Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

By the way, didn't exactly that scenario happen to Mignini?

Found guilty at first level trial, ON THE MERITS. Reversed on a technicality of venue, then charges allowed to expire. Was Mignini also found guilty and sentenced to jail, and would have lost his job if that sentence had been confirmed?

No, no. You have no clue. Mignini's convoction was not reversed on a technicality. In fact it was not reversed, it was annulled, razed to the ground like the Hellmann-Zanetti, actually even more: even the indictment was annulled. Venue is not a technicality: the appeals court found out that the Florentine court acted abusively from the investigation stage. Mignini's prosecution was also a party against him. It's more than a technicality. It turns the trial into a monstrum.
And by the way, actually, one thing that you probably miss is that Mignini was in fact cleared of the main charge even in the Florence monstrum trial: he had been accused of manufacturing a tape, and he managed to prove the tape was authentic. Mignini and Giuttari actively proved their innocence on the main charge.
The rest of the charges, "abuse of office" instances, were completely fuzzy and with no sort of evidence of any kind (in fact the entire motivation report basically just talks about a series of rants against Giuttari, and seems to blame Mignini for not having put distance between himself and Giuttari). In fact, the trial was an obvious move - a "war between prosecution offices" - meant to serve the obvious purpose of thwarting the Narducci investigation, take the file away from Perugia's hands.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Do you realize how Shakespearean this all is?

The Shakespearean thing is there are people like you who seem ready to buy Spezi's cocktail, and drink it to the bottom.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, no. You have no clue. Mignini's convoction was not reversed on a technicality. In fact it was not reversed, it was annulled, razed to the ground like the Hellmann-Zanetti, actually even more: even the indictment was annulled. Venue is not a technicality: the appeals court found out that the Florentine court acted abusively from the investigation stage. Mignini's prosecution was also a party against him. It's more than a technicality. It turns the trial into a monstrum.
And by the way, actually, one thing that you probably miss is that Mignini was in fact cleared of the main charge even in the Florence monstrum trial: he had been accused of manufacturing a tape, and he managed to prove the tape was authentic. Mignini and Giuttari actively proved their innocence on the main charge.
The rest of the charges, "abuse of office" instances, were completely fuzzy and with no sort of evidence of any kind (in fact the entire motivation report basically just talks about a series of rants against Giuttari, and seems to blame Mignini for not having put distance between himself and Giuttari). In fact, the trial was an obvious move - a "war between prosecution offices" - meant to serve the obvious purpose of thwarting the Narducci investigation, take the file away from Perugia's hands.

Let's suppose your interpretation is correct here. What does the Florence prosecutor want to achieve by "thwarting the Narducci investigation, and taking the file away from Perugia's hands"?

Because I agree with this position. But why do you think they want to do this?

Do you believe they are protecting the satanic masonic conspiracy, or are part of it somehow? Why would they want to frustrate the Narducci investigation, unless they are themselves part of the conspiracy?

Or alternatively, they do it because the conspiracy never existed, and they just want to stop an out of control public menace the Narducci investigations had become?

I think they were trying to stop Mignini from starting anymore witch hunts, would be my guess. (I'm betting you don't agree).

 

[acbytesla]

Those people were all found guilty. They escaped convictions for time expiration.

BULL. none of them actually were guilty. Another farce brought by Mignini...the scumbag.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, no. You have no clue. Mignini's convoction was not reversed on a technicality. In fact it was not reversed, it was annulled, razed to the ground like the Hellmann-Zanetti, actually even more: even the indictment was annulled. Venue is not a technicality: the appeals court found out that the Florentine court acted abusively from the investigation stage. Mignini's prosecution was also a party against him. It's more than a technicality. It turns the trial into a monstrum.
And by the way, actually, one thing that you probably miss is that Mignini was in fact cleared of the main charge even in the Florence monstrum trial: he had been accused of manufacturing a tape, and he managed to prove the tape was authentic. Mignini and Giuttari actively proved their innocence on the main charge.
The rest of the charges, "abuse of office" instances, were completely fuzzy and with no sort of evidence of any kind (in fact the entire motivation report basically just talks about a series of rants against Giuttari, and seems to blame Mignini for not having put distance between himself and Giuttari). In fact, the trial was an obvious move - a "war between prosecution offices" - meant to serve the obvious purpose of thwarting the Narducci investigation, take the file away from Perugia's hands.

Let's suppose your interpretation is correct here. What does the Florence prosecutor want to achieve by "thwarting the Narducci investigation, and taking the file away from Perugia's hands"?

Because I agree with this position. But why do you think they want to do this?

Do you believe they are protecting the satanic masonic conspiracy, or are part of it somehow? Why would they want to frustrate the Narducci investigation, unless they are themselves part of the conspiracy?

Or alternatively, they do it because the conspiracy never existed, and they just want to stop an out of control public menace the Narducci investigations had become?

I think they were trying to stop Mignini from starting anymore witch hunts, would be my guess. (I'm betting you don't agree).

Judge Hellmann speculated that his acquittals of AK and RS was because the powers of the PMs is huge.

Say what you want, here we have the Mignini-defender-in-chief, Machiavelli, conceding that there is always backroom wars going on - between judges, between Appellate divisions and 1st grade courts, between PMs and just about everyone.....

The President of the Perugian Appellate division, Wladimiro De Nunzio, orchestrated a Machiavellian to pervert justice - so says Machiavelli of this forum - and is a criminal. So is Judge Hellmann, who Machiavelli knows the amount of Euros it took from the Masons to get Hellmann to pervert justice, too.

Mignini does no wrong - the "other side" does no right. It is an internecine judicial war for the heart and soul of Italian justice.

And there it sits: carbonjam72's question. Why would the Florence court want to wrestle away control of the Narducci debacle from Perugia (Mignini)? I wish Machiavelli would fill us in on the details of this behind the scenes intrigue....

.... as well as tell us Mignini's opinions; opinions he seems to be privy to in other matters, like when Mignini arrived at the Questura (2 am Nov 6, 2007) for the interrogation.

 

[Numbers]

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).

Each of the three cases:
1. John Murray v UK 18731/91
2. Magee v UK 28135/95
3. Brennan 39846/98
were cases in which the applicants had been accused of IRA terrorist activity (such as making or using bombs to murder). They were arrested under a peculiar set of UK laws passed in response to terrorism. These laws allowed for a delay upon the decision of a senior police official (superintendent) in providing a lawyer to the accused and at the same time provided that maintaining silence during interrogation - a refusal to answer questions - could lead to inferences by the trial court. The exact details of each of the cases differ, and explaining those differences in detail would possibly be off-topic. The exact circumstances of the violations likewise differed somewhat among the cases.

But the main point is: In each case, the ECHR judgment found that the rights of the applicant had been violated by Violation of Convention Article 6.3c with Article 6.1.
The purpose of the delay in allowing contact with a lawyer appears to have been to prevent the potential of communication with a lawyer collaborating with the terrorist or criminal organization who could warn other members of that organization. In at least one case, however, the UK police allegedly used the delay to use physical coercion ("mild" beatings including slapping) to induce a confession. The police tag-team approach with lengthy all-day interrogation was also employed.

It would be absurd if the police or prosecution (or guilter) concept in the present case is that Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito were somehow involved in a criminal or terrorist organization and therefore should not have had access to a lawyer, since the lawyer could notify members of the organization. The ECHR judges based on rational principles, and not on the fantasies of corrupt and self-serving authorities.

 

[MichaelB]

Is there a link to the Lumumba article in Corriere della Sera?

I found this old one from November 11 and they're already saying blood was found on a knife yet the knife wasn't tested till November 13.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_11/delitto_perugia_testimone_svizzero.shtml

 

[Planigale]

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).

I do not claim any understanding of the law. But as a lay person, the highlighted is what I think will sink Italy's defence. There appears to be no good explanation for the failure to allow access to a lawyer immediately following her statement. She was detained without access to a lawyer. I am not sure that only allowing first contact immediately before a court appearance would be regarded as providing adequate time for a lawyer to do any thing but to advise silence. You seem to draw adverse conclusions from AK silence is there a right to silence in Italy? Once AK had access to a lawyer I assume the timing of any statements were decided by her lawyer, and that any criticism should be directed there.

Mach who has the authority to deny access to a lawyer for suspects is this the police? The PM? Do they need to go to court?

For US citizens why wasn't the consular service all over this? When were the US informed of AK detention? How soon did they get consular access?

 

[Samson]

Is there a link to the Lumumba article in Corriere della Sera?

I found this old one from November 11 and they're already saying blood was found on a knife yet the knife wasn't tested till November 13.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_11/delitto_perugia_testimone_svizzero.shtml

This appears to be a smoking gun that proves police corruption.
This should be a big issue for discussion here, because what this suggests is blood was presumed when a dna profile was extracted.

 

[anglolawyer]

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).

You can be revoltingly disingenuous at times, Mach. First, you cannot turn the Matteini hearing into an interrogation with assistance of lawyers. It's purpose was to determine whether there were grounds justifying preventive detention. It formed no part of the investigative process. It was itself unfair anyway, first because neither Amanda nor Raffaele had the assistance of properly instructed lawyers (anyone here who thinks a lawyer can just show up at one of these hearings and get right down to work without instructions is sadly mistaken). That is why both were advised to remain silent, advice which Raffaele ignored leading to difficulties for this young, inexperienced person (who here would have fared better at his age?). Second, of course, the facts presented to Matteini were mostly lies. To wit: she was not told the full text of Amanda's message to Patrick, she was induced to believe Patrick's bar was shut when it was open and that there was a match to Raffaele's Nikes at the crime scene. The first was a deliberate lie by omission, a cloud of suspicion hangs over the second and we know the third was magically transformed into a bra clasp later on.

The other point I wanted to make about what you said is that Mignini oddly seems unaware of this loophole you found for him. Both he and Comodi insist they were not suspects on arrival that night. How very odd! He doesn't say he was justified in conducting further interrogation himself as public minister by concerns over collusion between her and the others. Instead he makes up this crap about her wanting to speak 'spontaneously'. So if Italy tries to run the Salduz loophole, it will encounter the problem that it is too late, should have thought that up sooner.

 

[Numbers]

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 40351/09
CASE 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

 

[Numbers]

You can be revoltingly disingenuous at times, Mach. First, you cannot turn the Matteini hearing into an interrogation with assistance of lawyers. It's purpose was to determine whether there were grounds justifying preventive detention. It formed no part of the investigative process. It was itself unfair anyway, first because neither Amanda nor Raffaele had the assistance of properly instructed lawyers (anyone here who thinks a lawyer can just show up at one of these hearings and get right down to work without instructions is sadly mistaken). That is why both were advised to remain silent, advice which Raffaele ignored leading to difficulties for this young, inexperienced person (who here would have fared better at his age?). Second, of course, the facts presented to Matteini were mostly lies. To wit: she was not told the full text of Amanda's message to Patrick, she was induced to believe Patrick's bar was shut when it was open and that there was a match to Raffaele's Nikes at the crime scene. The first was a deliberate lie by omission, a cloud of suspicion hangs over the second and we know the third was magically transformed into a bra clasp later on.

The other point I wanted to make about what you said is that Mignini oddly seems unaware of this loophole you found for him. Both he and Comodi insist they were not suspects on arrival that night. How very odd! He doesn't say he was justified in conducting further interrogation himself as public minister by concerns over collusion between her and the others. Instead he makes up this crap about her wanting to speak 'spontaneously'. So if Italy tries to run the Salduz loophole, it will encounter the problem that it is too late, should have thought that up sooner.

{Highlighting and bold added to quote.}

anglo,

The ECHR has judged that remand hearings must be held in good faith and not be arbitrary, IIUC, to not violate Convention Article 5. Of course time limits may be an issue against admissibility. Any thoughts?

ETA: By the date of the hearing, Mignini would have had the DNA results showing that neither Raffaele nor Patrick Lumumba were the source of the DNA of the male who had raped Meredith, IIUC.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. I think Lumumba spoke at the Corriere - in an unpaid interview, this time - as a cautionary move in order to prevent possible defamation lawsuits from the police that may stem from the Daily Mail article. They couldn't sue someone who has just publicly denied on the Corriere della Sera.
But it would have been impossible for the 'police' to manage to read the Daily Mail (not their breakfast reading) and then somehow "pressure" Lumumba, all within one day.
We should not forget that Lumumba never lodged a complaint for mistreatment from the police; he could have sought more damage award if he did.

Rubbish. The Mail is a very high-profile national newspaper in a major European nation, and we know that Mignini and his cromnies were monitoring the global media reports about the case closely.

In addition, it's entirely possible that the Mail contacted either the police or Mignini for a right of reply prior to publishing. Indeed, that would be standard recommended practice in this sort of situation, where someone has made accusations against another person or institution. And of course if that had happened, the police and/or Mignini would have been aware of the tone of the article's content even before it was published.

Oh and this might be a good time to remind everyone that Mignini announced on 30th Jan 2009 that he had already instigated legal action against a small local-neighbourhood newspaper, the West Seattle Herald, in relation to an article that was published on 28th Jan 2009. So within two days, Mignini had got wind of an article in a small local paper from half way around the world, and had already instigated legal proceedings.

 

[LondonJohn]

The bottom line, is that I think Knox won't get of the hook.

Then you should be able to support this belief with cogent evidence-based argument then. Or is it just some sort of evangelical faith-based belief.......?

 

[LondonJohn]

Bumping my post#4452: - Hi LJ, wasn't sure if you saw this, but I'd love to hear if you have an opinion...(btw, I'm not sure I've seen any firm suggestion Rudy was bugged or tracked prior to being identified by his print in blood from the murder scene, and on file with immigration). Big issue for me, totally explains Mignini's motive for framing/deflecting investigation from Rudy, i.e., exactly what he charged Amanda was doing.



Do you believe that Guede came to mind of Monica Napoleone when she was first on the scene to investigate the crime scene, on Nov 2, 2007?

Napoleone testified the police were familiar with Rudy from his earlier burglaries in Perugia. Do you have an opinion on this question?

Nencini states for some reason that polcie would have recognized Rudy's MO for breaking and entry.

Do you have a position on this issue?

I really don't know, but I'd certainly like more clarification around when the police/PM first started monitoring Guede in relation to the murder. Right now, I'm inclined to think that Guede was not in the frame at all until a) the case against Lumumba fell apart, and b) the first solid evidence pointing to Guede emerged (in the form of the hand print on the pillow case and his friend's approach to the police).

But if it could be shown that the police were in fact monitoring Guede a propos the murder as early as the first few days of the investigation (i.e. 2nd-5th November), this would of course open a very large can of worms.

 

[LondonJohn]

Art. 104 is not about terrorists or mafiosi. It may apply to any suspect, whenever there is a security concern (called "quid pluris" with respect to cautionary measures).
Mafia and terrorism are dealt with by art. 416 bis penal code. There is no link between art 104 cpp and art 416bis cp.

The relevant paragraph of Art 104 is as follows:


3. Nel corso delle indagini preliminari, quando sussistono specifiche ed eccezionali ragioni di cautela, il giudice su richiesta del pubblico ministero può, con decreto motivato, dilazionare, per un tempo non superiore a cinque giorni, l'esercizio del diritto di conferire con il difensore.


3. In the course of the preliminary investigation, where there are specific and exceptional reasons of caution, the judge at the request of the public prosecutor may, by reasoned decree, defer, for a period not exceeding five days, the exercising of the right to confer with the defendant.


Note the words specific and exceptional. Unfortunately, while they have obvious meaning, they are sufficiently nebulous and subjective as to allow egregious misapplication.

By any reasonable, objective measure, the circumstances surrounding the detention of Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba cannot be described as "specific and exceptional". There can be no possibility of a wider criminal conspiracy - indeed, the police and PM firmly believed that they had identified and arrested all three perpetrators at that point. And there is of course no evidence whatsoever to suppose that had Knox and Sollecito (and Lumumba) been properly provided with access to legal counsel, this could/would in any way have jeopardised the investigation or the prospects of conviction.

Simply put, this section of the code was grossly abused by Mignini in this case, and he was ably abetted by the investigating judge. I have little doubt that the ECHR will interpret things in this manner also.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh and this might be a good time to remind everyone that Mignini announced on 30th Jan 2009 that he had already instigated legal action against a small local-neighbourhood newspaper, the West Seattle Herald, in relation to an article that was published on 28th Jan 2009. So within two days, Mignini had got wind of an article in a small local paper from half way around the world, and had already instigated legal proceedings.

Do you have any sources I can read up on this?

 

[Kauffer]

Investigating Judge Matteini ruled Lumumba was not a suspect on May 27. 2008.
He was a suspect from Nov. 7 2007 to May. 27 2008.

News reported that after his release, investigations on him went on, and they lead to "gradually find out" that he had nothing to do with the crime:




http://italiachiamaitalia.net/news/121/ARTICLE/9240/2008-05-28.html

Certainly his phone was bugged after his release for invewstigation purposes, according to the Investigating Judge's ruling as reported on the news.

Rather astonishing that he was a suspect until May 2008. I was responding to your claim that part of the reason for this continued "suspicion" was because of the product of Ms Knox's interrogations of the 5th/6th. This claim is of course nonsense. The manner in which Lumumba was treated by the police, prosecutor and judge is entirely their responsibility and no one else's.

Your last paragraph is interesting. Please post the citation where it confirms that Lumumba was being tapped/bugged after the 20th. If what you are saying is true, this is the first absolute cast iron confirmation of any listening in to Lumumba's phone calls, I think. This may turn out to be a blind alley, but this looks somewhat intruiguing.

 

[Kauffer]

Rubbish. The Mail is a very high-profile national newspaper in a major European nation, and we know that Mignini and his cromnies were monitoring the global media reports about the case closely.

In addition, it's entirely possible that the Mail contacted either the police or Mignini for a right of reply prior to publishing. Indeed, that would be standard recommended practice in this sort of situation, where someone has made accusations against another person or institution. And of course if that had happened, the police and/or Mignini would have been aware of the tone of the article's content even before it was published.

Oh and this might be a good time to remind everyone that Mignini announced on 30th Jan 2009 that he had already instigated legal action against a small local-neighbourhood newspaper, the West Seattle Herald, in relation to an article that was published on 28th Jan 2009. So within two days, Mignini had got wind of an article in a small local paper from half way around the world, and had already instigated legal proceedings.

A Daily Mail article was actually admitted as evidence at the first instance trial I seem to recall. The Italians were monitoring the English language press as the case was developing and responding to it. They were behaving like the Stasi.

 

[MichaelB]

I read the transcript of the fingerprint experts the other day and I'm inclined to think Guede being identified by his palm print is BS. There was no bloody palm print on the pillow and they just made it up. Rose said she asked Vinci and he never saw any palm print.

The lawyers (based on their questions) seemed to be suggesting his fingerprint was found somewhere else and that's how he was ID'd. They had a photo of the pillow up on the screen and are asking which letter corresponds to the palm print etc and it was all pretty vague....as in the guy was unsure and couldn't really tell which one and maybe it's in another report. There's also a question about the fabric thread count suggesting it wasn't possible to lift a print of a pillowcase. The machine translation wasn't the best.

Vibio might want to take a look and offer an opinion. The witnesses were Claudio Cantagalli, Agatino Giunta and Antonino Francaviglia.