Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

(...)
In any case, I don't have to guess your theory about the luminol, because you have explained in the past, albeit broadly, what you think happened:

You think Amanda and Raffaele were sliding around on towels after the murder, in the corridor and in Filomena's room. They did this so as not to leave any footprints or evidence while they went about their staging activity, but now and then they stepped off their towels, and that is how the footprints were produced. The luminol reactions in Filomena's room, although not having any defined shape, were also somehow produced by this activity.

That is your theory, is it not?

Yes, correct.
However I am not sure whether exactly it was towels, or if it was just the bathmat. I feel rather certain they used the bathmat. I don't know if they also used the towels for the purpose of walking in the corridoor.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is that the best you can do? Tell everyone to leave? How about reform? I suppose it's very difficult in a country with outdated criminal defamation laws. Everyone's frightened to tell the truth in case someone tries to put them in prison for it.

It's false. The problem is that this is your view of it. Italy is a democratic country and laws are voted by a parliament. There are also people's referenda by which citizens can directly vote or abrogate laws.
It is not true that everyone is "frigtened to tell the truth". It is your projection, or your fantasy about it.
However, I don't dispute it: if it's your fantasy, than don't come to be a resident here.
I am not saying people should leave: citizens have already voted their laws here and if they have them so, it basically suggests they currently want them so, or at least not too different from that. I am saying to those who don't like the laws or those who have strange fears and fantasies about that, just don't come, don't become a resident here.

By the way, did you confirm what I told you about Ricciarelli after you denied it? That he said about Guede breaking in to Ms Romanelli's room: "its a feat even spider-man would have trouble pulling off"?

Look, I found it an interesting quote, I wish I could confirm or deny but I cannot, I don't know what Ricciarelli said on the point. I would like to read his report. I never read any Italian press source reporting this "spiderman line".

 

[Kauffer]

Defamation in italy

It's false. The problem is that this is your view of it. Italy is a democratic country and laws are voted by a parliament. There are also people's referenda by which citizens can directly vote or abrogate laws.
It is not true that everyone is "frigtened to tell the truth". It is your projection, or your fantasy about it.
However, I don't dispute it: if it's your fantasy, than don't come to be a resident here.
I am not saying people should leave: citizens have already voted their laws here and if they have them so, it basically suggests they currently want them so, or at least not too different from that. I am saying to those who don't like the laws or those who have strange fears and fantasies about that, just don't come, don't become a resident here.

No it's not just my view of it. Open your eyes:

"The current legal framework criminalising defamation has led to Italy losing court cases in international tribunals and receiving repeated criticism, especially because of prison sentences handed down to journalists. Already in 1984, this anomaly was exposed by the Italian Court of Cassation. Since then, Italy has been regularly condemned by the Strasbourg Court for violating the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights because of disproportionate criminal sanctions in defamation cases."

http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/defamation-in-italy-a-draft-law-to-be-changed

 

[Machiavelli]

No it's not just my view of it. Open your eyes:

"The current legal framework criminalising defamation has led to Italy losing court cases in international tribunals and receiving repeated criticism, especially because of prison sentences handed down to journalists. Already in 1984, this anomaly was exposed by the Italian Court of Cassation. Since then, Italy has been regularly condemned by the Strasbourg Court for violating the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights because of disproportionate criminal sanctions in defamation cases."

http://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/defamation-in-italy-a-draft-law-to-be-changed

But please. It's you. This is the belief of the people of this forum.
I perfectly know the public discussion about criminal defamation laws. I live here! And there are actually no disproportionate criminal sanctions.
It's your spin, that is about Strasbourg, about everything, you are doing this without having any direct knowledge of what you talk about and you are spinning the meaning of things (ie: "defamation" becomes "telling the truth").
Not only this, but you also seem to not know anything about what the Italian people actually fear about their justice system.
The criminal aspect of defamation laws for example is absolutely not among the major concerns of any citizen, the criminal aspect of law in general I'd say and also for what relates to defamation. Civil actions are worrying to the average citizen and are also feared by journalists, it's absolutely not criminal defamation laws that worries them.

 

[Kauffer]

Ricciarelli

Look, I found it an interesting quote, I wish I could confirm or deny but I cannot, I don't know what Ricciarelli said on the point. I would like to read his report. I never read any Italian press source reporting this "spiderman line".

Follain has it as well on p31 of his book. It happened. Of course the silly judge could have got out of his chair and checked, but oh no, he just believed what the prosecution was telling him and put his own spin on it. He said some other very silly things too. These pre-trial judges were utterly useless, condemning Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito to detention, solitary confinement and trial based on nonsense, hearsay and fiction. Shameful!

 

[Machiavelli]

Follain has it as well on p31 of his book. It happened. Of course the silly judge could have got out of his chair and checked, but oh no, he just believed what the prosecution was telling him and put his own spin on it. He said some other very silly things too. These pre-trial judges were utterly useless, condemning Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito to detention, solitary confinement and trial based on nonsense, hearsay and fiction. Shameful!

But why do you state this?
What is your basis for that?
Judge Ricciarelli - as for what the Italian news reported - ruled for cautionary measures against Knox and Sollecito primarily because of the autopsy report, because of the lies and story changings of Sollecito, because of the lies and the calunnia from Knox, because of the double-DNA kitchen knife, because of the bra clasp, because of the luminol prints, because of the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, because of false computer record alibi, because of evidence of staged burglary.
The three first items would be enough for inprisonment.
Where do you get "hearsay", "nonsense" and "fiction" from?

 

[Machiavelli]

Everyone who knows Europe a bit knows that criminal defamation laws in Germany are harsher than in Italy.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/germany-defamation-laws/

http://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_public_interest_german.html#.VF7DLMkfvgk

Germany
In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. Germany is a leader in Europe in enforcement of its defamation law, and lawsuits are increasing. The relevant sections of Germany's law are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (Denigration of a deceased person), §190 (Defamation by means of a non-proven criminal conviction), §192 ("insult" with true statements), §193 (Claim to defamation by rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Cases of exchange of verbal abuse), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/12227-defamation-slander-libel.html

And as for the rest of the UE:

Nearly all EU member states still have not repealed criminal sanctions for defamation – with only Croatia,[1] Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the UK[2] having done so.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/eus-commitments-free-expression-libel-privacy/

 

[Kauffer]

Italian human rights

But please. It's you. This is the belief of the people of this forum.
I perfectly know the public discussion about criminal defamation laws. I live here! And there are actually no disproportionate criminal sanctions.
It's your spin, that is about Strasbourg, about everything, you are doing this without having any direct knowledge of what you talk about and you are spinning the meaning of things (ie: "defamation" becomes "telling the truth").
Not only this, but you also seem to not know anything about what the Italian people actually fear about their justice system.
The criminal aspect of defamation laws for example is absolutely not among the major concerns of any citizen, the criminal aspect of law in general I'd say and also for what relates to defamation. Civil actions are worrying to the average citizen and are also feared by journalists, it's absolutely not criminal defamation laws that worries them.

It's not me making this up you know! This is the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the OSCE calling Italy out for it's dreadful record. First you deny the evidence exists and then when it's shown to you you complain! Remarkable! Your press operates within a climate of fear. Separately, a defendant in a criminal trial, abused by the police cannot talk about the abuse or she will get sued by them; lawyers must be careful what they say in defending their clients; witnesses threatened on the stand with recriminations.

 

[Dan O.]

...
I will have to point out that: the theory of a post-mortem rape is contradicted by the evidence.

This is funny considering that it was Machiavelli's denial that pushes the post mortem rape in order that theory will account for the evidence. Then he goes on and on rallying against his own straw man instead of just accepting the simple explanation.

 

[Kauffer]

Ricciarelli's fiction

But why do you state this?
What is your basis for that?
Judge Ricciarelli - as for what the Italian news reported - ruled for cautionary measures against Knox and Sollecito primarily because of the autopsy report, because of the lies and story changings of Sollecito, because of the lies and the calunnia from Knox, because of the double-DNA kitchen knife, because of the bra clasp, because of the luminol prints, because of the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, because of false computer record alibi, because of evidence of staged burglary.
The three first items would be enough for inprisonment.
Where do you get "hearsay", "nonsense" and "fiction" from?

"Corriere della Sera reported the judge as saying that Knox has a "high, we could say fatal, capacity for aggression."

"(Knox) has a disposition to follow whatever drive she has, even when they can end up in violent and uncontrollable acts," the ruling said, according to the paper."

He just made it up - no evidence whatsoever. There's more:

"According to the newspaper, the ruling said the lack of evidence of a break-in "proves that the killer did not have to exercise any type of violence in order to enter the house, having used the keys or having been allowed in by the victim herself.""

All made up. The only reason anyone could say there was no evidence of a break-in, was because the police didn't look for any.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/05/italy.student.murder/index.html

 

[Kauffer]

Criminal defamation

Everyone who knows Europe a bit knows that criminal defamation laws in Germany are harsher than in Italy.

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/germany-defamation-laws/

http://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_public_interest_german.html#.VF7DLMkfvgk




http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/12227-defamation-slander-libel.html

And as for the rest of the UE:



http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/eus-commitments-free-expression-libel-privacy/

I'm confused. Are you defending criminal defamation laws or are you saying that Italy is just as bad as some of the others?

 

[Machiavelli]

It's not me making this up you know! This is the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the OSCE calling Italy out for it's dreadful record. First you deny the evidence exists and then when it's shown to you you complain! Remarkable! Your press operates within a climate of fear. Separately, a defendant in a criminal trial, abused by the police cannot talk about the abuse or she will get sued by them; lawyers must be careful what they say in defending their clients; witnesses threatened on the stand with recriminations.

But it's not comparative! You pick up a petition from a political cource which is only about Italy.
But in fact defamation laws are enforced throughout the whole Europe. In the UK they are not enforced by the criminal system but they are harsher and more chilling than the Italian ones.

From the quoted link:

(...)The burden of proof is primarily on the claimant in many European jurisdictions including Germany, Italy and France, whereas in the UK and Ireland, the burden is more significantly on the defendant, who is required to prove they have not libelled the claimant.(...)

See the details of legal provisions that can chill freedom of speech?

and:

(...)Excessive costs and damages in civil defamation and privacy actions is known to chill free expression, as authors fear ruinous litigation, as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in MGM vs UK.[5] In 2008, Oxford University found huge variants in the costs of defamation actions across the EU, from around €600 (constituting both claimants’ and defendants’ costs) in Cyprus and Bulgaria to in excess of €1,000,000 in Ireland and the UK.(...)

I have linked sites showing a glance of the wide and harsh system of criminal defamation provided in the German penal code.

There is instead a difference between Italy and Germany on one side and other states on another, here:

Italy and Germany’s codes provide for responsible journalism defences instead of using a general public interest defence. In contrast, the UK recently introduced a public interest defence that covers journalists, as well as all organisations or individuals that undertake public interest publications, including academics, NGOs, consumer protection groups and bloggers.

and:

(...) some European Union member states offer protection for the private lives of politicians and the powerful, even when publication is in the public interest, in particular in France, Italy and Germany. (...) In Slovakia, courts also have a narrow interpretation of the public interest defence with regard to privacy. In February 2012, a District Court in Bratislava prohibited the distribution or publication of a book alleging corrupt links between Slovak politicians and the Penta financial group.

But there are other jurisdictions that more actively protect politicians:

(...)Many EU member states have tougher sanctions for criminal libel against politicians than ordinary citizens, even though the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Lingens v. Austria (1986) that: “The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual.”(...)

Austria is criticized by the CoE for protecting politicians. And there are states where even "insults" are punished and "criticism" limited on a broader scale:

(...) Of particular concern is the fact that insult laws remain in place in many EU member states and are enforced – particularly in Poland, Spain, and Greece – even though convictions are regularly overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. Insult to national symbols is also criminalised in Austria, Germany and Poland. Austria has the EU’s strictest laws in this regard, with the penal code criminalising the disparagement of the state and its symbols[4] if malicious insult is perceived by a broad section of the republic. This section of the code also covers the flag and the federal anthem of the state. In November 2013, Spain’s parliament passed draft legislation permitting fines of up to €30,000 for “insulting” the country’s flag. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, criticised the proposals stating they were of “serious concern”.(...)

The problem is your lack of a comparative perspective.

 

[Machiavelli]

"Corriere della Sera reported the judge as saying that Knox has a "high, we could say fatal, capacity for aggression."

"(Knox) has a disposition to follow whatever drive she has, even when they can end up in violent and uncontrollable acts," the ruling said, according to the paper."

He just made it up - no evidence whatsoever. There's more:

"According to the newspaper, the ruling said the lack of evidence of a break-in "proves that the killer did not have to exercise any type of violence in order to enter the house, having used the keys or having been allowed in by the victim herself.""

All made up. The only reason anyone could say there was no evidence of a break-in, was because the police didn't look for any.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/05/italy.student.murder/index.html

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;

all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

 

[MDDVS]

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;

all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

What?

 

[Numbers]

Don't be a liar. Now acknowledge Italy's human rights records at the ECHR is just similar to several Western European states. If Italy's record is miserable, than Switzerland's or Austra's records are miserable too.

Mach,

Would you please comment on the following regarding Italy's human rights record. Based on the quantitative just compensation data available (shown below), Italy would seem the worst offender in Europe.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe publishes an annual report, the 2013 report is at:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Source/Publications/CM_annreport2013_en.pdf

On pages 56-57 of this report is a Table C.3.b showing just compensation by country for the years 2012 and 2013. Just compensation is the amount awarded by the European Court of Human Rights to individuals whose rights have been violated by a state that is a member of the CoE. The CoM is the organization that enforces the judgments of the ECtHR, thus it tracks the just compensation payments.

Here is some of the data extracted from Table C.3.b (Amounts in Euros):

Year____________2012__________________2013

Total________176,798,888______________135,420,274

Italy________119,558,467_______________71,284,302 Italy_____________67.6%___________________52.6%
Turkey_______23,424,794________________8,232,823

Turkey___________13.3%_____________________6.1%

Ukraine_______1,699,753_______________32,967,437

Ukraine___________1.0%_____________________24.3%

France________7,667,647________________4,444,114

France____________4.3%______________________3.3%

Russia________7,150,521________________4,089,564

Russia_____________4.0%_____________________3.0%

ETA: Thanks to european neighbour at IIP for pointing out this CoE report with this just compensation data.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

Would you please comment on the following regarding Italy's human rights record. Based on the quantitative just compensation data available (shown below), Italy would seem the worst offender in Europe.

(...)

ETA: Thanks to european neighbour at IIP for pointing out this CoE report with this just compensation data.

The quantitative compensation is the expression of the true deficiency of the Italian system, its major problem, which is failure to protect property. This is the real inefficiency of the Italian system, and it has to do tith the Civil Court's system. The excessive lenght of civil litigations is tightly knit with the failure to factually protect the rights of those who claimants have suffered a monetary damage and rightfully complain. Claiming remedy to a wrongful monetary loss may become a nightmare. Too long procedings itself causes a damage, and also may cause a subsequent impossibility to pursue the monetary remedy causing a subsequent damage.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are the one who seems to be saying that you have to be careful about stating items that are objectionable to the government especially the judiciary. I can tell Obama and Scalia to suck eggs and there is nothing they can do about it.

I too can. The government and the judiciary are not a problem. But insulting Obama and Scalia or anyone would not be defamation; criticism or expressing opinion and defamation are two different things. I am against defamation and I am for the protection of investigation secrets.

 

[Diocletus]

The quantitative compensation is the expression of the true deficiency of the Italian system, its major problem, which is failure to protect property. This is the real inefficiency of the Italian system, and it has to do tith the Civil Court's system. The excessive lenght of civil litigations is tightly knit with the failure to factually protect the rights of those who claimants have suffered a monetary damage and rightfully complain. Claiming remedy to a wrongful monetary loss may become a nightmare. Too long procedings itself causes a damage, and also may cause a subsequent impossibility to pursue the monetary remedy causing a subsequent damage.

The civil system must REALLY suck given the fact that a criminal trial takes the better part of a decade. No wonder all the civil claimants glommed on to Knox's criminal trial.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is funny considering that it was Machiavelli's denial that pushes the post mortem rape in order that theory will account for the evidence. Then he goes on and on rallying against his own straw man instead of just accepting the simple explanation.

Well, Diocletus locates the rape at 9:11, while places the stepping on the pillow at 9:08 and then - leaving really little time to poor exhaused Rudy - he makes him pick up the pillow and place it under Meredith's body at 9.09.
Then he only gives Rudy 2 minutes for washing himself in the bathroom.
Really in a rush.
But this means anyway that at 9:08, when he steps on a blood pool and then on the pillow, Meredith had been already stabbed to death.

So if Guede starts the process of washing himself and committing a rape later than theat moment, since 9:08 is later than the stabbing that lead to her death, we will consider this a post-mortem rape scenario.
We are talking about minutes after he had been stabbed to death. She dies of blood loss and haemorragic suffocation within minutes. If this is the scenario, besides being an improbable one and picked wihout a proof, this scenario is contrary to the evidence.

 

[Numbers]

I too can. The government and the judiciary are not a problem. But insulting Obama and Scalia or anyone would not be defamation; criticism or expressing opinion and defamation are two different things. I am against defamation and I am for the protection of investigation secrets.

My impression is that in Italy and some of the other European countries, criticizing a public official - the performance of that official - or stating that the official has committed misconduct or a crime - is considered defamation and may be punished by civil and/or criminal legal action.

In the US, all criticisms of public officials are not subject to criminal penalty. (Of course, one may not disrespectfully criticize a judge in his or her courtroom; contempt of court is punishable.) Criticisms that defame - for example, accusations of misconduct or crime - may constitute libel, and be subject to civil lawsuit by the allegedly injured party. But to defend against libel, one only has to show that the allegedly libelous statements are true. And for a public official to win a libel suit, he or she must show that the statement is both false and of malicious intent.

So from an American perspective, freedom of speech is severely limited in some European countries.