Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

On this, the ECHR case-law is that a statement in court alleging mistreatment by police amounts to a complaint to authorities. The prosecutor is obligated to act on it by investigating the allegation. And not by charging the person making the allegation with calunnia against the police.

The prosecution cannot investigate a claim of beating without a formal complaint (querela).
The prosecution is instead obligated to investigate the person with calunnia, because calunnia is a crime against the state, if the claim is manifestly susipcious (it contradicts the previous defence claims - or lack thereof -or it contradicts witnesses).

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli was correct in predicting the Chieffi, Section 1 annulling of Hellmann in 2013. He also correctly corrected me a year or two ago about a court date for Mignini in the abuse of office charges against him.

I am correct on everything factual.
Facts is what I talk about (not "predictions").

 

[Numbers]

Hi Numbers! Well now, this is interesting! How is Italy, the state, in a position to offer a revision trial (which would be an exoneration, given that there would be no remaining admissible evidence and the case would be beyond statutory limitation)? The constitution separates the judicial system from the state. My understanding is that the callunia verdict can only be threatened by an Art 6 or, as you corrected me, Art 3 ruling. In other words, according to Italian law, I suggest, the Italian courts can only move (and indeed, must move) on the basis of a new application from Knox's counsel armed with an art 6 ECHR ruling.

Or am I wrong?!

Well, I think we are in agreement. The Italian judicial system is the body which offers the revision trial after a request for one on the basis of Italian Constitutional Court judgment number 113/2011. That judgment requires the possibility of a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR. The convicted person (or next of kin) or a prosecutor requests a revision trial (CPP Article 632).

Italy, the state, offers the revision trial through its judicial system. To the ECHR, all the organs of the Italian state are part of the Italian state including the judicial system. This should not be confused with the domestic laws establishing a separation of powers.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good to see Machiavelli making a case for Italy in this - and the ECHR process has only just begun!

And since when did anyone making a case for something declare anything other than.....

Mach's hubris truly is stunning - it's Baghdad Bob redux! And let's not forget, he also knows he is/was right on the matter of the Knox/Sollecito murder convictions, and the matter of the massive bribery of Hellmann

And it's probably worth pointing out again that it's misleading to home in entirely on the physical assault accusations in all of this. That's one aspect, for sure, but even more relevant is the fact that it's provable (viz Donnino's court testimony) that the police implanted the "I met Lumumba and took him to the cottage whereupon Lumumba attacked and killed Kercher" story into Knox's head in the first place, using the sly device of telling Knox that a) they (the police/PM) already knew for sure that this was what had happened, and they had evidence to that effect, b) Knox had better therefore confirm this story to them - and if Knox failed to do so, the consequences for her could be dire compared with the consequences once she'd "told the truth"; c) Knox would be protecting herself from Lumumba by "telling the truth", helping the police and courts bring the killer (Lumumba) to justice, and helping Kercher's family immensely; and d) it didn't matter if Knox didn't remember this "truth" up to that point - she was probably experiencing traumatic amnesia which had caused her to dispel the memories of this horrific incident from her mind (as Donnino helpfully illustrated in her own personal example) - but it was now incumbent upon her to "remember".

And let's not also forget good old Perugia Police Chief Artur de Felice's inane crowing comment to journalists the morning after this interrogation, where he clearly stated that "initially" Knox had told them a story that they "knew" to be incorrect, but that (on account of the skill of the interrogators, natch!) Knox had ultimately "buckled" and "confirmed" to them the "truth" they already "knew".

In fact, I'd contend that the Donnino court testimony and de Felice's statement, all by themselves, might very well be sufficient to inform the ECHR that Knox's confused statement accusing Lumumba was nothing more than the product of a frightened, bewildered young woman being effectively instructed by the police to accuse Lumumba, with the added spice of veiled threats to her if she did not do so. And in that context, clearly Knox's human rights were violated - in an egregious, unlawful, premeditated manner, and with a consequent conspiracy of silence, lies and misdirection from the police with the collusion of the PM.

 

[Annella]

The prosecution cannot investigate a claim of beating without a formal complaint (querela).
The prosecution is instead obligated to investigate the person with calunnia, because calunnia is a crime against the state, if the claim is manifestly susipcious (it contradicts the previous defence claims - or lack thereof -or it contradicts witnesses).

Amanda made the complaint ( querela) in Court. Why was it not investigated?

From Brocardi

art device. 333 Code of Criminal Procedure
Sources → Code of Criminal Procedure → BOOK FIFTH - Preliminary inquiries and preliminary hearing → ​​Title II - Record of crime (arts. 330-335)
1. Any person who has news of a crime punishable office can make a complaint. The law determines the cases in which the complaint is mandatory [cp 364 , 709 ] (1) .
2. The complaint is submitted orally or in writing, in person or through a special agent [ 122 ], the public prosecutor or a judicial police officer; if it is made ​​in writing, it shall be signed [ 100 ] by the complainant or his special attorney (2) .
3. Of the anonymous complaints can not be made ​​any use, subject to Article 240 (3) .

Mignini was in Court when Amanda stated she had been hit and what did he do? ( I know what he did...do you Mach?)

 

[Kauffer]

A mediator is not an agent, but most important Anna Donnino's testimony is reliable because it is intrinsically credible, and it is a fact that Knox defence omits it. It is also important to note that Anna Donnino was certanly not only an interpreter ("agent" ad you put it) with the police, she was also working between Knox and Prosecutor, diferent subjects, without police being one of them, when she released her spontaneous statement.
It is also absolutely important that the defence lawyers did not rise any claim that a prosecution interogation (illegal) ever took place.
Not even Amanda Knox herself used the word "interrogation" in her first court statement in 2008; she said "they asked me to make a statement", using the only the word "statement" and not the word "interrogation".

Nothing of this matters. Donnino acted outside of accepted norms of a passive mediator. She placed herself in the position of narrator and facilitator rather than interpreter. This is a breach of Knox's rights. As for the absence of counsel, you have nothing to say. And there is nothing to say. Knox was interrogated without a lawyer and that is a flagrant breach of art 6. Nobody needs to reference the term 'interrogation' contemporaneously with its occurrence as a legal fact in order to create the legal fact! And such shenanigans. First the police abuse Knox's right to silence and provide no lawyer - next Mignini slithers into the proceedings and abuses her rights further knowing that the absence of a lawyer was problematic - hence the 'spontaneous statement' nonsense. Your country is going to be ritually humiliated in the court of international legal and public opinion in this matter - again! It happened after the acquittal last year too.

 

[Numbers]

Do you have a copy of this MR Numbers?

A copy of the original MR (in Italian, of course; an English translation has been promised by IIP volunteers) is at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

under the "Miscellaneous" category - last entry, labeled:

2016 Boninsegna Report – Dismissal of Callunia -bis

(The dismissal is an acquittal.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, I think we are in agreement. The Italian judicial system is the body which offers the revision trial after a request for one on the basis of Italian Constitutional Court judgment number 113/2011. That judgment requires the possibility of a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR. The convicted person (or next of kin) or a prosecutor requests a revision trial (CPP Article 632).

Italy, the state, offers the revision trial through its judicial system. To the ECHR, all the organs of the Italian state are part of the Italian state including the judicial system. This should not be confused with the domestic laws establishing a separation of powers.

Indeed. But the practical reality in this instance is very interesting. In many cases where the ECHR finds for a violation of a convicted person's human rights, this violation will be in respect of a rather narrow aspect, and in separation from other evidence which formed the basis of the original conviction. Therefore a remedy trial is often feasible, even when the elements of the original trial which pertained to the human rights breach are removed.

But in Knox's case, the alleged human rights breach is the be-all and end-all of the matter. If the ECHR finds for Knox, then the Italian state effectively has zero evidence to bring before any court in respect of criminal slander against Lumumba. So in reality, if the ECHR finds for Knox, the only viable remedy for Italy will be to annul the criminal slander conviction without retrial, and to pay significant compensation to Knox.

 

[Kauffer]

I am correct on everything factual.
Facts is what I talk about (not "predictions").

If what you state as facts are in fact facts, then you cannot by definition be wrong about them. When they are not facts, then you must (also) definitionally, be wrong. As for your predictions, you have made many errors.

 

[Dougm]

Mach's hubris truly is stunning - it's Baghdad Bob redux! And let's not forget, he also knows he is/was right on the matter of the Knox/Sollecito murder convictions, and the matter of the massive bribery of Hellmann

And it's probably worth pointing out again that it's misleading to home in entirely on the physical assault accusations in all of this. That's one aspect, for sure, but even more relevant is the fact that it's provable (viz Donnino's court testimony) that the police implanted the "I met Lumumba and took him to the cottage whereupon Lumumba attacked and killed Kercher" story into Knox's head in the first place, using the sly device of telling Knox that a) they (the police/PM) already knew for sure that this was what had happened, and they had evidence to that effect, b) Knox had better therefore confirm this story to them - and if Knox failed to do so, the consequences for her could be dire compared with the consequences once she'd "told the truth"; c) Knox would be protecting herself from Lumumba by "telling the truth", helping the police and courts bring the killer (Lumumba) to justice, and helping Kercher's family immensely; and d) it didn't matter if Knox didn't remember this "truth" up to that point - she was probably experiencing traumatic amnesia which had caused her to dispel the memories of this horrific incident from her mind (as Donnino helpfully illustrated in her own personal example) - but it was now incumbent upon her to "remember".

And let's not also forget good old Perugia Police Chief Artur de Felice's inane crowing comment to journalists the morning after this interrogation, where he clearly stated that "initially" Knox had told them a story that they "knew" to be incorrect, but that (on account of the skill of the interrogators, natch!) Knox had ultimately "buckled" and "confirmed" to them the "truth" they already "knew".

In fact, I'd contend that the Donnino court testimony and de Felice's statement, all by themselves, might very well be sufficient to inform the ECHR that Knox's confused statement accusing Lumumba was nothing more than the product of a frightened, bewildered young woman being effectively instructed by the police to accuse Lumumba, with the added spice of veiled threats to her if she did not do so. And in that context, clearly Knox's human rights were violated - in an egregious, unlawful, premeditated manner, and with a consequent conspiracy of silence, lies and misdirection from the police with the collusion of the PM.

Agreed, and I think the physical "slaps" have little to do with the ECHR case. The rights violations are blatant, with or without any physical contact. Amanda herself said the head slaps were more frightening than painful. It's the coercion, manipulation by a translator who should have been neutral, and the denial of an attorney even though she was clearly a suspect that are the key issues.

Oh, and the curious lack of a recording of the interrogation. Forgot that one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach's hubris truly is stunning - it's Baghdad Bob redux! And let's not forget, he also knows he is/was right on the matter of the Knox/Sollecito murder convictions, and the matter of the massive bribery of Hellmann

And it's probably worth pointing out again that it's misleading to home in entirely on the physical assault accusations in all of this. That's one aspect, for sure, but even more relevant is the fact that it's provable (viz Donnino's court testimony) that the police implanted the "I met Lumumba and took him to the cottage whereupon Lumumba attacked and killed Kercher" story into Knox's head in the first place, using the sly device of telling Knox that a) they (the police/PM) already knew for sure that this was what had happened, and they had evidence to that effect, b) Knox had better therefore confirm this story to them - and if Knox failed to do so, the consequences for her could be dire compared with the consequences once she'd "told the truth"; c) Knox would be protecting herself from Lumumba by "telling the truth", helping the police and courts bring the killer (Lumumba) to justice, and helping Kercher's family immensely; and d) it didn't matter if Knox didn't remember this "truth" up to that point - she was probably experiencing traumatic amnesia which had caused her to dispel the memories of this horrific incident from her mind (as Donnino helpfully illustrated in her own personal example) - but it was now incumbent upon her to "remember".

And let's not also forget good old Perugia Police Chief Artur de Felice's inane crowing comment to journalists the morning after this interrogation, where he clearly stated that "initially" Knox had told them a story that they "knew" to be incorrect, but that (on account of the skill of the interrogators, natch!) Knox had ultimately "buckled" and "confirmed" to them the "truth" they already "knew".

It's false. De Felice didn't say that. He said something different.
You have absolutely no evidence to support your wild inventions.

In fact, I'd contend that the Donnino court testimony and de Felice's statement, all by themselves, might very well be sufficient to inform the ECHR that Knox's confused statement accusing Lumumba was nothing more than the product of a frightened, bewildered young woman being effectively instructed by the police to accuse Lumumba, with the added spice of veiled threats to her if she did not do so. And in that context, clearly Knox's human rights were violated - in an egregious, unlawful, premeditated manner, and with a consequent conspiracy of silence, lies and misdirection from the police with the collusion of the PM.

Btw, I also imagine the Knox lawyers forgot - and I see everybody forgets it here - that: 1) Knox refused to correct herself or clarify about her previous statments before teh judge on Nov. 08. , and she instead invoked her right to not respond; 2) the interogation of Dec. 17. : once again Knox was unable to present any credible answer about the false accusation to Lumumba, and failed again to make any claim of coercion or illegal questioning whatsoever; and she invoked a right to not answer about the false accusation, once again 3) Knox placed further false accusations twice, repeating the misleading eviddence in two different pieces of handwriting she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police; there she also defined herself as not credible; but she stated again she had memories implicating Lumumba; also stated that she stood by her previous declarations; and also placed evidence against Sollecito (blood on hands).

 

[LondonJohn]

Nothing of this matters. Donnino acted outside of accepted norms of a passive mediator. She placed herself in the position of narrator and facilitator rather than interpreter. This is a breach of Knox's rights? As for the absence of counsel, you have nothing to say. And there is nothing to say. Knox was interrogated without a lawyer and that is a flagrant breach of art 6. Nobody needs to reference the term 'interrogation' contemporaneously with its occurrence as a legal fact in order to create the legal fact! And such shenanigans. First the police abuse Knox's right to silence and provide no lawyer - next Mignini slithers into the proceedings and abuses her rights further knowing that the absence of a lawyer was problematic - hence the 'spontaneous statement' nonsense. Your country is going to be ritually humiliated in the court of international legal and public opinion in this matter - again! It happened after the acquittal last year too.

Mach (and most/all pro-guilt commentators for that matter) signally fails to understand (or perhaps wilfully chooses to ignore) that even if one accepts that Knox entered that interrogation room on the night of 5th/6th November as nothing more than a witness* (and thus with no need to be informed of her rights or provided with a lawyer), the fact remains that as soon as Knox "buckled" and made her verbal "confession/accusation", everything should have stopped at that precise moment. As soon as those words had left Knox's lips, the police should have terminated proceedings, placed Knox under arrest, informed her of her rights, and told her to get a lawyer. Before any statement was typed up and given to her to sign. Before she made her second statement. And then the PM should have seen her the next day after she had had a chance to consult with her lawyer, and in the presence of her lawyer, and asked her if she wanted to confirm what she had said the previous night and sign a statement to that effect.

The very act of the police going away to type up that 1.45am statement and giving it to Knox to sign - all with her being unaware of the situation, uninformed of her rights, and unable to consult a lawyer - was a huge violation of the law and of her rights.


* And I think there's more than ample evidence to show that Knox was absolutely being considered a suspect of some form of serious criminal offence by the police from the moment that interrogation started, and should thus have been treated accordingly - but it's essentially moot when one understands in any case what should have happened as soon as Knox made her verbal "confession/accusation".

 

[LondonJohn]

It's false. De Felice didn't say that. He said something different.
You have absolutely no evidence to support your wild inventions.



Btw, I also imagine the Knox lawyers forgot - and I see everybody forgets it here - that: 1) Knox refused to correct herself or clarify about her previous statments before teh judge on Nov. 08. , and she instead invoked her right to not respond; 2) the interogation of Dec. 17. : once again Knox was unable to present any credible answer about the false accusation to Lumumba, and failed again to make any claim of coercion or illegal questioning whatsoever; and she invoked a right to not answer about the false accusation, once again 3) Knox placed further false accusations twice, repeating the misleading eviddence in two different pieces of handwriting she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police; there she also defined herself as not credible; but she stated again she had memories implicating Lumumba; also stated that she stood by her previous declarations; and also placed evidence against Sollecito (blood on hands).

Hahahahahahahah. The chutzpah!

What did de Felice say then? Were you there in person to hear what he said? Because it was reported pretty much verbatim in several media outlets that he'd said exactly what I said he said. So who's in the realm of "wild inventions" here?

And you are so ignorant that you can't understand that it was absolutely in Knox's interest to stay silent in that first court hearing. She'd only been able to meet with her lawyer minutes before that hearing, and any lawyer worth his/her salt (though obviously you cannot understand this) would have more-or-less ordered Knox to say nothing in that hearing.

And Knox's further writings make it clear to any objective observer that she was fundamentally confused and unsure of everything, and that she now doubted that she really ever had remembered meeting up with Lumumba that night - indeed she writes that she's now certain that she stayed at Sollecito's all evening/night. Clearly she is not. and cannot be, in any position to state that Lumumba is innocent, since she cannot know whether Lumumba was in fact involved.

But carry on with the misdirections, blinkered misinterpretations and gigantic hubris. It's very entertaining to read, even if it is a load of codswallop

 

[Kauffer]

It's false. De Felice didn't say that. He said something different.
You have absolutely no evidence to support your wild inventions.



Btw, I also imagine the Knox lawyers forgot - and I see everybody forgets it here - that: 1) Knox refused to correct herself or clarify about her previous statments before teh judge on Nov. 08. , and she instead invoked her right to not respond; 2) the interogation of Dec. 17. : once again Knox was unable to present any credible answer about the false accusation to Lumumba, and failed again to make any claim of coercion or illegal questioning whatsoever; and she invoked a right to not answer about the false accusation, once again 3) Knox placed further false accusations twice, repeating the misleading eviddence in two different pieces of handwriting she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police; there she also defined herself as not credible; but she stated again she had memories implicating Lumumba; also stated that she stood by her previous declarations; and also placed evidence against Sollecito (blood on hands).

Knox had no lawyer. That is a breach of article 6! Your only defence to this appears to be that her interrogation wasn't an interrogation and she wasn't entitled to the protection of counsel! As if she bounced into the not-quite-an-interrogation-room in which there just happened to be numerous burly police officers and gleefully incriminated herself without any stimulus whatsoever.

 

[LondonJohn]

If what you state as facts are in fact facts, then you cannot by definition be wrong about them. When they are not facts, then you must (also) definitionally, be wrong. As for your predictions, you have made many errors.

No no no! Stop being logical and intelligent! Mach knows that his interpretations and inferences are FACTS, and that he is not - and cannot - be wrong!

The American infidel invaders will be driven back by Saddam's mighty and brave warriors!!

 

[Machiavelli]

If what you state as facts are in fact facts, then you cannot by definition be wrong about them. When they are not facts, then you must (also) definitionally, be wrong. As for your predictions, you have made many errors.

"many"? I didn't make "many" predictions. And those "predictions" that I have done (but how many?) were just assessments of probability based on law (I may have talked about probabilities). And btw, they were also basically correct. But it's not my job making predictions, that's not what I do. You stupids think that "predictions" are a kind of important thing because only because this is what interests you and what you would like to have from me - instead wht I report is only facts. Yes if they are not facts I am wrong, but they are. Talking about things unseen to expect: the B/M verdict is indeed extraordinary and unseen in law: it is a political monstrum in fact, something crazy not a piece of law. It is not possible to "predict" (let's say to expect) something like that; but I did expect that something wery wrong was going on when I heared that the person speaking was Bruno, and when I heared him spelling the same code statement uttered by Zanetti. It is a matter of fact that 35+ judges agreed with me - not with you - on almost everything. It is also a matter of fact that even the crazy Bruno/Marasca (the latter the former minister of finance of a city that went bankrupt) call it a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when Knox was killed and washed her hands of Meredith's blook; and emphasize that it is "incontrovertible" that the murderers ar multiple and that Knox was a malicious liar; and dismisses as ridicule the idea that a finding of a violation by ECHR could change the verdict in the calunnia case. Yes they said this, it's fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

"many"? I didn't make "many" predictions. And those "predictions" that I have done (but how many?) were just assessments of probability based on law (I may have talked about probabilities). And btw, they were also basically correct. And the B/M verdict is indeed extraordinary and unseen in law: it is a political monstrum in fact, something crazy not a piece of law. It is a matter of fact that 35+ judges agreed with me - not with you - on almost everything. It is also a matter of fact that even the crazy Bruno/Marasca (the latter the former minister of finance of a city that went bankrupt) call it a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when Knox was killed and washed her hands of Meredith's blook; and emphasize that it is "incontrovertible" that the murderers ar multiple and that Knox was a malicious liar; and dismisses as ridicule the idea that a finding of a violation by ECHR could change the verdict in the calunnia case. Yes they said this, it's fact.

"Today the tide has turned. We are destroying them" - Baghdad Bob (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf).

Time to realise that you've been wrong all along about this trial process. Time perhaps also to evaluate the way you analyse cases like this one, and whether you in fact have the required level of objectivity, insight and understanding to enable any kind of fair, balanced analysis (let alone any type of analysis which is borne out by events). Or you can just continue to shout about how correct you are, even as the tanks roll into Baghdad. Your prerogative

 

[moije2]

I'm rather nonplussed when people criticize someone else for a continuing interest in the case when they are still interested enough to bother dropping in to see what's going on.

There is no criticism of a continuing interest in the case. And I am not sure if I actually would criticize responding to V. I am though nonplused/nonplussed by it.

The developments with the ECHR as recently being discussed are of great interest in this case. Something of substance to discuss. I just don't see the point in feeding trolls. That is what I consider that particular poster. You have thousands of posts which are like graffiti tagging. Hit and run. No carry through of thought to display coherent thinking. That was my point.

If you thought there was an irony of my posting, there was not. I continue to be immensely interested in this case. I am just not interested in engaging with you know who/what. And I rarely do more than skim past those posts, including the replies to them. For me it is not a good use of time. You of course don't have to be like me, and that is fine.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's false. De Felice didn't say that. He said something different.
You have absolutely no evidence to support your wild inventions.



Btw, I also imagine the Knox lawyers forgot - and I see everybody forgets it here - that: 1) Knox refused to correct herself or clarify about her previous statments before teh judge on Nov. 08. , and she instead invoked her right to not respond; 2) the interogation of Dec. 17. : once again Knox was unable to present any credible answer about the false accusation to Lumumba, and failed again to make any claim of coercion or illegal questioning whatsoever; and she invoked a right to not answer about the false accusation, once again 3) Knox placed further false accusations twice, repeating the misleading eviddence in two different pieces of handwriting she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police; there she also defined herself as not credible; but she stated again she had memories implicating Lumumba; also stated that she stood by her previous declarations; and also placed evidence against Sollecito (blood on hands).

Knox had no lawyer. That is a breach of article 6! Your only defence to this appears to be that her interrogation wasn't an interrogation and she wasn't entitled to the protection of counsel! As if she bounced into the not-quite-an-interrogation-room in which there just happened to be numerous burly police officers and gleefully incriminated herself without any stimulus whatsoever.

Machiavelli translated the Drew Griffin CNN interview with Mignini from 2010, from Italian to English - Machiavelli knows very well that Mignini concedes that by the end of the 1:45 am interrogation (at least) all of Knox's rights as a suspect should have kicked in.

How Mignini fudges all of that is that he told Knox (acc. to his narrative of the events leading up to the 5:45 am memorale) that he would act as if only a notary, if she wanted to continue making "spontaneous" statements.

That is how Mignini explains that her rights were not violated, and Machiavelli is not only singing off of that songsheet, he himself translated Mignini's words.

0’50’’ Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.

2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.​

Mignini's words to Drew Griffin, which Machiavelli graciously translated so that we could read them, seem at first blush to be relevant to this. Mignini admits she needed a lawyer.....

..... then he proceeds without one.

Case closed.

 

[Kauffer]

Mach (and most/all pro-guilt commentators for that matter) signally fails to understand (or perhaps wilfully chooses to ignore) that even if one accepts that Knox entered that interrogation room on the night of 5th/6th November as nothing more than a witness* (and thus with no need to be informed of her rights or provided with a lawyer), the fact remains that as soon as Knox "buckled" and made her verbal "confession/accusation", everything should have stopped at that precise moment. As soon as those words had left Knox's lips, the police should have terminated proceedings, placed Knox under arrest, informed her of her rights, and told her to get a lawyer. Before any statement was typed up and given to her to sign. Before she made her second statement. And then the PM should have seen her the next day after she had had a chance to consult with her lawyer, and in the presence of her lawyer, and asked her if she wanted to confirm what she had said the previous night and sign a statement to that effect.

The very act of the police going away to type up that 1.45am statement and giving it to Knox to sign - all with her being unaware of the situation, uninformed of her rights, and unable to consult a lawyer - was a huge violation of the law and of her rights.


* And I think there's more than ample evidence to show that Knox was absolutely being considered a suspect of some form of serious criminal offence by the police from the moment that interrogation started, and should thus have been treated accordingly - but it's essentially moot when one understands in any case what should have happened as soon as Knox made her verbal "confession/accusation".

This is absolutely correct. There were numerous 'break' points in the course of that night and morning in the questura where the police and prosecutor could and should, if they were acting in good faith, have stopped, produced an attorney and followed proper procedure. Yet they were out to break Knox whom they 'knew' was involved as early as the afternoon of the day the body of Merdith Kercher was discovered. The invention of the 'spontaneous' statement was an attempt by Mignini to circumvent the law. And the courts supported him. At this point, presumably, the police thought Lumumba was the killer (and had already identified him as such in their minds) and were largely unsure of the exact nature of Knox's involvement. Of course, they were wrong about both of them.