances - Knox's human rights were indeed breached when she was not arrested, cautioned and provided access to a lawyer at least as soon as she made her first oral "confession/accusation". In fact, I think the ECHR will go further and rule that Knox should have been arrested, cautioned and provided with counsel at (or very near) the start of that interrogation on 5/6 November, since it's abundantly clear that they were interviewing her as a suspect rather than as a witness.

The fact that a rapist and murderer (possibly with a foreign passport) is at large is not a threat to public safety?
Than also, you may notice that the treatment of Amanda Knox was in fact different, because her questioning was actually halted.
Amanda Knox was not questioned after she started to incriminate herself, and was nit questioned while art. 104 was applied.