Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Is there an Italian law that covers this situation? Please provide the CCP article number or other identification.

I think this would be covered by article 371 of the penal code, if I remember correctly (which is also valid for judicial police).

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Yet as has been repeatedly pointed out, the cooking theory is not a runner for this purpose, and Knox stands convicted of transporting a knife.
1. Was it to cook with?
2. Was it for a premeditated act of violence?
3. Was it for self defence?

This is a multi choice question, and there may be options I have not considered.

Incidentally, Guede claimed that procuring a knife from a kitchen drawer was for purpose 3. in the Milan kindergarten, but Machiavelli says this is not an offence. Of course he did not transport it, so it was not an offence. Nevertheless the chain of direct evidence stands in total contradistinction to the conviction entered against Amanda for a merely conjectured transporting, because a dna profile was alleged to be on a knife cleaned with bleach.

There is not enough information to answer. But just note that it is not true that transporting a knife would imply premeditation of a serious crime, albeit this couldn't be ruled out completely.

That is perhaps the only answer a person from the pro-guilt lobby can make. Transporting the knife is not, in an of itself, an indication of premeditation.

Strangely enough, neither of the convicting judges gave this as an answer.

Additionally, making reference to turning off their cell phones is more black and white. Mignini advanced it as an indication of premeditation. Both convicting judges found no premeditation.

Therefore, turning off the phones had to have some other meaning - and AK and RS said it was to guarantee privacy for the evening/night of Nov 1/2, because they'd both just een freed from commitments.

So without premeditation, the act of turning off their phones tends to support their alibi. Yet, paradoxically, the pro-guilt lobby continues to use the turning of the mobiles as part of "all the other evidence".

-

All probably true, and... it would have made more sense to leave the phones on to help prove they were still at the apartment.

I can't take credit for this. I read it somewhere on this thread a long time ago,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

From: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

Interrogations and self-incriminating statements

When a person who is neither an indagato (suspect) nor an imputato (defendant), interrogated by the police or the prosecutor, reveals pieces of information that might lead to his incrimination, the interrogation must be immediately stopped, the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation. These self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court.[12]
The police or the prosecutor summon the indagato, during the preliminary investigations, and inform him precisely of the actions he is alleged to have committed (not yet technically a charge); they also inform him of the evidence so far gathered against him, if this is not detrimental to the investigations; the indagato is also invited to defend himself, if he so wishes; the police or the prosecutor can also ask him questions, that he may refuse to answer.[13]

The indagato, when interrogated, must be free of all undue influence, both psychological and physical. He must be willing to provide information (animus confitendi). The police or the prosecutor cannot use on the indagato any methods or techniques that may influence his right to self-determination or alter his memory or his capability to evaluate facts. This prohibition applies even if it was the indagato who asked that these methods or techniques be used. Before the interrogation begins, the indagato must be informed that his statements can be used against him in court; that he can choose not to answer the question, but that the investigations will proceed nonetheless; that, if he provides information concerning someone else's criminal responsibility, he will assume, as far as this responsibility is concerned, the office of witness.[14]

If evidence should be gathered in violation of these principles, it would be inadmissible in court.

Footnotes:
12. CCP Art. 63
13. CCP Art. 65
14. CCP Art. 64

 

[griffinmill]

From: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

Interrogations and self-incriminating statements

When a person who is neither an indagato (suspect) nor an imputato (defendant), interrogated by the police or the prosecutor, reveals pieces of information that might lead to his incrimination, the interrogation must be immediately stopped, the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation. These self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court.[12]
The police or the prosecutor summon the indagato, during the preliminary investigations, and inform him precisely of the actions he is alleged to have committed (not yet technically a charge); they also inform him of the evidence so far gathered against him, if this is not detrimental to the investigations; the indagato is also invited to defend himself, if he so wishes; the police or the prosecutor can also ask him questions, that he may refuse to answer.[13]

The indagato, when interrogated, must be free of all undue influence, both psychological and physical. He must be willing to provide information (animus confitendi). The police or the prosecutor cannot use on the indagato any methods or techniques that may influence his right to self-determination or alter his memory or his capability to evaluate facts. This prohibition applies even if it was the indagato who asked that these methods or techniques be used. Before the interrogation begins, the indagato must be informed that his statements can be used against him in court; that he can choose not to answer the question, but that the investigations will proceed nonetheless; that, if he provides information concerning someone else's criminal responsibility, he will assume, as far as this responsibility is concerned, the office of witness.[14]

If evidence should be gathered in violation of these principles, it would be inadmissible in court.

Footnotes:
12. CCP Art. 63
13. CCP Art. 65
14. CCP Art. 64

Sure. But AK didn't incriminate herself. She falsely accused another person of rape and murder. By extension, she further identified herself as a witness to this crime.

Tellingly, the police merely gathered a statement of her false accusation. At that point, they made her a suspect, locked her up, and didn't interrogate her further. Of course, they naturally accepted statements she made voluntarily.

 

[griffinmill]

From: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

Interrogations and self-incriminating statements

When a person who is neither an indagato (suspect) nor an imputato (defendant), interrogated by the police or the prosecutor, reveals pieces of information that might lead to his incrimination, the interrogation must be immediately stopped, the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation. These self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court.[12]
The police or the prosecutor summon the indagato, during the preliminary investigations, and inform him precisely of the actions he is alleged to have committed (not yet technically a charge); they also inform him of the evidence so far gathered against him, if this is not detrimental to the investigations; the indagato is also invited to defend himself, if he so wishes; the police or the prosecutor can also ask him questions, that he may refuse to answer.[13]

The indagato, when interrogated, must be free of all undue influence, both psychological and physical. He must be willing to provide information (animus confitendi). The police or the prosecutor cannot use on the indagato any methods or techniques that may influence his right to self-determination or alter his memory or his capability to evaluate facts. This prohibition applies even if it was the indagato who asked that these methods or techniques be used. Before the interrogation begins, the indagato must be informed that his statements can be used against him in court; that he can choose not to answer the question, but that the investigations will proceed nonetheless; that, if he provides information concerning someone else's criminal responsibility, he will assume, as far as this responsibility is concerned, the office of witness.[14]

If evidence should be gathered in violation of these principles, it would be inadmissible in court.

Footnotes:
12. CCP Art. 63
13. CCP Art. 65
14. CCP Art. 64

Just to reiterate, this verbiage of the law is about self incrimination. AK never self incriminted herself, so I don't see how it applies.

 

[Numbers]

Sure. But AK didn't incriminate herself. She falsely accused another person of rape and murder. By extension, she further identified herself as a witness to this crime.

Tellingly, the police merely gathered a statement of her false accusation. At that point, they made her a suspect, locked her up, and didn't interrogate her further. Of course, they naturally accepted statements she made voluntarily.

And what were the grounds for locking her up, if she was merely a witness?

And if she stated that she had been nearby, in an adjacent or nearby room of the cottage, and was aware (by her hearing or seeing) that Patrick Lumumba had murdered and raped Meredith Kercher, and had not informed the police immediately, was she not confessing to a crime under Italian law? The crime being either 1. not timely reporting a crime or 2. being an accessory to a crime (murder/rape).

And if she had effectively confessed to a crime (such as indicated above by the italicized and highlighted text), how can it be said that she had not incriminated herself?

PM Mignini had prepared an arrest warrant on or about the time of the interrogation (dated Nov. 6, 2007 IIRC) listing not only Patrick Lumumba, but also Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, to be arrested for the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. This also suggests that Amanda Knox had been a suspect and that she had incriminated herself in the interrogation statement by placing herself at the cottage at the time of the murder/rape.

 

[Desert Fox]

All probably true, and... it would have made more sense to leave the phones on to help prove they were still at the apartment.

I can't take credit for this. I read it somewhere on this thread a long time ago,

Might have been me although would not be surprised if somebody suggested it before I did. If they had not planned on murder but something that went out of control, as some arguments suggest, it also makes no sense to shut off their phones.

 

[griffinmill]

Except that doesn't work. Not only did it not get her out of murder, it got her arrested immediately. It's also not reasonable to assume it ever could 'get her out of the murder.' Accusing someone she would have to know wasn't there to protect the actual perpetrator doesn't make her look innocent!

The alternate explanation is twofold: she was either desperate and glommed onto the police asking about the Lumumba text without having any idea of the ramifications;

Or, if she was thinking, she thought blaming Lumumba for the murder would actually get her released as a witness. If released, she would flee the country (and she knew her mom was flying in).

No doubt her concern, guilt or innocence, was not to be arrested.

 

[griffinmill]

And what were the grounds for locking her up, if she was merely a witness?

And if she stated that she had been nearby, in an adjacent or nearby room of the cottage, and was aware (by her hearing or seeing) that Patrick Lumumba had murdered and raped Meredith Kercher, and had not informed the police immediately, was she not confessing to a crime under Italian law? The crime being either 1. not timely reporting a crime or 2. being an accessory to a crime (murder/rape).

And if she had effectively confessed to a crime (such as indicated above by the italicized and highlighted text), how can it be said that she had not incriminated herself?

PM Mignini had prepared an arrest warrant on or about the time of the interrogation (dated Nov. 6, 2007 IIRC) listing not only Patrick Lumumba, but also Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, to be arrested for the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher. This also suggests that Amanda Knox had been a suspect and that she had incriminated herself in the interrogation statement by placing herself at the cottage at the time of the murder/rape.

They lock her up because she's already been caught out on several lies about her alibi, and that her alibi isn't being corroborated by RS.

They accept her accusation, but they don't necessarily believe it.

But combined with RS taking away her alibi, and her accusation of Lumumba, they now believe she is chargeable with murder even if they eventually find she was innocent.

Seems like textbook police procedure to me. Especially since they didn't question her once they took her in.

As an edit: I doubt they thought, at that time, she committed the murder herself. Only that she was there, and based on her statement could have had a larger role in what was a developing investigation. Naturally, they didn't ever think that her statements told them they had all the suspects they needed.

 

[Bill Williams]

So here is a classic heads the police win, tails the subject loses situation.

Mach's statement here is equivalent to saying that indeed Amanda Knox was a suspect from the beginning of the interrogation. If she had responded to questions with silence, which was her right, she would have been arrested for murder. Why, on what evidence? Apparently, her silence.

Had she not named Patrick Lumumba as the murderer as the police interrogators and interpreter/mediator obviously suggested, she would have suffered a continuation of the coercive interrogation until she did name him.

Combine this with what Machiavelli himself says Anna Donnino did.....

But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused.​

And you get the very definition of a coercive interrogation. Knox, acc. to even Machiavelli, wanted to stay silent. "Knox did not want to talk."

And in this case it was not even the police who enforced the, "you're not allowed to not talk," policy. It was the friggin' translator/interpretor who acted as if a mediator.

Translators act as if mediators, and prosecutors act as if notaries. Doesn't anyone in Italy do the job they were hired to do?

 

[Bill Williams]

They lock her up because she's already been caught out on several lies about her alibi, and that her alibi isn't being corroborated by RS.

And what were those lies? Are there "several" of them?

Her story was, "Raffaele and I were at his place all night." Period. That was the story until Ficarra put Lumumba's SMS message into her face, and that was her story once her head cleared the next morning. And that sotry has not changed in seven years.

Several lies? For pete's sake, even from a guilt perspective, she only told one lie: "Raffaele and I were at his place all night."

They accept her accusation, but they don't necessarily believe it.

What on earth are you talking about? Of course they believe it. They go out and arrest Lumumba and declare, "Case closed," and brag they'd solved the crime before the forensics came in.... solved it on behavioural issues only.

But combined with RS taking away her alibi, and her accusation of Lumumba, they now believe she is chargeable with murder even if they eventually find she was innocent.

Seems like textbook police procedure to me. Especially since they didn't question her once they took her in.

Didn't question her once they took her in? For pete's sake, what was the exchange about the SMS message about, then?

 

[Bill Williams]

Richard Branson's tweet about Knox (and Sollecito) being denied fair process in Italy has produced some remarkably fair minded responses.

If nothing else, Cassazione will hopefully learn how their judicial system will be viewed if they sign off on Judge Nencini's nonsense.

Here are some examples of responses to his original tweet:

- http://Murderofmeredithkercher.com (no the) or http://injusticeinperugia.org or go to #amandaknox http://amandaknox.com for a balanced look.

- part of the problem with Knox getting a fair trail in Italy is civil & criminal cases lumped together

- Let's hope the Italians realize they risk much by choosing to ignore those questions & cont. to insist their case has merit.

- She had a fair trial and was found guilty. Don't listen to her PR lies.​

Of course, the fake-wiki is being touted by others.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Might have been me although would not be surprised if somebody suggested it before I did. If they had not planned on murder but something that went out of control, as some arguments suggest, it also makes no sense to shut off their phones.

-

could've been you,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

They lock her up because she's already been caught out on several lies about her alibi, and that her alibi isn't being corroborated by RS.

They accept her accusation, but they don't necessarily believe it.

But combined with RS taking away her alibi, and her accusation of Lumumba, they now believe she is chargeable with murder even if they eventually find she was innocent.

Seems like textbook police procedure to me. Especially since they didn't question her once they took her in.

As an edit: I doubt they thought, at that time, she committed the murder herself. Only that she was there, and based on her statement could have had a larger role in what was a developing investigation. Naturally, they didn't ever think that her statements told them they had all the suspects they needed.

griffin,

You have just contradicted yourself.

ETA: Quoted from griffinmill, post #4984:
"Sure. But AK didn't incriminate herself. She falsely accused another person of rape and murder. By extension, she further identified herself as a witness to this crime."

In your previous post (4984, 4985), you stated that Amanda Knox's accusation of Patrick Lumumba was not a statement incriminating her.

Now you state (2nd bolded/highlighted text) that her accusation of Lumumba was one of the things that made the police believe that she was chargeable with murder. That means that the accusation incriminated her. Therefore, according to Italian law, not only should she have been provided with a lawyer at that point, but her incriminating statement made without a lawyer should not have been admissible.

According to ECHR case-law (Salduz v Turkey and many other cases), a statement made by a person under interrogation without a lawyer may not be used to convict them. This continues to be true under Ibrahim et al. v UK; for three of the applicants, the statements in their "safety interviews" were not used as evidence at trial, while for the fourth, he actually used the statements he made in the "safety interview" for his defense, which allowed them to be used for his conviction.

 

[anglolawyer]

You were talking about the 01:45 interrogation.
Anna Donnino wad also present at the 05:45 statement.

That was ruled unusable contra alios. Mignini is pretty lousy at taking down these spontaneous statements in conformity with the law, isn't he? But then, he didn't really give a **** as the goal was to get a preventive detention order from Matteini (who didn't give one either). Longer term issues would sort themselves out.

Mach, what did you make of Mignini's hysterical (in both senses) speech to Micheli that Methos posted? Did you see a third rate, thin-skinned, pathetic, whining creep in there?

ETA and a cunning rascal too. The coded message was: don't allow your ruling to be influenced by foreigners. We here in Italy are grown up enough to apply the law justly without being patronised by outsiders who think they know better. This is what I would expect from an intimidated banana republic lacking confidence in its own system and resorting to such base arguments. Whats interesting is how threatened Mignini must have felt and that he believed such an appeal might actually sway Micheli.

 

[toto]

So here is a classic heads the police win, tails the subject loses situation.

Mach's statement here is equivalent to saying that indeed Amanda Knox was a suspect from the beginning of the interrogation. If she had responded to questions with silence, which was her right, she would have been arrested for murder. Why, on what evidence? Apparently, her silence.

Had she not named Patrick Lumumba as the murderer as the police interrogators and interpreter/mediator obviously suggested, she would have suffered a continuation of the coercive interrogation until she did name him.

Having buckled and told what the police what they already knew, as stated by the chief of Perugia's police force in the Nov. 6, 2007 press conference, according to Italian courts she was guilty of calunnia, because it turned out that Patrick Lumumba was totally innocent of the murder/rape.

With regard to Italian law, it is worthwhile to recall two CCP articles:

CCP 188
1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

CCP 191
1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.
2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Thus, CCP 188 states that the techniques of the coercive interrogation were illegal. Then, CCP 191 states that illegal evidence may not be used (in a trial).

Yet, Amanda Knox's rights under Italian law were violated in Italian courts because these two articles of the CCP were ignored by the judges. And the ECHR will note this violation as being also a violation of the Convention, because there was no lawyer present at Amanda Knox's interrogation, and thus no check on police behavior during the interrogation. Thus, while the Amanda Knox's application will have some uniqueness, it will be a slam dunk for the ECHR to find Italy in violation of Articles 6.3c with 6.1.

When she was told it would be better for her not to have a lawyer, this indeed seems manifestly unfair. Reading Machiavelli's comments that if she refused to answer pending her rights to have a lawyer she "would be suspected of involvement and arrested" makes one realise how Kafkaesque Amanda's position was.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, the problem is that most of the times reticence is not interpreted as reticence, but rather interpreted on the spot as evidence of guilt.

And that right there is one of the classic definitions of a Police State. Wow.

Do unenlightened Italian citizens really not realise that they are still living under the rather large shadow of Mussolini? It's absolutely astonishing - not to mention something the EU and Council of Europe probably needs to sort out post haste.

 

[LondonJohn]

They lock her up because she's already been caught out on several lies about her alibi, and that her alibi isn't being corroborated by RS.

They accept her accusation, but they don't necessarily believe it.

But combined with RS taking away her alibi, and her accusation of Lumumba, they now believe she is chargeable with murder even if they eventually find she was innocent.

Seems like textbook police procedure to me. Especially since they didn't question her once they took her in.

As an edit: I doubt they thought, at that time, she committed the murder herself. Only that she was there, and based on her statement could have had a larger role in what was a developing investigation. Naturally, they didn't ever think that her statements told them they had all the suspects they needed.

*Sigh* So therefore (by your "argument"), in the eyes of the police, Knox has just implicated herself in an illegal act.

It's always somewhat telling when commentators tie themselves up in contradictory knots owing to the overarching need to score a point and support a prior conclusion. Could it be low intellect or mindless bias? It's certainly not critical thinking.

 

[Samson]

The wheels of Justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/25806851/executed-teens-1944-conviction-tossed-out/

I hope everyone is patient and youthful here.

Quote:
A South Carolina judge on Wednesday took the unusual step of vacating the 1944 conviction of a black 14-year-old boy, the youngest person executed in the United States in the past century, saying he did not receive a fair trial in the murders of two white girls.

George Stinney Jr. was convicted by an all-white jury after a one-day trial and a 10-minute jury deliberation during a time when racial segregation prevailed in much of the United States.

Stinney died in the electric chair less than three months after the killings of Betty June Binnicker, 11, and Mary Emma Thames, 7.

In her ruling, Judge Carmen Tevis Mullen said she was not overturning the case on its merits, which scant records made nearly impossible to relitigate, but on the failure of the court to grant Stinney a fair trial.

She said few or no defense witnesses testified and that it was "highly likely" that Stinney's confession to white police officers was coerced.

"From time to time we are called to look back to examine our still-recent history and correct injustice where possible," she wrote. "I can think of no greater injustice than a violation of one's constitutional rights, which has been proven to me in this case by a preponderance of the evidence standard."

 

[MichaelB]

New English translation of Maria Dramis.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Testimony-of-Maria-Ilaria-Dramis.pdf

This is what the Supreme Court said about this utterly useless witness.

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/second-level-revision-of-the-time-of-death/

Dramis, in her turn, provided a significant piece of information regarding the timing, saying that she had returned home after 22:30 having gone to a film screening from 20:00 to 22:00. She went to sleep until some time later, when she noticed running steps beneath her window such as she had never heard before. The reliability of this testimony could not be refuted simply because Dramis and Monacchia only came forward with their information to law enforcement a year after the crime, since their late awareness of how useful the information might be does not in itself affect the quality of the information.