Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

I'm certain from what I've read of this incident, that Amanda's memory of Patrick was an induced hallucination, or 'hypnotic suggestion, brought about by extreme exhaustion, physically and mentally threatening behavior, such as being struck twice in the head, being repeatedly yelled at as a liar, tag teamed by a dozen or more hostile interrogators, told there was contrary evidence so they know she's lying, and being threatened with 30 years in prison and never seeing her family again if she didn't tell the truth.

The suggestion that Amanda is responsible, or culpable for these words (in response to being shown Lumumba's text on her phone), which she did not write, but were provided by an interpreter who described herself as a mediator, and suggested that Amanda might be experiencing amnesia and gave a recount of her own experience of amnesia, just seems like blaming the victim.

It's pretty clear Amanda was mentally broken, as was Raf, and that this was exactly the police intention, both in the pre-planned overnight illegal unrecorded interrogations, and the solitary confinement isolation incarceration, denial of lawyers, and media assassination that accompanied their arrests and their first week of captivity (or kidnap-tivity).

Before asking the question of Amanda or Raf's responsibility, because Raf was also broken in the interrogations and also signed a police statement (saying Amanda had gone out), we should first ask what is the responsibility and role of the police is in these events.

I offer you all a practical experiment: Close your eyes, and ask yourself, what color do you see? Now close your eyes again, and rub your eyes (stimulating the neurons), and ask yourself what color you see? Now try to see a different color (choose one you want to see). Guess what, the color you see will change to the one you concentrate on wanting to see.
When Mignini questioned Amanda in December, 2007 at Amanda's request, he asked why she said she saw Patrick. And she said something like, "when I said it I thought it was true".
The spell of the interrogation took days if not weeks to wear off (IIRC from Amanda's book). Calling these statements "lies" is the vilest lie that can be told.
These were two innocent people kidnapped by corrupt monsters in the Italian police, framed by a madman spinning theories of satanic sex cults, who was under indictment for those very excesses in previous cases. Italy is a messed up country to empower a madman like Mignini, and be unable to reign him in without forfeiting the lives of innocent citizens to cover up his messes. This story was never about Amanda.
btw, I heard Patrick's bar was failing. Getting arrested and becoming a professional shill for the prosecution was the greatest business move Patrick ever made. "Amanda named him because he's black" Seriously? This is the guy who is intentionally repeating false statements about innocent people, knows its false, and accepts money for it. Not as bad as the paid witnesses Curatolo and Quintavale, but still a P.O.S. as far as being a human being.

The guilters who repeat these lies, utterly beneath contempt, IMhO.

The only parties guilty of pre-meditated crimes in this case, are Giuliano Mignini and the Italian police.

IMO this is a very good summary of some of the issues with the interrogation. Both Amanda and Raffaele were subjected to interrogation without lawyers and without notice that they have the right to remain silent. The police had an agenda and they pursued it, contrary to Italian laws, the Italian Constitution, and the ECHR, against two innocent and naive individuals.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It likely would have an effect on the ongoing judicial process. (which you feel would be wrong, correct? Because ECHR isn't supposed to do that). <Snip>

I doubt that it will happen as such a ruling would set a precedent for all member states, one has to look past Italy and consider all signatories to ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

What do you believe the implication would be to the March 2015 Italian Supreme Court third level trial if the ECHR decided the slander application was ruled as admissible, prior to the third level trial?

ETA: How could such a decision not have a direct impact on an uncompleted judicial process?

While some of the posters here believe that an admissibility decision would influence the CSC to find Amanda and Raffaele innocent or to order another second-level trial, I am not so sure that there would be any such influence.

While the Convention (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Right's (ECtHR's) case law based on the ECHR is by treaty supposed to serve as the ultimate minimum human rights law in the CoE countries, in some of these countries adherence to the ECHR and case law is dysfunctional. Italy is one of these countries, based upon the Knox-Sollecito trials. The Italian police and judiciary should be familiar with and compliant with the ECHR and case law. But that has not been true (with the partial exception of the Hellmann court).

The Italian CSC is likely to continue to look to its own domestic interests and continue to ignore the ECHR,IMO. Many judges in the Italian judicial system may view the ECHR as a foreign imposition that they are bravely resisting by following traditional Italian authoritarian and inquisitional methods as much as possible. I hope that I am proved wrong by the actual events.

 

[Numbers]

I doubt that it will happen as such a ruling would set a precedent for all member states, one has to look past Italy and consider all signatories to ECHR.

I don't understand your post. The ECHR, by treaty, stands as a kind of Constitution for the Council of Europe (CoE) countries for issues of human rights. The CoE states may have stronger human rights laws that the ECHR, but not weaker.

The ECHR comes with a Court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and an enforcement mechanism, the Committee of Ministers of the CoE, which acts as a (very weak) executive. The ECtHR interprets the ECHR, which is written in general terms, to provide more specific case law which sets precedent. This is similar to a US Supreme Court function. In the UK, the courts interpret Parliamentary laws to develop case law which sets precedent; of course, this is the common law system.

While in the ECHR - CoE system the states are intended to have first attempted to fully resolve any human rights issue before it comes to the ECtHR, the fact that one case is finalized while another, possibly related case is ungoing, will have no effect on the ECtHR going ahead with its process in addressing the issues concerning the finalized case.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding ECtHR admissibility criteria, there is a booklet, Practical guide on admissibility, 92 pages long, available online at:

http://www.dp-rs.si/fileadmin/dp.gov.si/pageuploads/RAZNO/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf

A short summary of reasons why applications are declared inadmissible:

1. Application is manifestly ill-founded (I think this means: the application doesn't clearly lay out a case. Comments, please.)

2. Domestic remedies (such as appeals courts) not exhausted by the applicant.

3. Application lodged more than 6 months after finalization by domestic court system (cannot be accepted according to ECHR provisions, except in unusual circumstances).

4. Application wants the ECtHR to quash, rehear, or revise decisions taken by domestic courts; this is not the ECtHR function - it only addresses violations of rights as set forth in the ECHR and the case law.

5. Application that is incompatible with the provisions of the ECHR and its protocols (=amendments).

6. Applicant did not suffer a significant disadvantage. (This seems subjective; an example is that if one is unfairly fined 90 EUR, this is not significant.)

 

[Dan O.]

What do you believe the implication would be to the March 2015 Italian Supreme Court third level trial if the ECHR decided the slander application was ruled as admissible, prior to the third level trial?

ETA: How could such a decision not have a direct impact on an uncompleted judicial process?

How is it that CoulsdonUK doesn't recognize that every affirmative ruling by the ECHR is a finding that the state judicial process failed and therefore is intended and even requires that the state alter their judicial process to address that failure. However, there is no mechanism for ECHR to directly affect the judicial processes of a member state. There is only the indirect path that the ECHR ruling may provide a wake up call and the courts under increased outside scrutiny may choose to start applying a little more rationality.

 

[Numbers]

How is it that CoulsdonUK doesn't recognize that every affirmative ruling by the ECHR is a finding that the state judicial process failed and therefore is intended and even requires that the state alter their judicial process to address that failure. However, there is no mechanism for ECHR to directly affect the judicial processes of a member state. There is only the indirect path that the ECHR ruling may provide a wake up call and the courts under increased outside scrutiny may choose to start applying a little more rationality.

The highlighted statements are partly correct. There is a kind of executive, called the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, that meets to enforce the decisions of the ECtHR including individual and general measures.

I'm not sure how they do the enforcement. I suspect they use double secret probation.

 

[Bill Williams]

It bears repeating, then.

Raffaele has never withdrawn himself as an alibi for Knox. Not through six months of solitary, not through three trials, nor through four years in prison.

He maintains it in his book, as well as at the news conference you refer to.

What he has said loud and clear in his latest appeal to Cassation is this: if someone is claiming that Amanda went out that night, what does that have to do with him?

This is not something aimed at Amanda, it's aimed at the illogic of the person making the claim.

To me, this specific issue is a rather good litmus test for any given pro-guilt commentator. After all, to believe that Sollecito is now stating that Knox went out that night (on the basis of the press conference where he used it as a hypothetical example to illustrate the illogicality of the case against him) is to be either a) lacking in intellectual horsepower or b) hopelessly blinkered with vindictive bias against Knox and Sollecito. Or both.

As such, it's quite useful as an aid to sorting the (hard to find) wheat from the (seemingly ubiquitous) chaff among pro-guilt commentators.......

Your (plural) confusion between RS's failure to provide AK with an alibi in a murder trial and a later post conviction press conference has some comedic value but it is getting in the way of what could be a breakthrough.

This bears bumping to the top, because these things have a way of being repeated as pro-guilt lobby memes, regardless of what has been posted since.

Suffice it to say, all three courts accept it as factual that it is Amanda's alibi, is what all three courts regard as essentially both their alibis. Two of these three courts are convicting courts.....

Add to this that Raffaele in his appeals document to Cassazione repeats his position on this: both he and Amanda were at the cottage all night. As he does in his book.

The only people in the world saying that Raffaele as "withdrawn his alibi for Knox," are out of step with the two courts they supposedly accept got it right - the Massei and Nencini courts.

This is baffling. Why does the pro-guilt lobby think they need to add "oomph" to the two convicting courts?

 

[Kauffer]

I doubt that it will happen as such a ruling would set a precedent for all member states, one has to look past Italy and consider all signatories to ECHR.

This isn't a question of precedent setting in so far as the court would take the decision to act by admitting the case. It is entitled to admit the case.

Some people seem to be under the impression that Ms Knox's chances at the ECHR are not good or perhaps 50/50 at best. I profoundly disagree. The court tries hard to demystify what the European Convention Human Rights is and what the court holds to be within the culture of abuse of human rights by contracting states. Look here:

“Certainly the primary purpose of Article 6 [of the Convention] as far as criminal matters are concerned is to ensure a fair trial by a tribunal competent to determine any criminal charge, but it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings.” (Imbriosca v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, § 36).
« n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 ... The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55)."

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf

And this is published as a fact sheet to help regular people without legal qualifications to understand these matters! Could it be any clearer? I doubt it.

It is simply not possible to filter this information in such a manner as to conclude that on the merits Ms Knox should not prevail. She must prevail! The law demands it.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding ECtHR admissibility criteria, there is a booklet, Practical guide on admissibility, 92 pages long, available online at:

http://www.dp-rs.si/fileadmin/dp.gov.si/pageuploads/RAZNO/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf

A short summary of reasons why applications are declared inadmissible:

1. Application is manifestly ill-founded (I think this means: the application doesn't clearly lay out a case. Comments, please.)

2. Domestic remedies (such as appeals courts) not exhausted by the applicant.

3. Application lodged more than 6 months after finalization by domestic court system (cannot be accepted according to ECHR provisions, except in unusual circumstances).

4. Application wants the ECtHR to quash, rehear, or revise decisions taken by domestic courts; this is not the ECtHR function - it only addresses violations of rights as set forth in the ECHR and the case law.

5. Application that is incompatible with the provisions of the ECHR and its protocols (=amendments).

6. Applicant did not suffer a significant disadvantage. (This seems subjective; an example is that if one is unfairly fined 90 EUR, this is not significant.)

There is a newer (2014) version of the Practical guide on admissibility criteria; it's a bit longer and has two ECtHR flow charts (the same charts can be found on other parts of the ECHR website):

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf

 

[Kauffer]

There is a newer (2014) version of the Practical guide on admissibility criteria; it's a bit longer and has two ECtHR flow charts (the same charts can be found on other parts of the ECHR website):

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf

Numbers, I wonder if in the course of your research you have tracked a decision of the court complete with monetary award if applicable, through the system in order to appreciate the practical realities of offending states complying with the decisions of the court? For example, when and how did the applicant receive his or her money, did he or she get a letter of apology? What else happened?

 

[Numbers]

If a government refuses or otherwise does not cooperate with providing documents to ECtHR that the Court has requested, the Court interprets that as violation of Article 38 of the ECHR and evidence in support of the applicant's allegations. Here is an excerpt from the Practical guide on admissibility:

55. ....A failure on a government’s part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (ibid., § 254; Imakayeva v. Russia, § 200; Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], § 202).

57. The Court has previously found that the respondent government failed to comply with the requirements of Article 38 in cases where they did not provide any explanation for the refusal to submit documents that had been requested (see, for example, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, §§ 128-29) or submitted an incomplete or distorted copy while refusing to produce the original document for the Court’s inspection (see, for example, Trubnikov v. Russia, §§ 50-57).

This could be significant in a case where evidence had been withheld by the police or prosecution in court and the ECtHR wished to examine it.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, I wonder if in the course of your research you have tracked a decision of the court complete with monetary award if applicable, through the system in order to appreciate the practical realities of offending states complying with the decisions of the court? For example, when and how did the applicant receive his or her money, did he or she get a letter of apology? What else happened?

Kauffer,

Your question is so good and profound that the answer would be as complex as the many different types of cases that flow through the ECtHR system. And of course, I have only looked at a very small fraction of them, mostly those that seemed to have some relevance to the Knox - Sollecito trials.

Here's some preliminary answers.

1. The money awarded is typically paid and on time, although some states fall behind and then pay the interest and principal. The Committee of Ministers (CoM) maintains a table showing the countries status regarding payments on its site.

The sums awarded are not at all large from my (American) perspective. Survivors of an unjustified death received just satisfaction of 65,000 EUR each, in one case I recall. The victim of an unfair trial may only receive about 10,000 EUR or less.

2. I'm not sure if the victim necessarily gets a letter of apology from the respondent state in the case of a violation. The state found in violation is supposed to acknowledge its violation, so perhaps that's how it's done.

3. Individual measures of redress vary, and the ECtHR may not indicate what the should be, since the redress is really the responsibility of the respondent violating state under the supervision of the CoM. Apparently, recently, the ECtHR has become more directive about what should be done. Typically, for unfair trials, a retrial conforming to ECHR and case law is suggested.

4. General measures are also the responsibility of the violating state under the supervision of the CoM. They can range from procedural reforms to changes in a countries constitution. They can include changes in the prisons to remedy overcrowding.

5. One of the most interesting cases is: Del Rio Prada v. Spain 42750/09 21/10/2013. The applicant, a woman convicted of terrorist activity including planting bombs and murder, was sentenced to a practical limit of 30 years (her "ideal?" sentences totaled 3000 years). Spanish prison procedures allowed her sentence to be reduced because she worked and went to school during her imprisonment. Before the date she would have been released (3 Jul 2008), a change in prison procedure was enacted, and applied to her retroactively. Thus nine years were added to her sentence. She lodged an application to ECtHR 3 Aug 2009, alleging her rights under Articles 5.1 and 7 were violated. The Spanish government was notified by ECtHR 19 Nov 2009. On 10 Jul 2012, a Chamber judgment ruled her application admissible and found violations of Articles 5.1 and 7. On 4 Oct 2012, the Spanish government asked for a referral to the Grand Chamber (GC). The GC ruled in the applicant's favor, agreeing with the Chamber judgment and ordering her immediate release from prison 21 Oct 2013. AFAIK, this case is the only one where an immediate release from prison has been ordered. I've included the dates to show that over 4 years were required to reach judgment.

 

[anglolawyer]

Numbers, what about a case where a successful appellant was released from prison? Got any of those?

 

[anglolawyer]

What is of note is above two English-blokes discussing this, still in 2014.

Of the many myths thrown out there to deflect attention from arguing the actual evidence, and constructing a timeline which makes sense of it.... was this business that it was only Americans arguing innocence.

And that went even farther, that to explain why Barbie Latza Nadeau, Andrea Vogt and others had so much trouble penetrating the American news market (which they didn't), was because there'd been a concerted PR battle initiated by the Knox family and implemented by Gogerty-Marriott of Seattle.

Fortunately people in England are discussing this in good faith as well.... no less that Michael Winterbottom makes a film about the UK tabloid media; and I am sure that one of the hate-sites will now claim to have the receipt from Gogerty-Marriott which paid off both Barbie Latza Nadeau and Winterbottom. Of course, it was the Masons who facilitated the arrangements.

All those guilter memes have gone by the boards these days, it seems. At least among people willing to take a look at what's what. It's good to see.

Bill

I have never remotely considered this case in US -v- Italy -v- UK terms. It always takes me aback when that meme comes up. I don't think all three countries are the quite same in the way they screw up legal processes, or deal with their screw ups, but Amanda and Meredith could have been Italian students and the whole thing could have played out the same way.

That said, there are some features of the Italian process that seem not only alien but fundamentally dysfunctional and it has been enlightening to learn about them in the course of discussion.

 

[Numbers]

Kauffer,

Your question is so good and profound that the answer would be as complex as the many different types of cases that flow through the ECtHR system. And of course, I have only looked at a very small fraction of them, mostly those that seemed to have some relevance to the Knox - Sollecito trials.

Here's some preliminary answers.

1. The money awarded is typically paid and on time, although some states fall behind and then pay the interest and principal. The Committee of Ministers (CoM) maintains a table showing the countries status regarding payments on its site.

The sums awarded are not at all large from my (American) perspective. Survivors of an unjustified death received just satisfaction of 65,000 EUR each, in one case I recall. The victim of an unfair trial may only receive about 10,000 EUR or less.

2. I'm not sure if the victim necessarily gets a letter of apology from the respondent state in the case of a violation. The state found in violation is supposed to acknowledge its violation, so perhaps that's how it's done.

3. Individual measures of redress vary, and the ECtHR may not indicate what the should be, since the redress is really the responsibility of the respondent violating state under the supervision of the CoM. Apparently, recently, the ECtHR has become more directive about what should be done. Typically, for unfair trials, a retrial conforming to ECHR and case law is suggested.

4. General measures are also the responsibility of the violating state under the supervision of the CoM. They can range from procedural reforms to changes in a countries constitution. They can include changes in the prisons to remedy overcrowding.

5. One of the most interesting cases is: Del Rio Prada v. Spain 42750/09 21/10/2013. The applicant, a woman convicted of terrorist activity including planting bombs and murder, was sentenced to a practical limit of 30 years (her "ideal?" sentences totaled 3000 years). Spanish prison procedures allowed her sentence to be reduced because she worked and went to school during her imprisonment. Before the date she would have been released (3 Jul 2008), a change in prison procedure was enacted, and applied to her retroactively. Thus nine years were added to her sentence. She lodged an application to ECtHR 3 Aug 2009, alleging her rights under Articles 5.1 and 7 were violated. The Spanish government was notified by ECtHR 19 Nov 2009. On 10 Jul 2012, a Chamber judgment ruled her application admissible and found violations of Articles 5.1 and 7. On 4 Oct 2012, the Spanish government asked for a referral to the Grand Chamber (GC). The GC ruled in the applicant's favor, agreeing with the Chamber judgment and ordering her immediate release from prison 21 Oct 2013. AFAIK, this case is the only one where an immediate release from prison has been ordered. I've included the dates to show that over 4 years were required to reach judgment.

Numbers, what about a case where a successful appellant was released from prison? Got any of those?

anglo,
See the Del Rio Prada v Spain case above. I think in other cases retrials were generally the redress (if any), but I speculate that in some of these cases there was none. For example, I don't know the actual redress for the case Luca v Italy. And there was a Dorigo v Italy discussed at IIP and here, and I've seen some references to it at Palomar (a journal relating to Italian law), but I think there may be more than one case with that title - I'm seeing a civil case in HUDOC but expecting a criminal one.

 

[Kauffer]

Damages

anglo,
See the Del Rio Prada v Spain case above. I think in other cases retrials were generally the redress (if any), but I speculate that in some of these cases there was none. For example, I don't know the actual redress for the case Luca v Italy. And there was a Dorigo v Italy discussed at IIP and here, and I've seen some references to it at Palomar (a journal relating to Italian law), but I think there may be more than one case with that title - I'm seeing a civil case in HUDOC but expecting a criminal one.

Let's say ISC throws out the case next year - what damages are Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito entitled to under Italian law for their four years incarceration? Of course, this might get rather complex in Ms Knox's case because of time served under the calunia charge, if, as we suspect the ECHR rules in her favour.

 

[Numbers]

Let's say ISC throws out the case next year - what damages are Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito entitled to under Italian law for their four years incarceration? Of course, this might get rather complex in Ms Knox's case because of time served under the calunia charge, if, as we suspect the ECHR rules in her favour.

If the CSC were to declare them innocent, then there would be, in all likelihood, no case for the ECtHR, unless perhaps one of excessive length.

The Italian Constitution has provisions, Articles 24 and 28, stating, respectively, "The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial errors" and "Officials of the State or public agencies shall be directly responsible under criminal, civil, and administrative law for acts committed in violation of rights. In such cases, civil liability shall extend to the State and to such public agency." I know nothing more in terms of CCP or what damages could be expected.

 

[Kauffer]

If the CSC were to declare them innocent, then there would be, in all likelihood, no case for the ECtHR, unless perhaps one of excessive length.

The Italian Constitution has provisions, Articles 24 and 28, stating, respectively, "The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial errors" and "Officials of the State or public agencies shall be directly responsible under criminal, civil, and administrative law for acts committed in violation of rights. In such cases, civil liability shall extend to the State and to such public agency." I know nothing more in terms of CCP or what damages could be expected.

Yes. The calunia case is of course finalised; the aggravation element is not. So calunia goes forward regardless. Actually, it's interesting, as you mention, that even if ISC throws it all out, there is still a possible further application to ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

See page 82 and following of the Practical Guidance on Admissibility for "Manifestly ill-founded" explained. Note that "4th-instance" means "appeal beyond the highest domestic court" which isn't what ECtHR does.

380. Manifestly ill-founded complaints can be divided into four categories: “fourth-instance” complaints, complaints where there has clearly or apparently been no violation, unsubstantiated complaints and, finally, confused or far-fetched complaints.