Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

They should have tested the evidence. That is what they are supposed to have been trained to do. But remember also that within a day and half, the DNA results from Ms Kercher's body revealed that it was not Lumumba or, for that matter, Mr Sollecito who raped Ms Kercher, yet the police continued to hold them. In front of Matteini, there was no evidence left against Lumumba and nothing against Mr Sollecito. Three weeks later, in front of Riccarelli, there was still nothing against Mr Sollecito. For both these hearings, there was nothing against Ms Knox other than her coerced statement of the 6th, which she started to question almost immediately and retracted completely a day later.

So three people were detained and defamed on the basis of no real evidence at all, just the malfeasance of an incompetent prosecutor and the gullibility of two incompetent judges.

If they only waited on the physical evidence, they would have tried only one person and been done with it. This farce for their own reputation would never have happened.

 

[Kauffer]

I think that the issue with the judges goes beyond gullibility. It may be more accurate to say that the judges were mere agents of the prosecution, that is, lacking in independence. It would be desirable for the ECtHR to censure that failure of independence on the part of the judges.

Well actually that is quite literally true. The judge is the one in charge of the investigation.

 

[Machiavelli]

You do realize that nothing she said during the time when she was denied counsel (3 days) is usable for the callunnia crusade?

You are free to believe all the things you make up, at your likes. But in the real world, there is absolutely no principle in law that would make these statements disappear from the evidence. Such behavior was a crime and such crime took place, records are usable as evidence in the charge of calunnia, we already talked about this. Everything from those 3 days is usable. But believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

 

[Numbers]

From:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_ECHR_lawyers_ENG.pdf

The European Court of Human Rights: Questions and Answers for Lawyers

38. What must a State do when the ECHR has found that one or more decisions of national courts or administrative acts violate the Convention?

Where a State’s administrative action or a decision of a domestic court continues to
violate an applicant’s Convention rights even after the ECHR’s judgment and the award of
compensation, the State must ensure the decision or action can be re-opened. Many States already have procedural rules for the re-opening of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings following an adverse judgment by the ECHR. When acts or decisions are re-opened all national courts and other authorities are required to abide by the Convention as interpreted by the ECHR. If the violation affects other cases, the State is required to take general measures to stop those violations, for example by changing domestic law (see question 33).

47. Can a State refuse to execute a judgment of the ECHR on the basis that, according to
the State’s highest court or constitutional court, no violation of national constitutional
law or the Convention exists?

A State is bound to abide by a judgment to which it is a party and so their supreme and
constitutional courts are bound by the ECHR’s interpretation of the Convention and findings as to a violation of the Convention. There are many States in which the human rights protection provided by the Convention goes beyond the protection provided by national constitutions.
If the ECHR or the supreme or constitutional courts of a State are of the opinion that the
State’s constitution violates the Convention (as interpreted by the ECHR), the national courts should first interpret the national constitution in accordance with the Convention. If and to the extent this is not possible, the State should amend its constitution to bring it in line with the Convention (as interpreted by the ECHR). This is the case even where a State’s national constitution has a higher rank in the State’s hierarchy of laws than the Convention (see also question 40).

 

[Diocletus]

You are free to believe all the things you make up, at your likes. But in the real world, there is absolutely no principle in law that would make these statements disappear from the evidence. Such behavior was a crime and such crime took place, records are usable as evidence in the charge of calunnia, we already talked about this. Everything from those 3 days is usable. But believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

OK. I choose to believe the written decisions of the ECtHR, because they make me feel better.

 

[Kauffer]

You are free to believe all the things you make up, at your likes. But in the real world, there is absolutely no principle in law that would make these statements disappear from the evidence. Such behavior was a crime and such crime took place, records are usable as evidence in the charge of calunnia, we already talked about this. Everything from those 3 days is usable. But believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

You have been given citation after citation demonstrating that everything from the interrogation is unusable. If the ECHR takes hold of this, the calunia will cease to exist. The reasoning of the trial court that convicted Ms Knox provides the proof of the unfairness under Article 6, of the whole trial. In other words, it will be decided that no crime was committed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Which is nothing but a way of failing to address the question regarding why Italian police believed (and continued to believe) those confused nonsensical statements Amanda Knox herself questioned once she had a chance to sleep and repudiated completely within a day.
Why is that? Why can't people who think they're guilty address that question? It's all kinds of idiotic to think Amanda Knox was the impetus behind those statements when it was the police who took her into a that room in the middle of the night and got confused nonsensical statements that they then pretended were actual evidence of Patrick's guilt and maintained that for two weeks.

It was the police's fault they believed Amanda?

Absolutely. Police disbelieve suspects all the time, and in 25% of cases where DNA evidence exonerates someone who "confessed", police SHOULD disbelieve....

Unless someone buckles and tells them what they already knew. In that case it is the "already knew" which was the problem and that belongs solely to the PLE.

 

[Numbers]

You are free to believe all the things you make up, at your likes. But in the real world, there is absolutely no principle in law that would make these statements disappear from the evidence. Such behavior was a crime and such crime took place, records are usable as evidence in the charge of calunnia, we already talked about this. Everything from those 3 days is usable. But believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

Mach,
To help you and others not familiar with some of the fine points of the ECHR, I posted here some quotes from The European Court of Human Rights: Questions and Answers for Lawyers.

So believe what you wish.

However, the ECHR case law is clear. Incriminating statements made by a person in custody who does not have the counsel of an attorney may not be used to convict that person.

The ECHR will have the final say in this matter, and Italy must conform to the solemn obligations it agreed to in the Convention treaty. In fact, Italy should have been diligent to apply the Convention to this case from its beginning as it is obligated to for all other cases. The significance that Italy has not done so is a fact that the citizens of Italy and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe must judge.

ETA: See post 3924 for the quotes from the ECHR Q&A for Lawyers.

 

[Bill Williams]

Being represented means to be present at all hearings with the prerogatives of a party. Which includes to cross question witnesses. Which in fact they did.

Why the hell would they be represented in a trial of a nother person?

Machiavelli is lying.

Either that or we're going to get one of those legendary parsing of the meaning of "present", "cross question", and "did."

 

[Bill Williams]

All of this becomes especially clear when reading all of the trial transcripts of those who were there that night. Even the line of questioning by the defense.

There was no coercion, no false memory syndrome.

That's strange - experts in the field differ with you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Chose a term of your like.
But "innocentisti" seems a bit generic and incorrect to me (since it‘s really about believers in a conspiracy theory with variouus "culprits").

The conspiracy theory is one that imagines a conspiracy between Guede, Knox and Sollecito, with no evidence to support it.

The conspiracy theory is when someone imagines that Judge Hellmann was paid off to deliver the innocent verdict, and that you know how much the Masons paid him.

A conspiracy theory is when someone believes that De Nunzio, president of the Perugia Appeals Court, is a criminal for substituting Hellmann for a judge who instead went off to head the juvenile division.

A conspiracy theory is someone who attends/speaks at a Satanism and the law conference.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the fast-track trial concept needs a rethink

You cannot expect the defendant (Guede) to be able to determine the rights of third parties (Knox and Sollecito) in their own trial.

This. I am not a lawyer, and I am confident that there is a better way to express the following idea: It is Guede's choice to go with the fast-track option for himself, which (as I understand it) gives the defendant little or no influence over the evidence that is presented. What the Italian system has done in effect* is to make Guede's choice binding on Knox and Sollecito. There is a simple fix in theory, which is to exclude the information from a fast-track trial from a full trial. I am not holding my breath waiting for this reform to happen.
*by making findings from his trial have any bearing on Knox and Sollecito's trial. The whole thing sounds like playing a game of chance with loaded dice. It has the appearance of a actual game, and the participants are held responsible for the outcome, but it isn't real.

 

[Desert Fox]

This. I am not a lawyer, and I am confident that there is a better way to express the following idea: It is Guede's choice to go with the fast-track option for himself, which (as I understand it) gives the defendant little or no influence over the evidence that is presented. What the Italian system has done in effect* is to make Guede's choice binding on Knox and Sollecito. There is a simple fix in theory, which is to exclude the information from a fast-track trial from a full trial. I am not holding my breath waiting for this reform to happen.
*by making findings from his trial have any bearing on Knox and Sollecito's trial. The whole thing sounds like playing a game of chance with loaded dice. It has the appearance of a actual game, and the participants are held responsible for the outcome, but it isn't real.

Do any other European nations have the equivalent of "Fast Track Trials" and how do they treat them? I assume that the findings just simply cannot be used in the trial of other defendants.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have been given citation after citation demonstrating that everything from the interrogation is unusable. If the ECHR takes hold of this, the calunia will cease to exist. The reasoning of the trial court that convicted Ms Knox provides the proof of the unfairness under Article 6, of the whole trial. In other words, it will be decided that no crime was committed.

Those citations are all off-topic and simply do not support any theory about making the crime of calunnia disappear. By if you don't want to see that it's up to you. You even started the discussion speaking about "self-incriminating statements" and about the substantial status of "suspect" without a lawyer (something that has nothing to do with calunnia); then we had unsupported and illogical claims that Donnino was "unfair"; then we had also claims that the statements were coerced (and there is no claim of lying under coercion in the trial); now you try again with claims that statements are "inadmissible" (there is no basis for this, neither in procrdure law nor in HR legislation). We have everything and more. You may go on possibly forever, and I can only note that all these arguments are unattached to reality and incoherent. Calunnia is like stabbing someone (actually it's much more serious by the code, since simply stabbing would be punished between three months and three years imprisonment). You cannot stab someone, you can't blame someone of incitement, and points of law, usability or respect of procedure don't affect this basic point of facts.

 

[Kauffer]

Those citations are all off-topic and simply do not support any theory about making the crime of calunnia disappear. By if you don't want to see that it's up to you. You even started the discussion speaking about "self-incriminating statements" and about the substantial status of "suspect" without a lawyer (something that has nothing to do with calunnia); then we had unsupported and illogical claims that Donnino was "unfair"; then we had also claims that the statements were coerced (and there is no claim of lying under coercion in the trial); now you try again with claims that statements are "inadmissible" (there is no basis for this, neither in procrdure law nor in HR legislation). We have everything and more. You may go on possibly forever, and I can only note that all these arguments are unattached to reality and incoherent. Calunnia is like stabbing someone (actually it's much more serious by the code, since simply stabbing would be punished between three months and three years imprisonment). You cannot stab someone, you can't blame someone of incitement, and points of law, usability or respect of procedure don't affect this basic point of facts.

You are so very wrong in your analysis. Ms Knox was a suspect in a murder investigation and had no lawyer. This means that her statement with regard to the calunia wil be deemed involuntary since it was linked as the fruit of an illegal interrogation, coerced or incited by the police by virtue of the fact she had no legal representation and there was no good reason to deny her that right.

You seem to be of the opinion that Ms Knox simply skipped into the questura, pulled the busy police officers away from more pressing duties and before they could stop her and advise her of her rights she blurted out an unrestrained and voluntary confession in the course of which she deliberately and knowingly fitted up Mr Lumumba. We both know it didn't happen like that, don't we?

 

[Diocletus]

Calunnia is like stabbing someone (actually it's much more serious by the code, since simply stabbing would be punished between three months and three years imprisonment). You cannot stab someone, you can't blame someone of incitement, and points of law, usability or respect of procedure don't affect this basic point of facts.

Your analogy fails.

The ECHR has a right to remain silent, but it does not have a right not to stab. If the police fail to provide the assistance of counsel, and you make statements, this is a violation of your ECHR right to remain silent. If the police fail to provide the assistance of counsel, and you stab someone, then your right to remain silent is not violated, nor any other treaty right.

The callunnia is a direct result of the Italian authorities' violation of Knox's right to remain silent.

 

[Numbers]

Those citations are all off-topic and simply do not support any theory about making the crime of calunnia disappear. By if you don't want to see that it's up to you. You even started the discussion speaking about "self-incriminating statements" and about the substantial status of "suspect" without a lawyer (something that has nothing to do with calunnia); then we had unsupported and illogical claims that Donnino was "unfair"; then we had also claims that the statements were coerced (and there is no claim of lying under coercion in the trial); now you try again with claims that statements are "inadmissible" (there is no basis for this, neither in procrdure law nor in HR legislation). We have everything and more. You may go on possibly forever, and I can only note that all these arguments are unattached to reality and incoherent. Calunnia is like stabbing someone (actually it's much more serious by the code, since simply stabbing would be punished between three months and three years imprisonment). You cannot stab someone, you can't blame someone of incitement, and points of law, usability or respect of procedure don't affect this basic point of facts.

Mach,
You don't have to accept the reality of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the European Court of Human Rights, but the Italian Republic, and through it, the State agents, must accept it, as long as Italy is a signatory nation.

Perhaps Italy should withdraw from the ECHR, as it did before World War II from the League of Nations, in order to pursue its own vision of Italian supremacy, and defy what the Fascists called the Plutocracies (that is, the western democracies).

 

[carbonjam72]

They were represented full stop. There is no "why". Actually Guede's trial was Knox and Sollecito's preliminary hearing.

Did Rudy Guede's trial before judge MIcheli, did Guede's defense and the prosecution make any stipulations, like for example, "the break-in had been staged", or "There were others at the scene"?

If so, did Amanda and Raf's lawyers have a full chance to dispute any such stipulations?

 

[carbonjam72]

But the same court who reports the defence theory also concluded that Knox committed the calunnia out of her own will and maliciously.
However the Cassazione rejected the theory about the motive for Knox's calunnia. They accepted the conclusion of guilt, but not the scenario.

Mach, can you explain what scenario Cassazione accepted? Is it written in the opinion somewhere?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,
You don't have to accept the reality of the European Convention of Human Rights and of the European Court of Human Rights, but the Italian Republic, and through it, the State agents, must accept it, as long as Italy is a signatory nation.

Perhaps Italy should withdraw from the ECHR, as it did before World War II from the League of Nations, in order to pursue its own vision of Italian supremacy, and defy what the Fascists called the Plutocracies (that is, the western democracies).

Maybe it's not clear enough, or you love to fall in love with straw men. I accept the ECHR fully; but even your own quotes only confirm the point that actually I have been showing: that it is the ECHR that is not going to accept your interpretation.
No argument was brought here that could challenge the calunnia conviction at the ECHR. Actually, not even an admissible argument was addressed.