Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I have observed before that it is a major criticism of Hellman that he convicted her of calumny. If Frank's reporting of what Hellman himself said then he was not fit to be a judge:

The explanation of why he convicted Knox for calumny, Hellmann gave only in an interview to Oggi: “Because otherwise we should have said that the cops were criminals.” So, in order to avoid saying that the cops had committed a crime in soliciting Knox’s statements against Lumumba, he made an inconsistent ruling, and, since interviews don’t belong in the trial, that inconsistency remained unexplained, becoming one of the elements used to ask for the annulment of his ruling. The S.C. is just there to find inconsistencies in rulings, they found that one, and they used it, with other elements, to legitimately annul that ruling.

I agree. Sadly.

 

[Kauffer]

True. I re-read it and agree. In court, though, she only went this far:

'They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.'
p.10 of transcript

As she covers the same ground repeatedly it may be (or not) she gets closer to the version in the book at some point. In her appeal to Hellman she went even further and said the police told her Patrick was involved in the murder:


She was threatened with 30 years in prison and struck on the head when she did not recall events correctly. Amanda states repeatedly, even to her mother in an intercepted conversation of her awareness of her innocence. The intent to slander is missing because she is not convinced of the guilt or innocence of the person she accuses. Amanda had no way of knowing that Patrick was innocent. The police were telling her that Patrick was involved. To be guilty of slander one must have certainty and full knowledge of the innocence of the person accused. Amanda was not trying to slander Patrick. She was attempting to help the police and was following their guidance. It was the responsibility of the investigators to determine Patrick’s guilt or innocence.

Is that in her evidence or in the book?

"Who's this person? Who's Patrick?" p116

Then we get Donnino and her trauma story, Ficarra hits her, they tell her she's got amnesia and then:

"..you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith" p117

Patrick's the only association. Sure they were telling her he was involved.

It's a bit like the trick the mentalists play. They'll put up pictures of a brand of ice cream around the place, but you don't realise what's going on. But you take the images in. Later they walk you to an ice cream shop and ask you which one you'd like. Guess which one you choose?

Cutting out all the dancing around, the essential police attack is like this:

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick!
You know who did it!
Now tell me - Who's the murderer?

 

[platonov]

Bonanza over Columbo every time.

You prompted me to take a closer look at this and I think I concede the point, after discovering that google was translating this extract from article 63.1 of the penal code:

una persona non imputata ovvero una persona non sottoposta alle indagini

as follows:

If in the courts and the police a person accused or a person under investigation makes statements

rather than

If in the courts and the police a person not accused or a person not under investigation makes statements [etc]

which really makes quite a difference. OK, you win the argument from authority but you are still wrong in substance as, I trust, the ECHR will eventually find.

Incidentally, I am not sure the Cassazione decision in question was favourable, even on the murder charge. Her lawyers were trying to spring her from jail, appealing from Matteini's order of preventive detention, and their point was that Matteini should not have included the two statements in the list of incriminating factors justifying her order. I find nowhere in the Cassazione motivation any criticism of Matteini and this specific ground of appeal was explicitly rejected.

No, I ‘win the argument’ in reality and the legal sphere. These are also the realms where the ECHR reside.

Argument from authority indeed
As any appeal to the ECHR is to seek redress from the ruling of the highest domestic authority some law talking guys might consider it important to understand precisely the legal ‘niceties’ of the decision being appealed. YMMV.
The ‘nicety’ in this case being merely a mainstay of Italian jurisprudence which has only been explained 357 times.

ps Although credit where it’s due there is usually a lot more foot stamping or claims of incomprehension.

 

[Numbers]

I agree. Sadly.

All the judges in this case are unfit.
Hellmann is the best of them.

 

[anglolawyer]

"Who's this person? Who's Patrick?" p116

Then we get Donnino and her trauma story, Ficarra hits her, they tell her she's got amnesia and then:

"..you need to tell me who the murderer is. You need to tell me. You know who the murderer is. You know who killed Meredith" p117

Patrick's the only association. Sure they were telling her he was involved.

It's a bit like the trick the mentalists play. They'll put up pictures of a brand of ice cream around the place, but you don't realise what's going on. But you take the images in. Later they walk you to an ice cream shop and ask you which one you'd like. Guess which one you choose?

Cutting out all the dancing around, the essential police attack is like this:

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick!
You know who did it!
Now tell me - Who's the murderer?

It's possible the appeal summary at IIP does not translate and/or summarise correctly her case on appeal. It maybe it should have said the police suggested or implied Patrick's involvement which, as you say, they plainly did on her account.

 

[Kauffer]

Can you post the testimony, or a link?

I've got WTBH pp305-311 - the summary of the testimony.

Ms Knox says:

"The police were suspicious of us from the start, she (Napoleoni) said..."

Napoleoni references:

- the kissing at the cottage
- at the questura AK and RS "were absolutely indifferent to everyone..." whereas the other people "were all crying"
- the Guede faeces issue, says "they began to fall into contradiction. Something wasn't right?
- the statement about the locked door
- the switched off phones

Napoleoni has also decided the burglary is fake. Both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito appear to be fully formed suspects by the end of the 2nd. Then they start bugging their phones.

 

[Numbers]

No, I ‘win the argument’ in reality and the legal sphere. These are also the realms where the ECHR reside.

Argument from authority indeed
As any appeal to the ECHR is to seek redress from the ruling of the highest domestic authority some law talking guys might consider it important to understand precisely the legal ‘niceties’ of the decision being appealed. YMMV.
The ‘nicety’ in this case being merely a mainstay of Italian jurisprudence which has only been explained 357 times.

ps Although credit where it’s due there is usually a lot more foot stamping or claims of incomprehension.

{Highlighting added to quote.}
This is your interpretation of what happens.
ECHR is not an appeal court and does not offer any redress of domestic court decisions. It is not responsible for the execution of its judgments.

http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

Please note:
" The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions
or annul national laws.
" The Court is not responsible for the execution of its judgments.
As soon as it has given judgment, responsibility passes to
the Committee of Ministers3 of the Council of Europe, which
has the task of supervising execution and ensuring that any
compensation is paid.

 

[Bill Williams]

{Highlighting added to quote.}
This is your interpretation of what happens.
ECHR is not an appeal court and does not offer any redress of domestic court decisions. It is not responsible for the execution of its judgments.

http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

Please note:
" The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions
or annul national laws.
" The Court is not responsible for the execution of its judgments.
As soon as it has given judgment, responsibility passes to
the Committee of Ministers3 of the Council of Europe, which
has the task of supervising execution and ensuring that any compensation is paid.

What coercive power does the Committee of Ministers bring to bear?

 

[Kauffer]

No, I ‘win the argument’ in reality and the legal sphere. These are also the realms where the ECHR reside.

Argument from authority indeed
As any appeal to the ECHR is to seek redress from the ruling of the highest domestic authority some law talking guys might consider it important to understand precisely the legal ‘niceties’ of the decision being appealed. YMMV.
The ‘nicety’ in this case being merely a mainstay of Italian jurisprudence which has only been explained 357 times.

ps Although credit where it’s due there is usually a lot more foot stamping or claims of incomprehension.

Clarity is not one of your gifts. Nevertheless,
Statements obtained without benefit of counsel and used to convict is a violation of the convention except where:
1) the accused adopts the statement or
2) there is other evidence to convict such that the statement evidence had no bearing on the conviction

The European Convention Human rights stands above ordinary law in the constitution of Italy. All domestic law yields to the convention.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, I ‘win the argument’ in reality and the legal sphere. These are also the realms where the ECHR reside.

Argument from authority indeed
As any appeal to the ECHR is to seek redress from the ruling of the highest domestic authority some law talking guys might consider it important to understand precisely the legal ‘niceties’ of the decision being appealed. YMMV.
The ‘nicety’ in this case being merely a mainstay of Italian jurisprudence which has only been explained 357 times.

ps Although credit where it’s due there is usually a lot more foot stamping or claims of incomprehension.

We haven't conducted the 'in reality' part of the argument. Maybe you won it against someone else or just in your own mind .

Thanks for the credit. I try not to mind being wrong and welcome elucidation from whatever source so my thanks to you. You forced me to understand a passage in the Cassazione ruling which I have read several times and always found baffling.

 

[Dougm]

Yet again the old ‘that’s not how they do it in Kentucky/Kent/Canada’ argument is trotted out. & It’s certainly an offence in Kent.

No doubt false murder accusations against black guys are, like cartwheels in police stations, the norm in the US and no biggie– If you say so.
I vaguely recall from early in the thread the case of a woman who killed 3 kids and blamed a black guy.

But AK made the false accusation (repeated more than once and in her own handwriting on the 3rd occasion) and committed the murder in Italy. When in Rome and all that.


What is interesting is the contrast between the downplaying of this crime when compared with the righteous Britneydude shrieks that greeted the mere reporting of the drug case. We are certainly learning more about the moral universe that is Cartwheel world even if a reciprocal understanding of Italian or European law is no closer to hand.

In the real world however the ECHR avenue can’t save her – It’s up to Uncle Sam if she doesn’t run.
What can be done there – Is there anything to be said for another petition?

I notice you tend to change the meaning of what I posted, based on your preconceived notions of Knox supporters, and your perception of motivations thereof.

The point was that many people, not living in countries where there is a crime of calunnia, might not understand the way it is looked at in Italy. Meaning I agree with you, sort of. But not about your snide comments about anyone that disagrees with you.

 

[Dougm]

Andrew Gumbel explains this rather well:

"The Fascists blew off some dust with a penal reform known as the Codice Rocco, but they also made the system more explicitly authoritarian and more political. With the founding of the Italian Republic after World War Two, the judiciary insisted on — and obtained — a large degree of independence but did almost nothing to alter the Fascist code, which remains substantially in place to this day and includes, for example, laws making it a crime to disrespect state institutions or insult public officials. The code provides for criminal suspects to be held for up to a year without charge while prosecutors assemble their case. It makes no professional distinction between prosecutors and judges (they are all fellow magistrates) and it allows trial judges to decide cases substantially on their own. Nominally, the judges are assisted by a panel of giudici popolari, “popular judges” who are in fact self-selecting members of the public. They are the closest thing Italy has to a jury — except they do not get to deliberate by themselves, are not vetted for their advance knowledge or opinions and are free to seek out information beyond the courtroom. In practice, they act as a rubber stamp for whatever the judges have already decided."

http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/tr...-raffaele-sollecito-nightmare-italian-justice

Now you are getting to what my original comment re: neo-fascism was about. I don't what to call it, and don't want to debate the lable, but the point is that there are long standing traditions going on in the way crime is prosecuted there that led to this fiasco. Call it whatever, but it's still the same thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree. Sadly.

All the judges in this case are unfit.
Hellmann is the best of them.

C'mon, if Hellmann said something even remotely like what Sfarzo says Oggi reported, Hellmann joins the ranks of Nencini who had to be investigated following the Jan 2014 conviction.

For Pete's sake, what the hell is wrong with Italian judges? Nencini blabs to a reporter the day after the 2nd grade convictions, that:

1) things could have gone better for Raffaele if he'd only cooperated
2) at least one popular judge came to him confused as to the difference of what she was hearing in court as opposed to what she was hearing in the media.​

This is not a first world judiciary, this is the Wild West. In our parts, over 100 years ago, one judge got the reputation as a "hanging judge," not because he was particularly harsh on criminals, but because....

..... he regularly threatened to hang juries if they didn't come to the right decisions!

When I came to all this, I was the only person in the universe who thought Hellmann/Zanetta came to exactly the right decision on the murder charges AND the calunnia. I have changed my views as information new to me came into view....

I am now rendered speechless IF what Sfarzo says Oggi quoted about him is even remotely true.

Does anyone have a link? This is disturbing.

 

[Numbers]

What coercive power does the Committee of Ministers bring to bear?

That's a good question.

I don't know that they have a "coercive" power. The signatories to the Convention are obligated to follow the judgments of the ECHR.

Perhaps they can impose "double secret probation" (National Lampoon's Animal House, 1978 motion picture).

http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

ARTICLE 46
Binding force and execution of judgments
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the
Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.
3. If the Committee of Ministers considers that the supervision
of the execution of a final judgment is hindered by a problem of
interpretation of the judgment, it may refer the matter to the Court
for a ruling on the question of interpretation. A referral decision
shall require a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives
entitled to sit on the committee.
4. If the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation under paragraph1.
5. If the Court finds a violation of paragraph 1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken. If the Court finds no violation of paragraph1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers, which shall close its examination of the case.

 

[Diocletus]

I notice you tend to change the meaning of what I posted, based on your preconceived notions of Knox supporters, and your perception of motivations thereof.

The point was that many people, not living in countries where there is a crime of calunnia, might not understand the way it is looked at in Italy. Meaning I agree with you, sort of. But not about your snide comments about anyone that disagrees with you.

If calunnia is such a "bad" crime in Italy, then you would think that inciting or inducing calunnia would be equally bad and treated very seriously. You would think that the country would have in place formalities sufficient to protect interrogees from undue police pressure, would seriously investigate claims of improper interrogation, and would severely punish authorities who engage in tactics to incite or induce callunnia. But, Italy doesn't. Therefore, I conclude that callunnia isn't really a serious crime. It's a pretext, a subterfuge, an excuse.

 

[Bill Williams]

What coercive power does the Committee of Ministers bring to bear?

That's a good question.

I don't know that they have a "coercive" power. The signatories to the Convention are obligated to follow the judgments of the ECHR.

Perhaps they can impose "double secret probation" (National Lampoon's Animal House, 1978 motion picture).

http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

ARTICLE 46
Binding force and execution of judgments
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the
Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.
3. If the Committee of Ministers considers that the supervision
of the execution of a final judgment is hindered by a problem of
interpretation of the judgment, it may refer the matter to the Court
for a ruling on the question of interpretation. A referral decision
shall require a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives
entitled to sit on the committee.
4. If the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation under paragraph1.
5. If the Court finds a violation of paragraph 1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken. If the Court finds no violation of paragraph1, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers, which shall close its examination of the case.

Reminds me of the scene when the troopers in Aliens are descending into the bowels of a nuclear reactor to save the civilians from the acid-spewing aliens.

The dimwit lieutenant is informed that there can be no gunfire in that facility lest a nuclear explosion be triggered. So he orders the individual troopers to give up their ammunition, and use flame throwers only.

Private Frosst says to his buddy when surrendering his ammunition, "What are we supposed to use: harsh language?"

Unless the Committee of Ministers can lawfully order the seizure of Italian bank accounts or the arrest of Italian authorities who fail to carry out their directives.......

Then it does not have much teeth. Sounds to me that all they do is refer their outrage to another committee.....

That'll teach them!!!!

 

[Dougm]

If calunnia is such a "bad" crime in Italy, then you would think that inciting or inducing calunnia would be equally bad and treated very seriously. You would think that the country would have in place formalities sufficient to protect interrogees from undue police pressure, would seriously investigate claims of improper interrogation, and would severely punish authorities who engage in tactics to incite or induce callunnia. But, Italy doesn't. Therefore, I conclude that callunnia isn't really a serious crime. It's a pretext, a subterfuge, an excuse.

Good point.

 

[Kauffer]

The ECHR really needs some sort of habeas corpus relief. It's ridiculous that a person can potentially spend years in jail waiting for relief from clear human rights violations. I assume that eventually, such a mechanism will become available as it follows from the concept of restitutio integrum.

Yeah, the Italians will have to set aside the conviction based on the Article 6 violations using an appropriate mechanism - there is a form of habeas corpus in the constitution - art 13. Then, presumably, either they drop the case, or there's a re-trial without all the bits that led to the judgement of violations. But there will be so many violations - fair trial, equality of arms etc.

How could they run the case either without any DNA evidence or with the EDFs disclosed?

 

[Desert Fox]

Interestingly, I can find nothing in English on a Google search before September 2007 (I wanted to predate the Meredeth Kercher case)

I found this case is 2006 and the Bing translate makes it read like something completely different
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/10/se...olto-calunnia/dell-utri-assolto-calunnia.html

Seems to involve collusion with Mafia and appears to have been acquitted.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've got WTBH pp305-311 - the summary of the testimony.

Ms Knox says:

"The police were suspicious of us from the start, she (Napoleoni) said..."

Napoleoni references:

- the kissing at the cottage
- at the questura AK and RS "were absolutely indifferent to everyone..." whereas the other people "were all crying"
- the Guede faeces issue, says "they began to fall into contradiction. Something wasn't right?
- the statement about the locked door
- the switched off phones

Napoleoni has also decided the burglary is fake. Both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito appear to be fully formed suspects by the end of the 2nd. Then they start bugging their phones.

Yes, I read that. Thanks.