Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

This is an interesting point, Numbers.

I had always assumed that any ECHR proceedings would be handled by a person equally as stupid and corrupt as all of the other judges and magistrates that have been involved in this case.

But, let's imagine for a moment that Italy has an actual human rights professional-type lawyer who reviews applications as they come in. And, let's say that person reviews the matter and says "well, we violated this girl's human rights and we're going to lose, so we have two options: i) we go down with the ship and look like fools and jerks to the world, or ii) we cut a deal and run." Also, let's assume that the decision-maker is someone smart who knows that you have choose door no. 2.

What does a friendly settlement look like? It can't just be "aw shucks let's forget about that little old callunnia" because you can't fish the turd out of the punchbowl and still have a party. They have to somehow agree to a new trial on the murder charges.

One thing that makes me doubt all of this is that this whole monstrosity is a creation of the Italian supreme court.

The representatives or agents of a state at the ECtHR are, IIUC, people representing the Government (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Justice) rather than the judiciary. And the Government may view the case differently that the Judiciary. May.

Friendly settlements are highly confidential and no information is published. I imagine in the end substantial compensation is paid, and of course any violation is somehow reversed. The State must admit publicly that it violated EConHR.

 

[Diocletus]

The representatives or agents of a state at the ECtHR are, IIUC, people representing the Government (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Justice) rather than the judiciary. And the Government may view the case differently that the Judiciary. May.

Friendly settlements are highly confidential and no information is published. I imagine in the end substantial compensation is paid, and of course any violation is somehow reversed. The State must admit publicly that it violated EConHR.

So the magistrates have put themselves into a position where they are dependent on the politicians for face-saving. Hmm.

I wonder if the next court will want to go all in as well.

 

[JREF2010]

Ah yes, Judge Claudia Matteini, the judge who's pronouncements against Knox/Sollecito on Nov. 8, 2007 proved to be all wrong--100% incorrect. This was the hearing that Knox/Sollecto were ushered into after having spent 3 days in solitary confinement subsequent to their arrest on Nov. 6. Yes, Knox/Sollecito languished in solitary without access to lawyers prior to the hearing with Judge Matteini.

Italys Judges reports allow everyone to see into their "train of thought" and bias on the case.

Youre right, Matteini was 100% wrong on everything even accusing Patrick as the "main evil". All based on garbage evidence the Lying Squad vomited to her.

It would be interesting though if the US Judges were required to publicly report their reasoning too, we'd probably see how good they are at fictional writing too.

 

[Desert Fox]

Italys Judges reports allow everyone to see into their "train of thought" and bias on the case.

Youre right, Matteini was 100% wrong on everything even accusing Patrick as the "main evil". All based on garbage evidence the Lying Squad vomited to her.

It would be interesting though if the US Judges were required to publicly report their reasoning too, we'd probably see how good they are at fictional writing too.

Higher courts do have to write down their legal reasoning for a decision. . . .
One reason why I think that lay judges don't actually do anything in the Italian system is because I don't see how a judge could write why the jurors decided how they did.

 

[RWVBWL]

For instance, we know there were multiple attackers because, among other reasons, she was a karate orange belt and her father said she would definitely have resisted and the absence of signs of such a life and death struggle, specifically defensive wounds*, supports the idea that she was restrained while being assaulted.

What's up,
Happy Halloween!

Another personal story.
I got into a fist fight again, on a beach here in Los Angeles last month.
No biggie, kinda fun, but my bro, a fellow surfer, gay, who does not like to fight, who watched it start from a verbal incident into fists bein' thrown was shocked how easy it can happen with 2 strangers. I'm not, for I've been there before, it'll happen again someday. I'm sure the spectators in the fine dining establishment right above me on that early Sunday evening were kinda shocked. It was over quick, with no blood loss or no black eyes received on my part, hahaha...

I kinda know a little bit about street fighting.
I've had to go to Court for fighting on the beach before.
Maybe you'll dig what I'm gonna add to the conversation...

Do you know what it is that tells me that Meredith was restrained when attacked?

The lack of either of her hands being completely immersed in her own blood.

Only her left hand has some blood drops on it.
And those blood drops are a bit dried, not even really smeared at all,
which tells me that the duvet was placed over and on her quite some time after she died.


I don't think that I've ever seen anyone get hurt, in any serious manner, and not immediately put heir hands upon the wound. That throat wound on her neck was major damage, both of her hands and arms should have been covered in her own blood. But they are not. She was being restrained as she was being sexually assaulted. And then she was stabbed when something happened. Maybe someone pulled her hair, such as what is seen found on her bedroom floor and she screamed too loud or bit something that hurt immensely. And she was stabbed to silence her or stabbed in retaliation for fighting back. Her arms were still being held. There is not much blood on her arms or hands. Where's the blood?

My opinion only.
RW

 

[griffinmill]

What's up,
Happy Halloween!

Another personal story.
I got into a fist fight again, on a beach here in Los Angeles last month.
No biggie, kinda fun, but my bro, a fellow surfer, gay, who does not like to fight, who watched it start from a verbal incident into fists bein' thrown was shocked how easy it can happen with 2 strangers. I'm not, for I've been there before, it'll happen again someday. I'm sure the spectators in the fine dining establishment right above me on that early Sunday evening were kinda shocked. It was over quick, with no blood loss or no black eyes received on my part, hahaha...

I kinda know a little bit about street fighting.
I've had to go to Court for fighting on the beach before.
Maybe you'll dig what I'm gonna add to the conversation...

Do you know what it is that tells me that Meredith was restrained when attacked?

The lack of either of her hands being completely immersed in her own blood.

Only her left hand has some blood drops on it.
And those blood drops are a bit dried, not even really smeared at all,
which tells me that the duvet was placed over and on her quite some time after she died.


I don't think that I've ever seen anyone get hurt, in any serious manner, and not immediately put heir hands upon the wound. That throat wound on her neck was major damage, both of her hands and arms should have been covered in her own blood. But they are not. She was being restrained as she was being sexually assaulted. And then she was stabbed when something happened. Maybe someone pulled her hair, such as what is seen found on her bedroom floor and she screamed too loud or bit something that hurt immensely. And she was stabbed to silence her or stabbed in retaliation for fighting back. Her arms were still being held. There is not much blood on her arms or hands. Where's the blood?

My opinion only.
RW

I wonder who restrained her.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

My statement was carefully worded; your disingenuous attempt to muddy the waters is noted. The nature of the relationship between the Idaho Innocence Project and Ms. Knox was disclosed in a couple of news articles that appeared in Ireland in the spring of 2010. The point that everyone else should take note of is that there is no way for any DNA expert to perform a complete case review without all of the records. Why should Dr. Krane get involved if he cannot get everything he needs? A better question is why can't the prosecution cough them up.

If your statement was 'carefully worded', than it is also maliciously misleading (false), since it suggests that Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Krane had some contact with judges or opposing parties experts, which is false. The correct type of wording would necessarily require to make clear that Dr. Hampikian and Dr Krane never submitted nor forwarded any kind of instance to judges, magistrates or other parties experts; Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Krane hold no position in the trial, were never acknowledged as party experts by a court, so they could not be in a position of making a request to access records, nor of making requests of any kind.

Whether Dr. Krane doesn't feel he can decide if getting involved or not in the trial, it's his problem, not anyone else's problem. It works like that: wehn you are involved in a trial, you will be able to have some contact with judges, express some requests or submit requests, objections, reports, albeit this will only happen under the complete control of the defence team, with their consent or through them. First, you decide whether you want to work for a defence team. Then, you may have contacts, requests such accessing to records, observations, submissions. You do not review "evidence" and become an expert ex-post, especially when evidence is a judicial event called incidente probatorio.

The nature of relationships between Idaho experts and defence lawyers may only be that of a private nature. Private citizens may discuss with lawyers as other private citizens, by doing this they won't have a relation with trial events.
As for acccessing investigation activities and evidence findings such as DNA tests, those acknowledged as party experts by the judge may take part to all operations, just bear in mind that, under the incidente probatorio procedure, the activities directly accessible to defence experts were supposed to be closed by June 2008.
I suspect nobody here understands what incidente probatorio means, what kind of event that is.

Look, my words do not muddy the waters, on the contrary, they indeed clarify them. It should be clear in advance that Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Krane will never be in a position of "reviewing the whole case". By the way they are not judges, they don't have understanding of the procedure, and the trial is over. Then they will also never have access to "all the records", they were never in a position of accessing trial records or making requests and they never did. The documentation they wish to access apparently has never entered the trial phase, not even the preliminary stage. The actual defence experts (such as Prof. Potenza) did not demand nor wish to access such records during the time when they had full access within the adversarial investigation procedure called in incidente probatorio. The defence and their experts did not demand further laboratory data nor raised objections to judge Matteini or to judge Ricciarelli about the DNA tests. It is possible that the defence regrets all this (although I don't believe it) but the fact is the defence did not ask for the raw data not even later when they were before a preliminar judge (that is, Judge Micheli at the preliminary hearing). They did not requst such data not even in later submissions, not to the Supreme Court and not to the Appeal court. Maybe they decided very late that all this was regrettable (I don't believe this), yet they can't blame Sgtefanoni for this, they can't "use" their mistake as an argument against the accusation party, this won't be legally effective.

So such data that were not requested, not during the investigation while the incidente probatorio was open, not during the preliminary hearing stage, not during the trial stage until the moment of that confuse oral request about raw data that was made by only one lawer in an unclear fashion at the end of the 2009 trial, and never forwarded again (in any submission, not even in the defence submissions to the Supreme Court nor in the Perugian appeal). This is what you have in the records.
Other ways to 'word' things are just attampt to change the trial facts, and thus to muddy the waters.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's possible that Italy will wish to have a "friendly settlement" because its legal position in respect to the EConHR may be difficult. To accommodate friendly settlements, court information is kept confidential. It's a rule in an article of the EConHR. (...)

It's a fantasy. Italian law doesn't allow possibility of friendly settlement on a criminal trial. No Italian authority could have a mandate to negotiate on this. The only authority with powers in matter of judicial decisions in criminal law is the Supreme Court, and they are not going to negotiate. You may find more flexible negotiators in the ISIS.

 

[Machiavelli]

The result of Luca v. Italy was that Italy was compelled to change its constitution.

No, you are drawing improper inference. There is no causal link between ECHR decisions and changes to the art. 111. The art. 111 was changed - actually new paragraphs were written - as a Constitutional reform from an initiative by the Italian Parliament, a constitutional reform project that was based on fully domestic political reasons (and has an interesting story). Then some paragraphs of one article of the criminal procedure code, related to Const. art. 111, was changed by the Italian Constitutional Court, based right on the newly written art. 111.
The ECHR never compelled Italy, actually it would be impossible to compel a parliament to write a constitutional article. The Italian COnstitution was fully compatible with the Council of Europe both before and after the changes to art. 111, no art. 111 was ever "necessary" to the CoE. Even states that don't have a Constitution at all are considered entirely compatible with the charts.

I don't wish to undermine your hopes too bluntly, but you don't really expect the Council of Europe to decide on facts of a trial, to compel states, do you? Your analysis on all these themes seems to me really a bit far-fetched.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, you are drawing improper inference. There is no causal link between ECHR decisions and changes to the art. 111. The art. 111 was changed - actually new paragraphs were written - as a Constitutional reform from an initiative by the Italian Parliament, a constitutional reform project that was based on fully domestic political reasons (and has an interesting story). Then some paragraphs of one article of the criminal procedure code, related to Const. art. 111, was changed by the Italian Constitutional Court, based right on the newly written art. 111.
The ECHR never compelled Italy, actually it would be impossible to compel a parliament to write a constitutional article. The Italian COnstitution was fully compatible with the Council of Europe both before and after the changes to art. 111, no art. 111 was ever "necessary" to the CoE. Even states that don't have a Constitution at all are considered entirely compatible with the charts.

I don't wish to undermine your hopes too bluntly, but you don't really expect the Council of Europe to decide on facts of a trial, to compel states, do you? Your analysis on all these themes seems to me really a bit far-fetched.

I actually do expect that the ECHR will find that the calumnia conviction against Amanda Knox is invalid, because it was based on a violation of human rights. I don't think its a close call, I think its pretty obvious. And the reason the ECHR will make the finding, is because its true, but also because its the most famous example of a miscarriage of justice on the planet.

And, I agree with other posters who have said that once the case is formally accepted by ECHR, that will already be sufficient for the ISC to start looking for a graceful exit.

BUt Mach, I do wish you would answer Bill W's question on De Nunzio. The intrigue behind the trials is the part of the cases that I find most interesting. If you have some insight to share on the selection of Hellman, great. I don't believe for a minute that Hellman was plucked randomly. I believe he was chosen for a reason. We may disagree as to what that reason is, but I'm guessing we both think it wasn't a random choice.

 

[Bill Williams]

I actually do expect that the ECHR will find that the calumnia conviction against Amanda Knox is invalid, because it was based on a violation of human rights. I don't think its a close call, I think its pretty obvious. And the reason the ECHR will make the finding, is because its true, but also because its the most famous example of a miscarriage of justice on the planet.

And, I agree with other posters who have said that once the case is formally accepted by ECHR, that will already be sufficient for the ISC to start looking for a graceful exit.

BUt Mach, I do wish you would answer Bill W's question on De Nunzio. The intrigue behind the trials is the part of the cases that I find most interesting. If you have some insight to share on the selection of Hellman, great. I don't believe for a minute that Hellman was plucked randomly. I believe he was chosen for a reason. We may disagree as to what that reason is, but I'm guessing we both think it wasn't a random choice.

Not in a million years. Mach is not here for truth, he's here for advantage. He is a leading figure in the on-line Pro-guilt PR lobby.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - your postings here represent a virtual catalog of a Pro-guilt PR-lobby, known both by what you do address....

..... but most tellingly by what you don't address. In true PR-fashion you are attempting to control the message.

Case in point. You say that the ECHR is not a fact-finding court, but can only consider facts as ruled on by lower Italian courts.

Yet, Cassazione in Italy, itself in March 2013 ruled on the merits of facts as found by lower courts, and did this (unconstitutionally) to reverse a lower court's decision, by making judgement on facts as found.

It's false. The ruling is just in accord with all other rulings by the SC and was entirely predictable (in fact I did anticipate it). It is absolutely not unconstitutional. The SC annulls and changes courts decisions on points that have to do with the fact-finding of lower courts all the time. Recent laws have even be issued in order to facilitate and widen the access by the SC to the trial papers. It is just not true that the SC must not interfer at all with fact finding activity: they can touch all points that have to do with the legitimacy and quality of courts decisions, regardless if they also imply an interference with the fact finding by lower courts.
Th SC does not perform fact-finding, but this only means that they do not assess evidence directly, that is they don't hear witnesses themselves, dont investigate and don't come to verdicts. But they assess all the rest, they decide on other court's decisions on the level of their consistency.

For instance, both the Massei court in 2009 in convicting, and the Hellmann court in 2011 in acquitting rejected the notion that this was a crime spurred on by a sex-game gone wrong. Cassazione in 2013, reversed that and ordered the Florence court to assess that motive, even though BOTH prior fact-finding courts had rejected it.

This is false. There is an explicit mention of a sexual arousal shared by all three perpetrators both in Micheli's report and in the Massei report. On the other hand, not even prosecutor Crini and not even the Nencini report -as far as I remember - have the wording "sex game", actually Crini maintained that the sexual motive existed but played a minor part in the motive, the predominant and most 'aggressive' parts of the motive were non-sexual. The same apparently says Nencini: pointing out that the motive involves three people, and spans over a progressive series of actions, a development of events, therefore it is a mixed-up motive, it is to be interpred as a group dynamic.

Another case in point - after accusing Wladmir De Nunzio of being a criminal, you now will simply not talk about your knowledge of back-room intrigue in Perugia, which you once claimed perverted justice (from your point of view). You implicated De Nunzio in that perversion, now you will simply not address it.

Exactly. I do not address it. I adressed however several things related to this which are there for anyone to see, like Vecchiotti.

I take it, then, that this is a part of the PR lobby that you fear you can no longer control. But the telling tale of a PR-effort, is that you continually address some things, and simply not answer the question about other things.

I don't understand what exactly you are talking about. But I understand that this one is the last part of the post where you throw in some kind of 'suspicion' or allegation about the writer, or about this or that other side charachter or messenger, as in your style.

 

[carbonjam72]

What's up,
Happy Halloween!

Another personal story.
I got into a fist fight again, on a beach here in Los Angeles last month.
No biggie, kinda fun, but my bro, a fellow surfer, gay, who does not like to fight, who watched it start from a verbal incident into fists bein' thrown was shocked how easy it can happen with 2 strangers. I'm not, for I've been there before, it'll happen again someday. I'm sure the spectators in the fine dining establishment right above me on that early Sunday evening were kinda shocked. It was over quick, with no blood loss or no black eyes received on my part, hahaha...

I kinda know a little bit about street fighting.
I've had to go to Court for fighting on the beach before.
Maybe you'll dig what I'm gonna add to the conversation...

Do you know what it is that tells me that Meredith was restrained when attacked?

The lack of either of her hands being completely immersed in her own blood.

Only her left hand has some blood drops on it.
And those blood drops are a bit dried, not even really smeared at all,
which tells me that the duvet was placed over and on her quite some time after she died.


I don't think that I've ever seen anyone get hurt, in any serious manner, and not immediately put heir hands upon the wound. That throat wound on her neck was major damage, both of her hands and arms should have been covered in her own blood. But they are not. She was being restrained as she was being sexually assaulted. And then she was stabbed when something happened. Maybe someone pulled her hair, such as what is seen found on her bedroom floor and she screamed too loud or bit something that hurt immensely. And she was stabbed to silence her or stabbed in retaliation for fighting back. Her arms were still being held. There is not much blood on her arms or hands. Where's the blood?

My opinion only.
RW

RWV - I think you have to begin with the understanding that there was only one person in the room who killed Meredith.

One set of footprints, only one person associated with the physical and DNA evidence; Rudy Guede.

The lack of additional footprints or other evidence, makes it impossible that anyone else was there.

Meredith could have been mortally wounded and bleeding out, before she was released by Guede, and unable to reach for her wounds, or otherwise defend herself.

The crimes scene dictates what occurred. There was no second person present, that is plainly established by the lack of a second set of footprints in blood on the floor. You disagree?

 

[Machiavelli]

Actually, Massei ordered Stefanoni to produce everything. The prosecution violated the order.

No. First, Stefanoni produced everything. But this was interpreted as to produce everything that she handled, that is everything that was readable by a human and thus could be seen and be the record. The raw data produce a chart, charts are in identical copy and the charts were all given. I bet nobody thought about "giving" raw data files since such material is just machine data that is not readable itself, Stefanoni never looked at it directly, she worked with the charts. However, we come to the second point: yet there was another hearing after that, more than one, and there was a possibility to petition the SC and make further submissions; yet at that point there wasn't a defence complaint about mising raw data, there were defence complaints about incorrect documentation (not "missing" material, but documetation failures, like not all items had a SAL) on a series of other things, but not a request of raw data; but besides the fact that the existence of 'raw data' was never explained by the defence, then it wasn't Stefanoni who refused to turn over things or the prosecution (who were unaware themselves about the existence of raw data) who were violating an order, it was instead the judge who cut the request and decided that the matarial available to the defence to that point was enough.
The defence didn't submit an instance for a raw data request to any other court.

 

[Machiavelli]

We already know what's in it: she says that Italy violated her procedural rights under Art. 6, and coerced her. She also likely alleges a violation of Art. 3.

But this is not much information. Virtually every petition to the ECHR says that.

Of course she's keeping it secret. I'll bet the Italian supreme court would really like to know how it's going to turn out before they rule next year.

There is no point in keeping the submission secret, unless she fears about its weakness or falsehood. It may look weak or false if made public. The petition might be abusive (contain false claims) and some lawyer or person in the public may point it out, or might just be weak, not contain things that her PR and supporters public expect, or contain claims that the public would find weak.
On the other hand no way the Supreme Court will change Knox's verdict. There is 0.01% probability that they may do a change on Sollecito's verdict, but they won't change Nencini's verdict on Knox. This is certain from now, They are not going to be interesed in the ECHR at all (which btw is ruling about another charge, on which the Cassazione has ruled already and is now final). The SC deals with unfinished proceedings, the ECHR only deals with final decisions; the calunnia conviction is already final, the Cassazione won't change it, there can't be an interest for what the ECHR does.

 

[Desert Fox]

RWV - I think you have to begin with the understanding that there was only one person in the room who killed Meredith.

One set of footprints, only one person associated with the physical and DNA evidence; Rudy Guede.

The lack of additional footprints or other evidence, makes it impossible that anyone else was there.

Meredith could have been mortally wounded and bleeding out, before she was released by Guede, and unable to reach for her wounds, or otherwise defend herself.

The crimes scene dictates what occurred. There was no second person present, that is plainly established by the lack of a second set of footprints in blood on the floor. You disagree?

The size of the room also seems to preclude more than Meredeth and Guede being in the room. Granted, I think a simulation might have been useful for the defense but I doubt that there is any evidence which would persuade the pro guilt side.

 

[Bill Williams]

Another case in point - after accusing Wladmir De Nunzio of being a criminal, you now will simply not talk about your knowledge of back-room intrigue in Perugia, which you once claimed perverted justice (from your point of view). You implicated De Nunzio in that perversion, now you will simply not address it.

Exactly. I do not address it. I adressed however several things related to this which are there for anyone to see, like Vecchiotti.

In fact you DID address it. What I said is that it is NOW that you will not address it, just like your response above.

You implied De Nunzio engaged in criminal behaviour.

Well I have the following evidence:

1) the number and gravity of obvious violation of law and factual falsehoods/absurdities in Hellmann-Zanetti verdict and running of the trial, is too much beyond what you can expect a judge to get wrong in good faith; I had spotted the abomination and absurdity of the Hellmann-Zanetti motivation from the beginning.
2) Hellmann had no experience as a criminal judge; he used to be a nullity, and a civil judge in a minuscle venue, and had no reputation of respect or transparency;
3) Hellmann he was put in that role in sudden replacement of the true judge, Sergio Matteini Chiari, who was pushed away and forced to give up the role through a Machiavellian move by Wladimiro De Nunzio4) all indication point to the fact Hellmann is a Mason;
5) Hellmann is a very rich man who loves money, collects Ferraris and luxurious items, despite having the pay of a normal magistrate.
6) witnesses saw Vecchiotti and Conti in a chummy atitude with Dalla Vedova and Maori at at time before they issued their report
7) witnesses have spotted a number Knox-Solelcito of defence lawers in the ofices of Wladimiro De Nunzio before the beginning of the appeal trial8) Rocco Girlanda published a book and spoke publicly as if he knew in advance that Knox and Sollecito would be freed on appeal; Girlanda is a Mason and a key person in a US-Italy lobby, and politically linked to a number of people including Hellmann
9) witnesses reported about contacts betwen Vecchiotti and Conti and American defence consultants, and there were public admissions of them
10) there is another number of public admissions by American people involved, evidence about which I will remain silent;
11) the reputation of Conti and Vecchiotti from their prior history (as well as the complete lack of expertise of Conti on the filed); the tight links between Vecchiotti and some defence experts (who are also now indicted for corruption on other cases); the personal war already existing between Vecchiotti and Stefanoni;
12) a number of other elements: overall, the picture of manipulation of the trial was glaring and obvious on any aspect of the trial conduction.

I sincerely do not know if it is a matter of nuance of English that sometimes you, as a second language speaker, miss. I said that NOW you will not address it.

It is simply wrong that you have NEVER addressed it. When you did, you implied that De Nunzio was a criminal.

The question is for now - do you now think he's a criminal?

 

[Machiavelli]

Is it necessary to find, one way or the other, whether she was struck in order to determine whether she received a fair trial? She was a suspect (the ECHR will not be interested in your purely formal point that Mignini had yet to draw up the right papers, even if there something in it, which I doubt) in connection with an extremely serious crime. She was particularly vulnerable, not being a hardened criminal or an Italian speaker. The material obtained from her was unfairly used to prejudice public and judicial opinion and was was introduced to the Massei tribunal by way of those rules you consider paramount but which the ECHR may well regard as unfair. Nor will the court will derive any assistance from the records customarily found when the police interrogate a suspect because none exist.

I agree the European Court will not strive to work out what happened in the interrogation. It's hardly necessary anyway. The calunnia conviction must be annulled as being fatally and fundamentally tainted by irregularity and once that goes, the significant role played by that conviction on the murder conviction must, at the very least, call the latter into serious question too.

It is not a purely formal point. It is a very substantial point. Knox was not a suspect when she arrived at the police station on the evening ov Nov. 5, first because 'suspect' does not mean a subjective behavior such as the attiude of investigators towards a person, it means that incriminating evidence has already been collected and it is already usable against that person: this is what suspect means in the substance and from a procedure point of view. It does not mean that the police think you may have done something; second, because elements were pointing against Knox indicating that she was lying to the police and involved in covering up for the murderer, but there were no elements specifically indicating that she was also the murderer. The spirit of the law, even on a substantial level, is that investigators would use suspicious witnesses (like people covering - up) in order to lead them to find the perpetrator of the main crime.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Heh.

Nothing ever changes for the mini-me's of Italian "justice," does it? War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength...

But, for anyone who hasn't seen it and may be interested in factual information...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gMitBj7xeKaDJkNWEyTjZSVEE/view?usp=sharing

 

[Machiavelli]

In fact you DID address it. What I said is that it is NOW that you will not address it, just like your response above.

You implied De Nunzio engaged in criminal behaviour.

I sincerely do not know if it is a matter of nuance of English that sometimes you, as a second language speaker, miss. I said that NOW you will not address it.

It is simply wrong that you have NEVER addressed it. When you did, you implied that De Nunzio was a criminal.

I didn't use the word "never".

The question is for now - do you now think he's a criminal?

The question "for now"?
But the answer to this question about my opinion is: yes, I think so. I do suspect he is involved.
However you may not see this as a question "for now", this is also the opinion I gave before, and won't add to it; there is no point in asking me what I think about if I think De Nunzio was involved in something criminal, for a second time, since I it's an opinion I have already expressed. I will not go on talking about the topic in depth and won't add anything further to this, this is obviously what I mean when I say I won't address the topic.