Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vibio]

No, it is based on the fact that Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano were caught because of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox.

Don't let facts get in the way of the Cult of the Amandites.

 

[Dougm]

What Machiavelli is claiming is that this means that Knox cannot be someone ontologically different that Rudy Guede. That's his sole point.

He is saying this solely to get supporters to give up believing that Knox can't be guilty, because he thinks supporters are racist.

It's a weird, 'round-about argument Machiavelli is making, concluding in nothing.

Of course Knox could be guilty. IF there was actually any believable evidence against her, which there isn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps Bill Williams' imaginary friends "The Lurkers" can point out to him that that's not what I wrote.

What you wrote was:

Absolutely nothing wrong with the statement:

"Not a national terrorist organization, but evidence may have led to the belief that she was part of part of a (more than local) drug ring. And one that murders."

That may have very well been their reasoning in the early days (the time we are talking about) of the investigation.

What point, then, were you trying to make? That the original investigators went on wild-goose chases?

Or were you saying that early on, investigators may have though Meredith was killed because of a drug deal, and that Amanda was somehow involved?

 

[Dougm]

Don't let facts get in the way of the Cult of the Amandites.

How about this. You can give us your phone, and we will find out everything anyone in your contacts list has ever done, and decide you are guilty of a murder based at least partially on the fact that you have called those. They have no relationship to the murder, but that's OK.

 

[Kauffer]

Lorenzo's number is there, the convictions are there. Your denial is surreal and frankly unexplainable for any unbiased observer.



Come on, those folks never "demanded evidence" that Rudy Guede committed a post mortem sexual abuse, that he climbed through the window or that he washed himself in the bathroom. They are ready to pin those on him with zero evidence. Those people do not demand evidence that Stefanoni suppressed results, that Mignini wrote fake interrogations, that Donnino lied or that Quintavalle lied, never demanded evidence to Doug Preston or Mario Spezi, they don't demand evidence the police orchestrated media campaigns, that coerced someone or threatened, or that this and that person conspired this or that plot.
These people, selectively, only demand evidence about Amanda Knox but in fact they do not demand actual evidence, what the do is try to deny the existing evidence. They demand things that respond to no logic and no law requires, not about evidence as a whole but about pieces. And it is a hypocritical show. Because they lie on every line of the papers, they make up things and deny the obvious, they state "Italy is on the hook" trying to reverse the roles, and it's all an imposter; their objections are too often offences to intelligence and justice. They assume that someone linke Amanda Knox could be convicted only by a smoking gun, normal evidence is revolting to them. It's hypocritical, because look how these "demands" of evidence are ex-post rationalizations, like the assertion that you can't measure a bathmat print formulized after the measurements match Sollecito and rule out Guede, these demands are cherry picked and designed for the specific defensive needs, within a drsign that excludes other demands about Guede or others.

This sort of desperate, disjointed rant doesn't cut it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does. And you haven't got that, in latent bloodless footprints or the ramblings of a delusional smack addict or the fantasies of an Albanian drug dealer, or the auditory hallucinations of an incontinent old woman or the starch on a bread knife or the contaminated hooks of a dirty trodden on bra clasp. But, as Bill would probably remind me, I am doubtless forgetting "all the other evidence", whatever that is, yummi.

 

[Samson]

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.
This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede.
And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

Don't be so averse to relevant facts and statistics.

Homicide[edit]According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites (per 100,000), and the victim rate 6 times higher (per 100,000). Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks

Offenders

Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90% of the total number of offenders.[1]
Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.[1]
White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.[1]

Of all the idiocy your lot espouse, it is the wilfully ignoring of strong probabilities that is most irritating.

 

[Kauffer]

No, it is based on the fact that Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano were caught because of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox.

Where in the phone records will I find this?

 

[Bill Williams]

This sort of desperate, disjointed rant doesn't cut it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does. And you haven't got that, in latent bloodless footprints or the ramblings of a delusional smack addict or the fantasies of an Albanian drug dealer, or the auditory hallucinations of an incontinent old woman or the starch on a bread knife or the contaminated hooks of a dirty trodden on bra clasp. But, as Bill would probably remind me, I am doubtless forgetting "all the other evidence", whatever that is, yummi.

Welcome to "all the other evidence," Kauffer.

As for as the topic du jour is concenred, the following is yet another in an endless supply of factoids that Machiavelli can throw at the wall expecting one to stick:

No, it is based on the fact that Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano were caught because of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox.

It is the phrase, "because of" which Machiavelli steadfast refuses to demonstrate. Once again, it is his assertion.....

..... maybe, perhaps as claimed upthread on another factoid, because he actually had a conversation with Mignini about it. Perhaps Mr. Mignini assured Mach that this was so, and Machiavelli does not wish to risk a defamation charge by doubting it.

Did/does/will Amanda Knox's name appear on a witness list in relation to any judicial action against Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano? Or is this like finding one's financial advisor is on the take, and quickly deleting his contact info from one's contact list, lest Mignini get ahold of the list, and mistranslate "See you later", and throw you in the crow-bar hotel for a year of precautionary detention so that they can round up a heroin addict and an incontinent older-lady a year later? Maybe even a store owner a year later, who will suddenly remember that he'd once seen you in 2013 talking on your mobile in his store.....

 

[anglolawyer]

No, it is based on the fact that Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano were caught because of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox.

What happened to their surnames?

EDT does anyone remember that report that surfaced a few months ago. It was dated from Jan 08, something like that, and it was the outcome of an investigation into these drug contacts. Almost all I remember is the phrase 'would have' as in, Knox would have had sex with these men - something like that. Anyway, if you know of it, please dig it up and re-post it. We can get Vibio to translate it for us.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective. This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede. And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
{Highlighting added to quote.}

It's a hoax.

The guilters generally are posting out of a sadistic glee at upsetting people.
The Italian-speaking ones even provide unreliable translations.

(....)

This sounds just like a cheap offensive lie. Where are the unreliable translations?

Well Mach does not disappoint.

First, I just want to agree with Number's description of the guilter's poster's usual motive as being one of, "sadistic glee". That is slam bang accurate from what I see.

The series of lies the guilters present is plain and simple, a HOAX.

As for Mach's post - These misconceptions that Mach is expressing are all of the same kind. Mach seems to think that by slandering Amanda Knox, he can justify the utterly barbaric treatment she was subjected to in his fine country.

FWIK, Amanda met a guy on a train. They smoked a joint, his pot. She met him later in his room and they 'made out', that is to say, some kissing. Then she got cold feet and ran out. Most people would not confuse that as "sexual relations", rather than a milder form of experimentation for an adolescent.

It's the same slandering tactic so common to the guilter mindset. Take a half-truth, and let the lie be implied. But let's really not make moral judgements about those who would sander innocent young people for their own questionable reasons.

Mach, You say iinnocentisti have an "anthropological" argument that Knox is different from Guede, and could not commit murder. On this point I must agree with you.
Most of us don't know Ms Knox personally, nor have we ever met her. But to some degree, we have become familiar by her coverage in the media, and by those who have known her all her life. The same is true, perhaps to a lesser degree with Raf.

These are gentle people. They are not capable of the violent brutal crime they are accused. They are, in your words, anthropologically incapable of it. There is no evidence they were present when the crime was committed, and no evidence they ever left Raf's apartment. Whereas there is voluminous evidence of police malfeasance, lies, evidence suppression, and perjury on the stand, at a minimum.

Amanda and Raf have never done anything remotely similar. But it goes further than that. Ms Knox in particular is widely viewed by those who know her as among the gentlest people they've ever encountered in their lives. She's not just gentle, she's the most gentle. That's why Mignini's lies in this case are so offensive. Because his lies aren't even remotely good lies. It's insulting that he thinks anyone would believe him.
Rudy Guede on the other hand, is a completely different person. He came from a broken home in Africa. He was adopted by a wealthy family in Perugia. But they turned him out, because he was an inveterate liar, and refused to work or go to school.

Whereas Amanda and Raf were both absolutely excellent students, beloved by family and friends who have all stood by them all these years. These are intelligent sensitive people. Not dim-witted violent criminals, like Rudy Guede.

Rudy didn't like school, and had trouble holding any kind of a job. He was a burglar, and by all accounts actually a drug dealer.

Rudy reportedly had scars from knife fights on his stomach. He threatened one of his break-in victims with a knife when he was caught robbing the place. When he broke into the nursery, he took a knife from the kitchen. When confronting Rudy in the morning, the nursery school owner said they all had the feeling Rudy was a dangerous person.

So yes Mach, Rudy Guede is absolutely nothing like Amanda Knox or Raffaelle Sollecito. And it is a false slander to call it "racism" to deny this. The racists here, were the police, who slotted in Rudy for Patrick, because in their view, 'any black man would do'.

Amanda and Raf are the best kinds of citizens you could ever hope to meet. Whereas Rudy Guede has severe mental problems, and almost certainly requires close supervision for the rest of his life to prevent him from committing further crimes.

But Rudy's adopted family tried, and they loved him, no doubt, they did the best they could. But Rudy is a different kind of person. A broken person. There's something not right with Rudy. The fact that Rudy pleasured himself over Meredith's dying body, after he had struck a fatal blow, places him in a very, very small percentage of human beings, and at the absolute far end of the spectrum away from Amanda and Raf. They are nothing like Rudy, and its just goofy to keep suggesting it.

Amanda met a guy on a train, who happened to be a drug dealer. Meredith's downstairs boyfriend was growing pot plants. That Perugia is a city with a large drug trade has nothing to do with Ms Knox. Again, that's an Italian problem you choose to project onto Ms Knox.

SO Once again, when you mention the issue of "projection" you identify the guilter and Mignini's favorite methodology. All they have done is projected the worst Italian stereotypes onto Ms Knox, really, take your pick.
In short, I don't believe your verbal attacks on Ms Knox are anything but a smokescreen, by which you are hoping to preempt criminal charges against Mignini, Napoleone, Stefanoni, Ficarra, Zugarini, Giobbi, and anyone else who had anything to do with this kidnapping by another name.

It is you and your guilter comrades who have things backwards. It is Mignini, the police, and the convicting judges who have behaved as criminals in this case. That's the truth.

The ECHR will be enormously helpful to you in explaining matters. Maybe you'll be better able to listen to them.
You offer a rare look behind the curtain as to what people are thinking on the guilter side of the fence. At some point though, you do realize Mignini will go to jail. It cannot be otherwise. This I know. The entirety of civilization demands it be so.

 

[carbonjam72]

Bumping this post because I feel cheated that Mach has not responded.

(By the way Mach, this is for me one of the most fascinating parts of the case. We, or I at least, am very limited in what materials are available, much less in English. I haven't read Micheli's dismissal of Mignini's case against the Florence 20, I heard it was over 900 pages, and filed over a year after his verdict was given - and two months after Hellman's acquittal motivation was released. But Micheli could not have been too prejudiced against Dr Mignini, because he allowed Mignini's case against Raf and Amanda to go to trial. So just how anti-Mignini could judge Micheli really be in Mignini's abuse of office trial? I appreciate any light you can shed on this question, and that posed below in highlight).

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
No, no. You have no clue. Mignini's convoction was not reversed on a technicality. In fact it was not reversed, it was annulled, razed to the ground like the Hellmann-Zanetti, actually even more: even the indictment was annulled. Venue is not a technicality: the appeals court found out that the Florentine court acted abusively from the investigation stage. Mignini's prosecution was also a party against him. It's more than a technicality. It turns the trial into a monstrum.
And by the way, actually, one thing that you probably miss is that Mignini was in fact cleared of the main charge even in the Florence monstrum trial: he had been accused of manufacturing a tape, and he managed to prove the tape was authentic. Mignini and Giuttari actively proved their innocence on the main charge.
The rest of the charges, "abuse of office" instances, were completely fuzzy and with no sort of evidence of any kind (in fact the entire motivation report basically just talks about a series of rants against Giuttari, and seems to blame Mignini for not having put distance between himself and Giuttari). In fact, the trial was an obvious move - a "war between prosecution offices" - meant to serve the obvious purpose of thwarting the Narducci investigation, take the file away from Perugia's hands.

Let's suppose your interpretation is correct here. What does the Florence prosecutor want to achieve by "thwarting the Narducci investigation, and taking the file away from Perugia's hands"?
Because I agree with this position. But why do you think they want to do this?

Do you believe they are protecting the satanic masonic conspiracy, or are part of it somehow? Why would they want to frustrate the Narducci investigation, unless they are themselves part of the conspiracy?

Or alternatively, they do it because the conspiracy never existed, and they just want to stop an out of control public menace the Narducci investigations had become?

I think they were trying to stop Mignini from starting anymore witch hunts, would be my guess. (I'm betting you don't agree).

 

[Numbers]

Ok, Numbers, I see what you mean. I'll go with "hoax" then, rather than....

It's an embellishment off of equally fanciful misinformation​

Always better to use one 4-letter word rather than 8, some of them with 14 letters in them.

There's a lot to be said for four-letter words.

 

[Numbers]

This sounds just like a cheap offensive lie. Where are the unreliable translations?

It's not a lie. It's a hoax.
Can't you take a joke?

 

[Desert Fox]

Well Mach does not disappoint.

First, I just want to agree with Number's description of the guilter's poster's usual motive as being one of, "sadistic glee". That is slam bang accurate from what I see.

The series of lies the guilters present is plain and simple, a HOAX.

As for Mach's post - These misconceptions that Mach is expressing are all of the same kind. Mach seems to think that by slandering Amanda Knox, he can justify the utterly barbaric treatment she was subjected to in his fine country.

FWIK, Amanda met a guy on a train. They smoked a joint, his pot. She met him later in his room and they 'made out', that is to say, some kissing. Then she got cold feet and ran out. Most people would not confuse that as "sexual relations", rather than a milder form of experimentation for an adolescent.

It's the same slandering tactic so common to the guilter mindset. Take a half-truth, and let the lie be implied. But let's really not make moral judgements about those who would sander innocent young people for their own questionable reasons.

Mach, You say iinnocentisti have an "anthropological" argument that Knox is different from Guede, and could not commit murder. On this point I must agree with you.
Most of us don't know Ms Knox personally, nor have we ever met her. But to some degree, we have become familiar by her coverage in the media, and by those who have known her all her life. The same is true, perhaps to a lesser degree with Raf.

These are gentle people. They are not capable of the violent brutal crime they are accused. They are, in your words, anthropologically incapable of it. There is no evidence they were present when the crime was committed, and no evidence they ever left Raf's apartment. Whereas there is voluminous evidence of police malfeasance, lies, evidence suppression, and perjury on the stand, at a minimum.

Amanda and Raf have never done anything remotely similar. But it goes further than that. Ms Knox in particular is widely viewed by those who know her as among the gentlest people they've ever encountered in their lives. She's not just gentle, she's the most gentle. That's why Mignini's lies in this case are so offensive. Because his lies aren't even remotely good lies. It's insulting that he thinks anyone would believe him.
Rudy Guede on the other hand, is a completely different person. He came from a broken home in Africa. He was adopted by a wealthy family in Perugia. But they turned him out, because he was an inveterate liar, and refused to work or go to school.

Whereas Amanda and Raf were both absolutely excellent students, beloved by family and friends who have all stood by them all these years. These are intelligent sensitive people. Not dim-witted violent criminals, like Rudy Guede.

Rudy didn't like school, and had trouble holding any kind of a job. He was a burglar, and by all accounts actually a drug dealer.

Rudy reportedly had scars from knife fights on his stomach. He threatened one of his break-in victims with a knife when he was caught robbing the place. When he broke into the nursery, he took a knife from the kitchen. When confronting Rudy in the morning, the nursery school owner said they all had the feeling Rudy was a dangerous person.

So yes Mach, Rudy Guede is absolutely nothing like Amanda Knox or Raffaelle Sollecito. And it is a false slander to call it "racism" to deny this. The racists here, were the police, who slotted in Rudy for Patrick, because in their view, 'any black man would do'.

Amanda and Raf are the best kinds of citizens you could ever hope to meet. Whereas Rudy Guede has severe mental problems, and almost certainly requires close supervision for the rest of his life to prevent him from committing further crimes.

But Rudy's adopted family tried, and they loved him, no doubt, they did the best they could. But Rudy is a different kind of person. A broken person. There's something not right with Rudy. The fact that Rudy pleasured himself over Meredith's dying body, after he had struck a fatal blow, places him in a very, very small percentage of human beings, and at the absolute far end of the spectrum away from Amanda and Raf. They are nothing like Rudy, and its just goofy to keep suggesting it.

Amanda met a guy on a train, who happened to be a drug dealer. Meredith's downstairs boyfriend was growing pot plants. That Perugia is a city with a large drug trade has nothing to do with Ms Knox. Again, that's an Italian problem you choose to project onto Ms Knox.

SO Once again, when you mention the issue of "projection" you identify the guilter and Mignini's favorite methodology. All they have done is projected the worst Italian stereotypes onto Ms Knox, really, take your pick.
In short, I don't believe your verbal attacks on Ms Knox are anything but a smokescreen, by which you are hoping to preempt criminal charges against Mignini, Napoleone, Stefanoni, Ficarra, Zugarini, Giobbi, and anyone else who had anything to do with this kidnapping by another name.

It is you and your guilter comrades who have things backwards. It is Mignini, the police, and the convicting judges who have behaved as criminals in this case. That's the truth.

The ECHR will be enormously helpful to you in explaining matters. Maybe you'll be better able to listen to them.
You offer a rare look behind the curtain as to what people are thinking on the guilter side of the fence. At some point though, you do realize Mignini will go to jail. It cannot be otherwise. This I know. The entirety of civilization demands it be so

.

I do have a few issues with your post here. . . .
1. I don't think it has ever been attributed that Guede is "Dim witted."
2. I have heard it argued that Guede threatened with a knife but I don't think that was every properly corroborated.

 

[Numbers]

Well, that Amanda Knox used to have phone contacts with members of a drug dealers ring is a fact, not a possibility; as well as the fact that she had sex relations with at least one of them, as well as a number of other folks who were not students. And I stress that all this is no crime, and any moral judgement about private life would be subjective.
This said, I believe that a main topic at the core of the innocentisti belief, their main motivation, is a perception that Amanda Knox is somehow anthropologically incompatible with a murder, somewhere far from Rudy Guede. She "can't" be guilty, maybe in virtue of some anthropological value she represents, maybe because is "one of us" as opposed to Rudy Guede.
And also, the theory of her innocence is also opposed to a projection of "Italian authorities" (those picked who happen to be between Knox and her innocence, Mignini the Supreme Court or whoever, there is a projection and rationalization for anyone) as something "other", on which any projection is possible.

Statements such as these are used to draw attention away from the fact that the Italian authorities - police and prosecutor (Mignini) - are considered by some to have used Rudy Guede as an informant, and they allowed him to return to Perugia after he was arrested in the nursery in Milan, rather than pressing charges and placing in detention a dangerous burglar. Thus, the authorities may be considered morally and perhaps even legally responsible for enabling Guede to murder and rape Meredith Kercher.

One can only conclude that the invective and racist remarks that are postedd are all part of the effort to hide errors and sloppy work by the Italian police.

 

[Numbers]

No, it is based on the fact that Federico, Lorenzo and Luciano were caught because of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox.

Wow. So these three individuals with Italian-sounding names were caught.
Caught at what? Do you mean apprehended by police? Charged with a crime?
Convicted by a court? An Italian court, with verdict finalized?

Show us their full names and evidence of their convictions and what they were convicted of, and where they lived and when. And provide citations that we can trace.

Remember Amanda was only in Italy as free person - not in prison - for about six weeks.

 

[carbonjam72]

Dimwitted, or brightly witted, that is the question...

I do have a few issues with your post here. . . .
1. I don't think it has ever been attributed that Guede is "Dim witted."
2. I have heard it argued that Guede threatened with a knife but I don't think that was every properly corroborated.

Well fair enough DF. Maybe I'm reaching there. But let's do a quick review, and you fill in the blanks.

1. When Rudy went to the law office after he returned from Milan (was it Oct 29, 2007), and tried to explain to the lawyers whose office he had broken into, and ransacked, that he came into possession of their cell phones and laptop as an innocent dupe of the true culprit - that strikes you as what, smart?

2. When Rudy is caught in (Tremantano?) apartment, is chased around the place, pulls a knife on him, and the owner says, "just leave". And Rudy's reply is, "How can I leave if the door is locked?".

Rudy's subtext being, "this is my fault? Why get mad at me, you locked the door". Again, an indication of a well thought out guy?

3. When Rudy killed Meredith and decided to pleasure himself over her body as she lay dying. Rudy's first thought is to get away asap, or to rub one out?
And you interpret that as what, cleverness?

4. When Rudy leaves his dumps in the toilets, this is a kind of tone poem?

5. Rudy couldn't read his own letter in court at the Hellman appeal, Mignini had to read it for him, a letter that he had supposedly written, changing his story yet again to implicate AK/RS. Being semi-illiterate doesn't count at least a little towards dim-wittery?

6. Have you seen Rudy's impression of Dracula on youtube? He should have been arrested for that alone.

So how then do you rate Rudy's intelligence? (Although, I do not subscribe to the idea that intelligence is a yardstick, with greater or lesser than. Rather I'm aware of the suggestion that there are 17 or more separate areas of ability or talent. But come on DF, some people just come across as smarter. And others as 'less so'. IMO, Rudy is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, ok?)

Should I edit out dimwitted? At some point has Rudy crossed the threshold and entered the land of ' less than rational'? But you tell me, I'm open.

(Did I tell you how good it felt to describe Rudy as dimwitted? ... stricken from the record...)

 

[Numbers]

The excerpt below is, IMO, the key to these cases claiming violation of ECHR Articles 6.3c with 6.1.

CASE OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 50541/08 50571/08 50573/08... 16/12/2014

196. In this respect, the general principles applied by the Court to questions of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings are relevant. As the Court has said on many occasions, admissibility of evidence is a matter for regulation by national law and the national courts and this Court’s only concern is to examine whether the proceedings have been conducted fairly (see Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, § 81, 11 December 2008; Gäfgen, cited above, § 162, and references therein). In making this evaluation the Court looks at the proceedings as a whole, having regard to whether the rights of the defence have been respected (see, for example, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 164; Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 42, 18 December 2008; and Aleksandr Zaichenko, cited above, § 57). Pre-trial statements obtained in the absence of procedural guarantees should be treated with caution (see Lutsenko, cited above, § 51; and Zaichenko, cited above, § 56). When deciding whether the admission of a statement made without legal assistance was compatible with Article 6, the Court will examine, in so far as relevant to the case before it:

(a) the general legislative framework applicable and any safeguards it contains (see, generally, John Murray, cited above, § 66; Salduz, cited above, § 56; and Yoldaş v. Turkey, no. 27503/04, § 50, 23 February 2010);

(b) the quality of the evidence, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Panovits, cited above, § 82; Lutsenko, cited above, § 48; and Aleksandr Zaichenko, cited above, § 57); in this respect, improper conduct, notably coercion or ill‑treatment, during interrogation and vulnerability of suspects are relevant factors (see paragraph 192 above);

(c) whether the statement was promptly retracted and the admissions made in it consistently denied, particularly once legal advice had been obtained (see Lutsenko, cited above, § 51; Yoldaş, cited above, § 53; and Bandaletov, cited above, § 67);

(d) the procedural safeguards applied during the criminal proceedings, and in particular whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use (see Panovits, cited above, § 82; Lutsenko, cited above, § 48; and Aleksandr Zaichenko, cited above, § 57);

(e) the strength of the other evidence in the case (see Salduz, cited above, § 57; Yoldaş, cited above, § 53; and Aleksandr Zaichenko, cited above, § 58-59).

Another motive for the guilters in posting their hoaxes and insults is that they want to distract others - persons sincerely interested in the case - from studying the real developments and information related to the case.

That's why I bumped the quote above, copied from Ibrahim et al. v UK. Take a moment to see how Amanda Knox's application to the ECHR regarding her conviction for calunnia may fit into the ECHR outline describing how they evaluate such Article 6.3c with 6.1 cases. That may be more relevant than feeding the guilters by taking their hoaxes seriously.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Duke lacrosse players vs. Durham cops = no contest

As part of my reconsideration of the DNA evidence of the Duke lacrosse case, I have be rereading portions of the book Until Proven Innocent, which deal with the weeks immediately after the alleged rape. David Evans was the third of three players who would later be indicted. At this point the players had been advised by Dean Sue Wasiolek not to discuss the incident with their parents or with lawyers. Wes Covington was a lawyer who did not represent the players and did not appear to be employed by Duke University (but was a friend of Dean Wasiolek). Bob Ekstrand taught criminal law at Duke, and he had represented some players with minor run-ins with the law. Wes Covington had just arranged for the lacrosse players to be interviewed by the police en masse the following day.

“Could Covington’s mass interview plan have succeeded in quietly ending the investigation? ‘If you have…faith in the people administering justice,’ David Evans later mused, ‘Wes Covington’s approach would have worked. But something was wrong with the people running the system.’” (p. 49)

Ekstrand believed that “the mass interview plan was potentially disastrous. There would be no defense council, no ground rules, and no tape recording to prevent police from distorting what the players said. Talking to police without the benefit of counsel was the most dangerous thing in the world, the lawyer thought. (p. 51)

Knowing that every player was in peril of being indicted as an accomplice (which would affect their credibility as witnesses), Ekstrand contacted his mentor, a famous criminal defense lawyer, who said in effect, “If you are going to save these students, you’ll do it tonight.” Although the police had assured their coach that there would be just a few questions, “Ekstrand didn’t believe it…They would isolate each team member and employ the typical Durham police routine: Confuse them, lie to them, exhaust them, frighten them, and extract from them anything that fit the cops’ theory of what had happened that night.” (p. 52) Ekstrand “also knew that once innocent suspects start talking , they can be trashed as liars for getting minor details wrong.” (p. 61)

After the all-night meeting with Ekstrand and after consulting with parents, the players asked for an eight-day postponement of the interviews. The police and prosecution responded by producing a nontestimonial order to obtain DNA and torso photographs from all forty-six white lacrosse players (the single black player was not considered a suspect), despite the claim that only three had raped the accuser.
(highlighting mine)
Does any of this sound familiar?

 

[Machiavelli]

I can understand why you might think that - but you are wrong. Salduz is essentially a beacon judgement, lighting the way to the application of a core human rights principle within European member states.

Here is an extract from a joint briefing paper on the draft European directive on the rights of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings, given by the European Bar Association, Amnesty International and others.

Note the reference to the "Salduz principle". Basically, what everyone is trying to do is to find a way to harmonize the differences between common law and civil law systems in order to preserve the procedural rights of suspects and to prevent states from making egregious errors, which require time consuming and expensive referral to the ECHR. But I understand. Italians don't get case law. It's not part of the legal culture. They are going to have to learn.
(...)

http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/20130415_jointNGObriefindMeasureC.pdf

As I said, one thing you fail to accept is that a malicious false accusation against an innocent is not an "incriminating statement", it is a crime.
Just one of the things.