Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Her statements are ther result of her own free will. The judges found so. Not having a counsel may have made the calunnia (her statements) become possible.
But there is a difference between something possible and something that actually takes place. In this case, there is a decision between the two steps.

I keep pointing out to you that it does not matter what the Italian judges concluded about Ms Knox's free will! The European Court judges are not bound by that. They are bound by article 6 and it's supporting case law. Nothing she said under interrogation without the benefit of counsel will stand.

 

[Diocletus]

Her statements are ther result of her own free will. The judges found so. Not having a counsel may have made the calunnia (her statements) become possible.
But there is a difference between something possible and something that actually takes place. In this case, there is a decision between the two steps.

"Free will" is irrelevant when assistance if counsel is denied.

 

[Kauffer]

De Felice said they knew there was something true in the latest version by Amanda Knox. At least this is what he said in Italian.

Ah I see you have found de Felice's press conference statements! Are you going to post them in their entirety?

 

[Machiavelli]

She is protected under Article 6 from all consequences arising out of her statements as a result of not being provided with counsel. The case law is clear. In some circumstances she would have been protected even if she had waived her right to counsel. Furthermore, these statements, which had already been ruled out of one trial for lack of counsel, were permitted for another trial held at the same time, by the same jury - the Italian version of a jury, anyway.

(...)

Let's point out that only some statements were "ruled out". Some were fully admissible at any trial (the hand written memorials) while the 01:45 statement was anyway admissible at any trial contra alios.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

De Felice said they knew there was something true in the latest version by Amanda Knox. At least this is what he said in Italian.

-

So are you saying the newspaper lied?

I remember seeing the press conference on TV here in the US and what the Express wrote is what the translator here in Seattle said also,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Ah I see you have found de Felice's press conference statements! Are you going to post them in their entirety?

No I didn't find them. I only remember what he said by memory. Because I remember what I have understood from his words.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Ah I see you have found de Felice's press conference statements! Are you going to post them in their entirety?

-

Plus, it's interesting that Felice never corrected the interviewer during the interview, or even after the article was printed,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

No I didn't find them. I only remember what he said by memory. Because I remember what I have understood from his words.

Ah I see. You have nothing then.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

No I didn't find them. I only remember what he said by memory. Because I remember what I have understood from his words.

-

So basicly you have no proof that he did say what you say he said,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

-

So are you saying the newspaper lied?

-

I can't even tell for sure what the nouances of these words mean in English. I think it's an imperfect translation, nothing more. I actually think it looks more resembling a word-by-word translation rather than an accurate translation.

There are words in the translation that are obviously wrong. For example: De Felice is reported saying "Merdith was morally innocent".
But De Felice didn't say "innocent", he said "integerrima". It's different semantics, you can't overlap the meanings of these words.
Maybe I would have translated "integerrima" with "stainless" or something similar. You need to make choices.

The word "ammissione" is also used in Italian with a different meaning compared to English. I didn't realize this difference myself, until some years ago when I was discussing on PMF for the first times, I maintained that Guede "admitted he had sex with Meredith" and I realized that English language uses the verb "to admit" in a much more narrow sense than Italian language. In fact in Italian we use "ammettere" and "ammissione" really in a lot of ways, with a meaning that is even more generic than the word "statement"; an "ammissione" is a fragment from a statement, an incomplete piece of information.
Then there is how Italian speak and build statements, for example since Italian language normally requires articles, and has different types of articles with different meaning, while instead English has rules for some stataments that are to be built without articles; so if an Italian speaker omits an article in a statement, there is a meaning, while in English there is another.
I do not expect a newspaper article to get all those translations perfectly correct.

 

[Machiavelli]

-
So basicly you have no proof that he did say what you say he said,

-

But I am not the person quoting him. It's the pro-Knoxes (may I use this term?) who make the claim. And they don't have the quote.

 

[Diocletus]

Let's point out that only some statements were "ruled out". Some were fully admissible at any trial (the hand written memorials) while the 01:45 statement was anyway admissible at any trial contra alios.

Yes. And let's also point out that the echr doesn't care about the (illegal) admissibility decisions made by some silly Italian judges.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I can't even tell for sure what the nouances of these words mean in English. I think it's an imperfect translation, nothing more. I actually think it looks more resembling a word-by-word translation rather than an accurate translation.

There are words in the translation that are obviously wrong. For example: De Felice is reported saying "Merdith was morally innocent".
But De Felice didn't say "innocent", he said "integerrima". It's different semantics, you can't overlap the meanings of these words.
Maybe I would have translated "integerrima" with "stainless" or something similar. You need to make choices.

The word "ammissione" is also used in Italian with a different meaning compared to English. I didn't realize this difference myself, until some years ago when I was discussing on PMF for the first times, I maintained that Guede "admitted he had sex with Meredith" and I realized that English language uses the verb "to admit" in a much more narrow sense than Italian language. In fact in Italian we use "ammettere" and "ammissione" really in a lot of ways, with a meaning that is even more generic than the word "statement"; an "ammissione" is a fragment from a statement, an incomplete piece of information.
Then there is how Italian speak and build statements, for example since Italian language normally requires articles, and has different types of articles with different meaning, while instead English has rules for some stataments that are to be built without articles; so if an Italian speaker omits an article in a statement, there is a meaning, while in English there is another.
I do not expect a newspaper article to get all those translations perfectly correct.

-

Depends on who the translator was. I'm just wondering why Felice never corrected the interviewer if what was said and written was wrong,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

But I am not the person quoting him. It's the pro-Knoxes (may I use this term?) who make the claim. And they don't have the quote.

-

So, are you saying the Express is Pro-Knox?

I'm not pro-Knox, but I do believe Raffaele and Amanda are probably innocent, just like I think you are believer that they are probably guilty.

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Depends on who the translator was. I'm just wondering why Felice never corrected the interviewer if what was said and written was wrong,


-

Frankly, this expectation sounds rather crazy to me. I wouldn't expect De Felice to know about the existence of a particular news article, actually I wouldn't expect even De Felice to know about the existence of a newspaper.
And certainly, I would not expect De Felice to read news articles in English, or to understand them.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

So, are you saying the Express is Pro-Knox?

-

I do not speak for the Express journalist. He/she may talk for himself/herself.
I say that the pro-Knox supporters (those writin here) are making a claim, they are making a quote, and the burden for the existence of the quote is on them, and on them alone; not on me, neither on the Express journalist.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

So, are you saying the Express is Pro-Knox?

I'm not pro-Knox, but I do believe Raffaele and Amanda are probably innocent, just like I think you are believer that they are probably guilty.

-

If I believed they were "probably" guilty, I would push for acquittal on reasonable doubt.
If I believe that conviction is correct, it means I concluded they are certainly guilty.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Frankly, this expectation sounds rather crazy to me. I wouldn't expect De Felice to know about the existence of a particular news article, actually I wouldn't expect even De Felice to know about the existence of a newspaper.

And certainly, I would not expect De Felice to read news articles in English, or to understand them.

-

I have to admit that what De Felice said was crazy. Making assumptions before all the evidence is in, is definitely crazy,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Her statements are ther result of her own free will. The judges found so. Not having a counsel may have made the calunnia (her statements) become possible.
But there is a difference between something possible and something that actually takes place. In this case, there is a decision between the two steps.

Perhaps true (the "the judges found that" part).

However there are dozens of wrongful convictions, exposed years' later, where it was accepted by the courts that someone's "free will" statements were not exactly that. Interrogation is the art of coercion and is for the most part righteous coercion, except when you have an innocent in front of you and they've just been coerced to do something they regret. Like sign a document in a foreign language that you cannot possibly know the consequences - because no one has appointed a lawyer for you.

The one thing that has never happened here is that there has yet to be a single court which held anyone from the Public Minister on down to account for their behaviour.

Massei's court is a perfect example. Despite many criticisms offered by expert witnesses, Massei chose to believe people like Stefanoni, solely on her say-so.

It must be nice to get work like that where one is not accountable.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes. And let's also point out that the echr doesn't care about the (illegal) admissibility decisions made by some silly Italian judges.

One curious thing: some pro-Knox fans like to cite ECHR case law and for demand case law citations, cite statistics and numbers.
One interesting research, on statistical level, could be: cite ECHR cases where the final finding in law bluntly conflicts with a previous Italian Cassazione finding, on a matter of principle like this one.
That would be interesting, since I guess these cases may be rather rare. If there is any.