Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

This case is totally unique for a number of reasons, for example
1. There is complete proof by multiple pathways of total innocence.
2. Three judges, a senator, and many scientists are vocally supporting this.
3. It is very publicly demonstrating a broken system by the incredible length and contrary findings of the Italian judiciary.

It is an excellent case to focus the minds of intelligent Italians and normal people elsewhere on the need to repair this wreck.

I really do not know whether it is unique amongst 10, 000 or so applications currently against Italy. However, it is the content of the application and not the public comments of the people you mention nor is it within the remit of ECHR to put member states judiciary in order based on public opinion.

 

[anglolawyer]

There isn't anything crazy in Di Felice saying:

”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."

That's actually how they do interrogations. What makes the quote germane in this instance is that there weren't any 'facts' (relevant to the murder) in those statements that were correct, thus with Amanda repudiating the statements and claiming coercion, the context of the all-night interrogation and the police refusing to release Patrick the impetus of those 'facts' could only have come from police.

Had those facts stood up then it would have been proper police work, however since they didn't it must be acknowledged that those statements were coerced from her by police, who then compounded their error by failing to admit to it and instead still pretended the both of them were involved in Rudy Guede's murder.

Quite so. What were these unspecified facts De Felice knew to be correct? I suggest these:

• the killers were not admitted to the house by Meredith
• they included a female
• they did not use force to gain entry
• they faked a burglary
• the purpose was primarily sexual, consensual or not
• the principal perp was black, in fact Patrick Lumumba who was being watched and whose bar was already bugged
• the incident occurred shortly around 9.00 p.m. ('I replied to the message saying that we would meet immediately, therefore I went out telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work … I met Patrick soon after at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana and we went home. I do not remember if Meredith was already there or if she came later')

 

[anglolawyer]

Machiavelli account has confirmed it doesn't have them. Intruiguingly, it's been reconstructing 7 year old memories in order to challenge published accounts.

Where do you see this confirmation? Mach has selectively quoted from something, that's all.

 

[Samson]

I really do not know whether it is unique amongst 10, 000 or so applications currently against Italy. However, it is the content of the application and not the public comments of the people you mention nor is it within the remit of ECHR to put member states judiciary in order based on public opinion.

If you can find another case that satisfies my clause 2 above, I will withdraw my claim. If you can't I will leave that as sufficient reason to support the reform of the Italian judiciary.
Clause 1 and 3 are supporting the uniqueness claim.

 

[Kauffer]

This case is totally unique for a number of reasons, for example
1. There is complete proof by multiple pathways of total innocence.
2. Three judges, a senator, and many scientists are vocally supporting this.
3. It is very publicly demonstrating a broken system by the incredible length and contrary findings of the Italian judiciary.

It is an excellent case to focus the minds of intelligent Italians and normal people elsewhere on the need to repair this wreck.

It's important to remember that the case if admitted, will be tested against the convention rights it is alleged have been breached, from the specific claims in the application. It is the application which will guide the examination, with reference to the law - and in respect of the callunia conviction. If admitted, there won't be a retesting of the evidence generally - merely a determination as to whether or not there was a breach of a convention right or rights as claimed by Ms Knox, but drafted by Mr Dalla Vedova (who is noted on the application), presumably with some assistance from convention specialists. The implications of a ruling, however, will be far more widespread for the case.

 

[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.

Where do you see this confirmation? Mach has selectively quoted from something, that's all.

Machiavelli account has confirmed it doesn't have them. Intruiguingly, it's been reconstructing 7 year old memories in order to challenge published accounts.

Did you understand me correctly, anglolawyer? The track is above.

 

[Samson]

It's important to remember that the case if admitted, will be tested against the convention rights it is alleged have been breached, from the specific claims in the application. It is the application which will guide the examination, with reference to the law - and in respect of the callunia conviction. If admitted, there won't be a retesting of the evidence generally - merely a determination as to whether or not there was a breach of a convention right or rights as claimed by Ms Knox, but drafted by Mr Dalla Vedova (who is noted on the application), presumably with some assistance from convention specialists. The implications of a ruling, however, will be far more widespread for the case.

I agree, because this is the backbone of the case so utterly relied on by the guilters and the prosecution. They know perfectly well they never proved any staging, and that the dna is reliably contrived, but that no one can take away the written notes. These are clutched desperately to preserve their sanity in this massive hoax.

 

[Kauffer]

I agree, because this is the backbone of the case so utterly relied on by the guilters and the prosecution. They know perfectly well they never proved any staging, and that the dna is reliably contrived, but that no one can take away the written notes. These are clutched desperately to preserve their sanity in this massive hoax.

There will be nothing about the staging of a burglary or DNA. This is about the callunia.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If you can find another case that satisfies my clause 2 above, I will withdraw my claim. If you can't I will leave that as sufficient reason to support the reform of the Italian judiciary.
Clause 1 and 3 are supporting the uniqueness claim.

Surely, you should be providing a citation for your own assertion. As I said the opinions of a US senator and assume US judges has absolutely no bearing whatsoever and I would, say is completely irrelevant to an application to ECHR.

I am not sure how one can speak of uniqueness of an application that has not been made public. In addition, you do not have any knowledge of the content of the other 10, 000 odd applications currently against Italy.

 

[Samson]

Surely, you should be providing a citation for your own assertion. As I said the opinions of a US senator and assume US judges has absolutely no bearing whatsoever and I would, say is completely irrelevant to an application to ECHR.

I am not sure how one can speak of uniqueness of an application that has not been made public. In addition, you do not have any knowledge of the content of the other 10, 000 odd applications currently against Italy.

Heavey Hellmann and Zanetti are the judges who have proved innocence publicly. Find me a case past or present at ECHR where this is true, three judges declare innocence. I am impressed that you and your five villagers ignore this.

 

[Samson]

There will be nothing about the staging of a burglary or DNA. This is about the callunia.

I thought you were highlighting that the scrutiny of the case will inevitably spread when the backbone is broken.

 

[Kauffer]

I thought you were highlighting that the scrutiny of the case will inevitably spread when the backbone is broken.

Oh actually more than that! I don't think the murder case can survive an adverse ruling against Italy.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Heavey Hellmann and Zanetti are the judges who have proved innocence publicly. Find me a case past or present at ECHR where this is true, three judges declare innocence. I am impressed that you and your five villagers ignore this.

Okay, please explain to me how a retired US judge (we seem to have lost the US senator); the trial judges of the annulled Perugian appeal can influence a confidential application to ECHR.

The retired US judge has no jurisdiction and as I said above the Italian Supreme Court annulled the Perugian appeal, so in a legal sense none of the people you have mentioned can or have influenced the ECHR, in my opinion.

How do you see this working?

 

[Samson]

Okay, please explain to me how a retired US judge (we seem to have lost the US senator); the trial judges of the annulled Perugian appeal can influence a confidential application to ECHR.

The retired US judge has no jurisdiction and as I said above the Italian Supreme Court annulled the Perugian appeal, so in a legal sense none of the people you have mentioned can or have influenced the ECHR, in my opinion.

How do you see this working?

I see it working like this then. The ECHR says she was beaten and coerced into making a callunia, and then say hey, wait a minute, three judges say she is stone cold innocent. We have never seen anything like this before.
Yes I am dreaming, but three judges please any case anywhere in history.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I see it working like this then. The ECHR says she was beaten and coerced into making a callunia, and then say hey, wait a minute, three judges say she is stone cold innocent. We have never seen anything like this before.
Yes I am dreaming, but three judges please any case anywhere in history.

I doubt there is a comparable case of potential interference of judges in the manner you believe has happened with this particular ECHR application.

It must be late where you are, so maybe you could provide citations tomorrow or later today, ones were the judges you have mentioned have made public comments regarding the caluunia application to the ECHR.

 

[Kauffer]

I doubt there is a comparable case of potential interference of judges in the manner you believe has happened with this particular ECHR application.

It must be late where you are, so maybe you could provide citations tomorrow or later today, ones were the judges you have mentioned have made public comments regarding the caluunia application to the ECHR.

Look, it doesn't matter. Here's what's important to the case at the ECHR:

You can piece it together from the available evidence. It's not too difficult.

1) Read what Hellmann said in his report in connection with the interrogation.
2) Read Ms Knox's public statement in connection with her ECHR application
3) Read ECHR criminal case fact sheet, cited numerous times in this thread with regard to the lack of provision of counsel during interrogation.
4) Read ECHR case law citations cited on this thread with specific case history summations evidencing the treatment of applications with claims of rights violations based on interrogations without benefit of counsel, in particular:

- Salduz v Turkey
- Omelchenko V Ukraine
- Imbriosca v Switzerland

 

[carbonjam72]

I really do not know whether it is unique amongst 10, 000 or so applications currently against Italy. However, it is the content of the application and not the public comments of the people you mention nor is it within the remit of ECHR to put member states judiciary in order based on public opinion.

Are there other Italian or ECHR cases you are following and posting comments upon? No? Then perhaps it is unique?
The case was made into an international sensational news story because it was profitable to do so.

The lack of any merit to the claims has been well established through voluminous proceedings and especially by Hellman's court and his very thorough motivation report, and the support of law enforcement, politicians, and particularly scientists - including from the UK, should be an indication to even a skeptic like yourself that the charges and convictions may be flawed.

But instead of actually looking into the case and the evidence presented, you focus on procedures and probabilities, ignoring the reality and the hardship the case has imposed on innocent people and their families and friends.

I understand sympathy and empathy for the Kerchers. I don't understand the peculiar blindness you and others seem to display for the possibility, and in this case, the plainly demonstrated reality of wrongful conviction.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

I agree, it does seem unfair for pro-Knoxes to cite actual cases and statistics.

But let's address your next point: whether there could be a conflict between a national court ruling and the judgment of the ECHR. I'm not sure exactly what "conflict" you are imagining, but there are two responses: (i) "conflicts" occur all the time, and (ii) there is no need for a "conflict" in this case.

If you want to see a case that involves the type of "conflict" that I think you are proposing, then look no further than the many, many cases where the ECtHR has decided that a national court unlawfully used statements obtained in an interrogation to convict the defendant in violation of Art. 6. In each of these cases, the ECtHR has in effect decided that the national court was wrong to have decided that there was no violence to the defendant's procedural rights (e.g., assistance of counsel, right to silence), and/or erred in using the ensuing statements to convict the defendant.

In this case, it's not even necessary for there to be any kind of conflict, because the national courts have already decided that Knox was questioned and/or made statements after her right to counsel had attached and was violated. The ECtHR will simply apply its well-settled law to hold that all statements made after the right to counsel attached were unusable to convict her of a crime. No fuss, no muss.

 

[Diocletus]

Similarly, they have no idea of the great history, independence and prestige of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of Rome or of the fact codified law was practiced for 13 centuries in that same city more than 2,500 years before the US even existed, one of the reasons why they enjoy the rule of law in their countries today instead of living in a tribal society.

This breaks my heart to know that Italian people have labored under this hellhole of judicial foolishness for so long. Can you imagine the long line of terrible precedents? Do you suppose there is a case from 1000 years ago, where the august judges declared that Comte Alphonso di Roma could not have deflowered Lucretia di Lombardi because she wore a lace-ed bodice? Perhaps their predecessors approved of Tiberius's "swims" with his "fishes" because of true love?

 

[Diocletus]

Why not join this forum and help Yummi out?

Responding to posters directly might help you refine your arguments.

Don't waste your breath. Popper is a coward and a tool.