Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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

The Cassazione only made clear that the calunnia committed by Knox is not something that took place within an interrogation, but it was a protracted behaviour. It also pointed out that her behaviour was certainly malicious, and was carried out while there was no possibility of external incitement.

 

[carbonjam72]

Mignini and Carlizzi, so crazy together...

Carlizzi has nothing to do with the police, nor with the prosecution, but in Spezi/Preston's fiction books.

Spezi and Preston wrote that Carlizzi first approached them with her "Illuminations" from the dead vatican priest and exorcist Father Gabriel in 2002, alleging the drowning death of Dr Narducci in 1985 was the work of the 'satanic sect' responsible for the Monster of Florence crimes.

Mignini believed that Narducci was killed because of his involvement with the sect and the remorse he felt over his participation, and wanted to confess his crimes. And then, the satanic sect killed him to shut him up, and make it look like an accident. And, the sect switched the buried corpse to hide the crime.

We should note how all Mignini's theories involve defendants wanting to confess their crimes and unburden themselves, he claimed the same thing for Amanda. (Maybe her relief was just getting out of the brutal interrogation).

After Spezi and preston declined Carlizzi's help, she turned to Mignini, who of course for whatever reason, picked up the torch, so to speak.

Next Mignini used an associate of Carlizzi's to concoct a fraudulent accusation against mario Spezi, which resulted in Spezi's brief imprisonment in April of 2006. Preston instigated a campaign to free Spezi, and three weeks later, Spezi was released from prison without restrictions.

After that embarrassment, the inquiry into Mignini and Giutarri was opened, resulting in the indictment, trial, convictions and jail sentences of Mignini and Giutarri.

Those convictions were overturned on appeal, due to technical grounds relating to venue. The claims have never been rejected based on the merits.

Mignini has been a psycho for more than a decade, threatening and opening legal actions against anyone who challenged his manifestly insane theories.

After the Kercher killing, Carlizzi again contacted Mignini and claimed the Kercher killing was the same continuation of the Narducci trail satanic sect.

Preston and Spezi's book wrote that Carlizzi cam to Perugia and met with Miognini "within days" of the Kercher murder.

Mignini originally claimed the Kercher murder was related to the rites of Halloween.

So Mignini has a long and tangled history with the "psychic medium" Gabriella Carlizzi.

Mignini, napoleone, Doninni, Ficarra, Zugarini, stefanoni and all the police who attended the Nov 5th, 6th interrogations - let's face it - Italy can't fix this. All these Italian law enforcement personnel need to be hauled into a reliable criminal court and stand trial for their crimes against Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito. (The convicting judges as well, they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind their little black dresses).

Nothing less will do.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Cassazione only made clear that the calunnia committed by Knox is not something that took place within an interrogation, but it was a protracted behaviour. It also pointed out that her behaviour was certainly malicious, and was carried out while there was no possibility of external incitement.

Thanks for the clarification. I still think Cassazione's ruling is ridiculous, and frankly, dishonest.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

But not in the slightest. First, conviction of calunnia means that a voluntary and malicious element was proven by the courts, something which cannot result from simply a violation of a right to remain silent. There is no direct consequentiality; a decision determined by the person's will is a necessary causal element.
Second, the statements were released by Knox while she was enjoying a right to silence. In fact she was told her rights before the 05.45 statement. Moreover, she repeated false testimonies in hand written notes, which she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police, which are unrequested extra judicial papers where there can't be any violation of a right to silence.
Third, the ECHR even admits that judges may draw inferences from a suspect's decision to remain silent, such as Knox did, twice, instead of clarifying her statements about Lumumba and the circumstances when she released them.

 

[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. ...

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. ...

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.

Mach,

Obviously there is a difference of opinion here.

Do you have citations from the ECtHR case law to support your position?
Can you show any case(s) where a person under interrogation without a lawyer made an incriminating statement that was used in a trial to convict that person, and the person then applied to the ECtHR, and the ECtHR did not find a violation of the Convention?

It would be very informative to review any such cases.

 

[Diocletus]

But not in the slightest. First, conviction of calunnia means that a voluntary and malicious element was proven by the courts, something which cannot result from simply a violation of a right to remain silent. There is no direct consequentiality; a decision determined by the person's will is a necessary causal element.
Second, the statements were released by Knox while she was enjoying a right to silence. In fact she was told her rights before the 05.45 statement. Moreover, she repeated false testimonies in hand written notes, which she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police, which are unrequested extra judicial papers where there can't be any violation of a right to silence.
Third, the ECHR even admits that judges may draw inferences from a suspect's decision to remain silent, such as Knox did, twice, instead of clarifying her statements about Lumumba and the circumstances when she released them.

That's nice. However, it bears absolutely no relevance to actual law as applied by the echr.

 

[AmyStrange]

Can't argue with this

-

I know it's tough facing the reality of how incredibly twisted the US justice system is, but do continue to point fingers.....

-

Seems to me that you are inferring that the Italian justice system is also incredibly twisted. I agree that sometimes both justice systems can be incredibly twisted, and not just the US and Italy either,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

But not in the slightest. First, conviction of calunnia means that a voluntary and malicious element was proven by the courts, something which cannot result from simply a violation of a right to remain silent. There is no direct consequentiality; a decision determined by the person's will is a necessary causal element.
Second, the statements were released by Knox while she was enjoying a right to silence. In fact she was told her rights before the 05.45 statement. Moreover, she repeated false testimonies in hand written notes, which she wrote voluntarily and gave voluntarily to the police, which are unrequested extra judicial papers where there can't be any violation of a right to silence.Third, the ECHR even admits that judges may draw inferences from a suspect's decision to remain silent, such as Knox did, twice, instead of clarifying her statements about Lumumba and the circumstances when she released them.

Mach,
Weren't all of these documents or statements from Amanda made before she had a lawyer?

Can you provide any ECHR case law where:

1) a person in police custody who did not have a lawyer, and

2) made incriminating statements, and then

3) repudiated the statements, and then

4) was convicted based upon the incriminating statements, and then

5) applied to the ECtHR claiming a violation of ECHR rights,

was NOT found to have his or her ECHR rights violated by the State?

{emphasis added to quote}

 

[Desert Fox]

Seems to me that you are inferring that the Italian justice system is also incredibly twisted. I agree that sometimes both justice systems can be incredibly twisted, and not just the US and Italy either,

My thoughts is that I want to work to fix problems with all systems not just state that there are injustices in your system as well. I also think we should look at the spirit of how laws are suppose to work. I believe in the spirit of the law.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

No. There was no stipulation, it would have been impossible by the procedure code.
However those stipulations do occur in the US system on plea-bargains, where the prosecution may offer a plea to Mr.A in exchange of a testimony against Mr.B. What happens is that even if Mr.B doesn't agree to the stipulation, he won't be able to challenge it and won't be able to challenge the content of the testimony substantially, since it is agreed upon with the prosecution, and the witness receives a life pass in exchange for it.
These distorsions cannot happen in Italy.

 

[griffinmill]

Mach,

Obviously there is a difference of opinion here.

Do you have citations from the ECtHR case law to support your position?
Can you show any case(s) where a person under interrogation without a lawyer made an incriminating statement that was used in a trial to convict that person, and the person then applied to the ECtHR, and the ECtHR did not find a violation of the Convention?

It would be very informative to review any such cases.

How many ECtHR cases can you cite where the plaintiff wasn't called in for questioning, falsely accused an innocent person of murder while simulataneously putting themself at the scene of the crime, claimed physical violence from the police without ever filing a formal complaint, and continued to corroborate those false claims repeatedly and voluntarily?

It seems to me that if you want to find "relevance" in the cases you cite, you first need to find those that include false accusations, not false confessions. Then you need to find cases where the accused didn't file formal charges against the police at the time they ocurred, but are only claiming violations of their legal rights in retrospect. And lastly, you need a case where the accused definitively took back their false statements, not the wishy washy doublespeak AK employed in doubting her statements, but not emphatically denying them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,
Weren't all of these documents or statements from Amanda made before she had a lawyer?

Can you provide any ECHR case law where:

1) a person in police custody who did not have a lawyer, and

2) made incriminating statements, and then

3) repudiated the statements, and then

4) was convicted based upon the incriminating statements, and then

5) applied to the ECtHR claiming a violation of ECHR rights,

was NOT found to have his or her ECHR rights violated by the State?

{emphasis added to quote}

Have no clue, never made that research, since it wouldn't be pertinent. You bring up the same mistake of the beginning, where you confuse a calunnia with an "incriminating statement".
Calunnia is not an incriminating statement. It is a malicious activity meant to obstruct and pervert the course of justice by placing false evidence. It may even not be a statement at all.
Calunnia is a criminal action not an incriminating statement.
A person in police custody who was not being assisted by a lawyer and did not enjoy the benefits of a suspects, and was charged with calunnia or false testimony: you have those examples even in the Kercher case; Luciano Aviello was charged because if statements he released as a police informant while in custody, and also Kokomani (albeit not fir calunnia).
Those people have zero chances to be rescued by ECHR.
Being in custody and not having a right to silence itself means nothing, as for the possible criminal actions that a witness may commit. There is no free pass for witness and informants to lie or commit crimes.

 

[griffinmill]

Mach,

Obviously there is a difference of opinion here.

Do you have citations from the ECtHR case law to support your position?
Can you show any case(s) where a person under interrogation without a lawyer made an incriminating statement that was used in a trial to convict that person, and the person then applied to the ECtHR, and the ECtHR did not find a violation of the Convention?

It would be very informative to review any such cases.

As an added point, you might want to start researching cases where the plaintiff claimed coercion, or being denied counsel, which the ECtHR then rejected.

I'm guessing coercion/inducement and denial of counsel are very common claims. And since the ECtHR rejects the overwhelming majority of cases it sees, I would further guess there are many, many examples of this.

You might come to the realization that the law is more complicated than the internet makes it seem.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

My thoughts is that I want to work to fix problems with all systems not just state that there are injustices in your system as well. I also think we should look at the spirit of how laws are suppose to work. I believe in the spirit of the law.

-

Amanda is an American. I guess that kinda gives us the right to complain. Italy is a tourist destination. Americans spend a lot of money there. I wouldn't mind visiting it myself. I personally like Italy.

Their legal system seems unfair from a defendant's point of view (and it's not like we Americans can't give as good as we've gotten), but I do like the fact that Italy can reexamine evidence. That in my opinion is way better than what we Americans do.

I also personally believe that everyone should be allowed to rant against any one or anything or any country's (even America's) legal system that they want as long as their thoughts are sound.

It may not change anything, but it's not impossible,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Have no clue, never made that research, since it wouldn't be pertinent. You bring up the same mistake of the beginning, where you confuse a calunnia with an "incriminating statement".
Calunnia is not an incriminating statement. It is a malicious activity meant to obstruct and pervert the course of justice by placing false evidence. It may even not be a statement at all.
Calunnia is a criminal action not an incriminating statement.A person in police custody who was not being assisted by a lawyer and did not enjoy the benefits of a suspects, and was charged with calunnia or false testimony: you have those examples even in the Kercher case; Luciano Aviello was charged because if statements he released as a police informant while in custody, and also Kokomani (albeit not fir calunnia).
Those people have zero chances to be rescued by ECHR.
Being in custody and not having a right to silence itself means nothing, as for the possible criminal actions that a witness may commit. There is no free pass for witness and informants to lie or commit crimes.

Mach,
The incriminating statement and the crime are the same here.

You apparently do not wish to back up you opinions with citations from the ECHR case law.

Should the readers of this forum make inferences from that silence?

{emphasis in quote added}

 

[Numbers]

As an added point, you might want to start researching cases where the plaintiff claimed coercion, or being denied counsel, which the ECtHR then rejected.

I'm guessing coercion/inducement and denial of counsel are very common claims. And since the ECtHR rejects the overwhelming majority of cases it sees, I would further guess there are many, many examples of this.

You might come to the realization that the law is more complicated than the internet makes it seem.

griffin,
You are welcome to do the research you suggest.
The sources of ECHR case law are easily found.
I have provided the web site citation for the Guide on Article 6.
Also, the ECHR provides HUDOC, an internet database search engine.
Anyone is free to use it. The site is:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{%22sort%22:[%22appnoyear%20Ascending,appnocode%20Ascending%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22]}

And the reason ECHR has provided these tools on the internet is because the law is not as complicated as those who wish to violate human rights make it seem.

 

[griffinmill]

Wouldn't it also help if we could see some examples of Calunnia cases that the ECtHR both accepted and rejected? I assume cherrypicking in the results of that "study," but I would at least read them.

 

[griffinmill]

griffin,
You are welcome to do the research you suggest.
The sources of ECHR case law are easily found.
I have provided the web site citation for the Guide on Article 6.
Also, the ECHR provides HUDOC, an internet database search engine.
Anyone is free to use it. The site is:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{%22sort%22:[%22appnoyear%20Ascending,appnocode%20Ascending%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22]}

And the reason ECHR has provided these tools on the internet is because the law is not as complicated as those who wish to violate human rights make it seem.

In other words, you're only interested in finding cases that "support" your conclusion, not actually understand how the law is applied on both sides of a plaintiff's claims.

 

[griffinmill]

And the reason ECHR has provided these tools on the internet is because the law is not as complicated as those who wish to violate human rights make it seem.

The law is not complicated to read. It is complicated to interpret. That's why law schools and accreditations exist.

 

[Numbers]

Wouldn't it also help if we could see some examples of Calunnia cases that the ECtHR both accepted and rejected? I assume cherrypicking in the results of that "study," but I would at least read them.

griffin,
You are free to find any such cases that exist.
Search for HUDOC or ECHR if you are unable to use the citation I provided.
The ECHR home site is, which will also provide a portal to HUDOC, is:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home

There is a reason the Council of Europe and European Court of Human Rights has placed all this information on the internet. It is to enable those who have been denied their rights a means to seek and find information that will help them.

If you believe that there has been cherry-picking of judgments, you are free to look at the original sources. Remember that ECHR uses a common law system, so that any case judgment becomes a precedent which must be respected by future case judgments. Although the Court may modify the opinion in the future, it will provide reasons for any modification and reference the original opinion.