Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Er, so nothing has changed assuming the caluunia application passes the admissibility phase of the process, both sides are given the opportunity to argue their case in writing and a judgement is rendered based on the interpretation of ECHR convention (case-law), yea that sounds impartial.

By the way, do you accept as a fact that Amanda’s lawyers submitted the caluunia application on the 25th November 2013, because she said so in her blog?

Well, something changes. Once an Art. 6 case is admitted, the odds increase expodentially that a violation will be found.

You posited that nothing would change once the application is admitted, and I said that you're wrong. Now you're making some other point. Putting that to the side, I'll bet you're wrong again and that something has happened by now.

I bet there is at least some talk going around in back channels about how they might be able to to come to a resolution.

Wonderful.

The ECHR attempts to get the parties to reach a "friendly settlement" which in the US we would call an out-of-court settlement. It is a private, confidential process closely guarded by ECHR, although the methodology is discussed on their web site.

 

[Desert Fox]

The ECHR attempts to get the parties to reach a "friendly settlement" which in the US we would call an out-of-court settlement. It is a private, confidential process closely guarded by ECHR, although the methodology is discussed on their web site.

I am sure Amanda would settle for Italy just leaving her alone

 

[Dan O.]

By the way, do you accept as a fact that Amanda’s lawyers submitted the caluunia application on the 25th November 2013, because she said so in her blog?

Tell us why you do not.

Amanda is volunteering information that will eventually be public. There is nothing to be gained by falsely reporting this information and much to loose in terms of credibility with the public.

 

[Numbers]

anglolawyer,

Someone here made the point long ago that everything that Dr. Giobbi said made him suspicious happened before the interrogations of 5 November. That coupled with Giobbi's acknowledging that he said to bring them both in would seem to be helpful to Ms. Knox's argument. YMMV.

Also, there is the argument that the questioning and calling in was obviously not that for a witness interview but that for a high-stress interrogation.

Witnesses are not called for late-night interviews when the crime occurred several days previously and there is no urgent development.

Wait! There was an urgent development - didn't the remand judge point out that Amanda's mother was known to be coming to Italy on November 6, and that was one reason justifying the arrest? The potential that one may get assistance from a lawyer may be reason for urgent interrogation and arrest in Italy, in practice. If verifiable, this would all be important to ECHR.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, my philosophical position is that of being a complete skeptic. For example, I do not believe that the city of Strasbourg, France, where the ECHR sits, exists because I have never been there, and therefore, I cannot personally verify its existence.

On the other hand, having read Ms. Knox's memoir, Waiting to be Heard, I believe that the information she gives is as highly credible as that of the most reliable person. Thus, I accept that her statement about her ECHR submission is accurate.

In contrast, I have found that those who attack Ms. Knox (aka "guilters") have a tendency to produce incorrect or partially incorrect statements, and I make inferences from my finding.

ETA: To be more clear, I do not believe what Ms. Knox wrote in her blog merely because I read it there (which is how I take your question), but I do believe it is accurate because in my experience of reading her statements, she is a highly credible source.

I am now toying with the idea that Italian courts don't exist. What Italian justice is, is a series of lunches, each one which includes various combination - pairs, triplets, quads - of people associated with a case.

My proof? When asked to list his reasons why Knox (and Sollecito, who sometimes gets on his radar), Machiavelli said that Conti-Vecchiotti was seen at lunch with one of the defence lawyers. In a corollary of this, he also said that defence lawyers were once seen in Wladimiro De Nunzio's office once.

That's how these things are decided, through an endless series of conspiratorial meetings with occasional stoppoages on weekends so that they can go to court.

March 25, 2015, pales in significance to the many conversations happening in Rome right now, and which will take place up until that date and beyond. In the neverendum which is Italian justice, who really cares what a Cassazione Section decides on that date?

 

[platonov]

Maybe it is just a PR stunt.

{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
I thought the whole point was that the ECHR would make the Italians rewrite their penal code, set aside the murder convictions, give Britney a big bag of money & make her Queen of Italy and hand back Monte Cassino (or something).

Which would be a form of redress or relief. Certainly a cause for universal rejoicing.

Is this not the case?

 

[Numbers]

Er, so nothing has changed assuming the caluunia application passes the admissibility phase of the process, both sides are given the opportunity to argue their case in writing and a judgement is rendered based on the interpretation of ECHR convention (case-law), yea that sounds impartial.

By the way, do you accept as a fact that Amanda’s lawyers submitted the caluunia application on the 25th November 2013, because she said so in her blog?

No, my philosophical position is that of being a complete skeptic.
For example, I do not believe that the city of Strasbourg, France, where the ECHR sits, exists because I have never been there, and therefore, I cannot personally verify its existence.

On the other hand, having read Ms. Knox's memoir, Waiting to be Heard, I believe that the information she gives is as highly credible as that of the most reliable person. Thus, I accept that her statement about her ECHR submission is accurate.

In contrast, I have found that those who attack Ms. Knox (aka "guilters") have a tendency to produce incorrect or partially incorrect statements, and I make inferences from my finding.

ETA: To be more clear, I do not believe what Ms. Knox wrote in her blog merely because I read it there (which is how I take your question), but I do believe it is accurate because in my experience of reading her statements, she is a highly credible source.

You do realize that those who have raised doubt about her application being submitted, for example because her lawyers were not in Strasbourg on that particular day, are issuing misleading statements.

The submission (application) must by the rules of the Court be mailed to their registry in Strasbourg, NOT hand-delivered (which they simply will not accept). This is stated on the ECHR website.

So perhaps you will see that the issue of low or no credibility rests on the guilters. They have either not read the ECHR website with sufficient care, or are intentionally misleading.

I further have found in my research that the guilters misstate the law, including Italian law. In their favor, the Italian courts do not faithfully follow Italian law or constitution, so there is a commonality of spirit.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for directing me to Amanda's account of Napoleone's evidence yesterday. You reminded me of the Guilters' Dilemma (maybe it should be a Paradox, not sure). That is to reconcile the belief that she was not a suspect as of 10.30 p.m. on 5th Nov with all her deeply suspicious behaviour and the clear and obvious pointers to her guilt all of which were fully evident before the 5th.

anglolawyer,

Someone here made the point long ago that everything that Dr. Giobbi said made him suspicious happened before the interrogations of 5 November. That coupled with Giobbi's acknowledging that he said to bring them both in would seem to be helpful to Ms. Knox's argument. YMMV.

The guilters' dilemma is found most blatantly in John Follain's book, a book which relied heavily on the PLE (Mignini and Napoleoni) as sources, and rarely on anything from the defence side of things. Follain wrote often as if he had access to individual PLE thoughts as each event in a certain timeframe was related.

Follain manages the impossible. He relates (what is essentially) the PLE narrative of what was what from about 10:30 am Nov 2 to just before 1:45 am Nov 6th.

It was during that time which Follain needs to keep his narrative free from anything, really, which suggests that either Sollecito or Knox were anything more than people informed of the facts. All this to set up:

1) Sollecito withdrawing his alibi
2) Knox minutes later completely inexplicably catching Ficarra by surprise, and without warning naming Lumumba​

Yet Follain cannot help himself. His narrative pre-naming Lumumba is peppered with oblique references to a subtext, that from Nov 2 at 10:30 am to 1:45 am Nov 6th, the PLE was right to suspect Knox and Sollecito. Follain is trying a narrative sleight-of-hand; letting his readers in on the subtle PLE suspicions that "Knox knew more than she was letting on," in those days before the interrogation, but still catching the PLE gap-toothed, jaw-dropping by surprise blurting out Lumumba's name under the weight of chamomile tea and biscuits.

Start at the point in Follain's narrative where Battistelli says that the mess in Filomena's room, "is no burglary." Ten points for anyone who knows what Follain relates immediately next! The read forward until the chamomile tea makes its own entry into the narrative. You'll see what I mean.

Sometimes I think Machiavelli is right - there is an Italian concept in law of, someone strongly suspected.

 

[platonov]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

This is all I know about what might be in Amanda Knox's application; it's from her blog of Nov. 25, 2013:

European Court of Human Rights
by AMANDA posted on NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander conviction with the European Court of Human Rights. My slander conviction was based on comments I made regarding Patrick Lumumba…comments that were coerced during a lengthy interrogation by Perugia police shortly before I was arrested in 2007. The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith’s murder, which was a violation of my human rights. The police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name saying they knew I was going to meet him the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder which was not true. I have stated many times that my original comments about Patrick were coerced by the police and not true.

(Note: The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1998 it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly. The Court is located in Strasbourg, France.)

(Further note: I was originally convicted of slander at my original trial in December 2009. My conviction for slander was upheld during my appeal that resulted in my acquittal of Meredith’s murder. The slander conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March of 2013 and my appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was filed today.)

Well in that case, I’m afraid, you are starting from a position of less than zero knowledge.

Presuming that AK’s lawyers have more respect for the intelligence of ECHR than she has for that of her fans they will hardly submit an appeal with such an obvious lie at its heart.
As this contradicts what AK stated in the witness box in 2009 it’s unlikely to feature. That was the appearance where she was also caught out in a lie on this very issue – directly contradicting what she had said with her lawyers present in the Dec 2007 interrogation.
You know the one where she explained her false accusation by stating ‘because I thought it might be true’ before refusing to answer further Q’s.

& they have both of those on tape

Have a look at her testimony – happy hunting.

 

[anglolawyer]

anglolawyer,

Someone here made the point long ago that everything that Dr. Giobbi said made him suspicious happened before the interrogations of 5 November. That coupled with Giobbi's acknowledging that he said to bring them both in would seem to be helpful to Ms. Knox's argument. YMMV.

MVDNV!

 

[Numbers]

What
I thought the whole point was that the ECHR would make the Italians rewrite their penal code, set aside the murder convictions, give Britney a big bag of money & make her Queen of Italy and hand back Monte Cassino (or something).

Which would be a form of redress or relief. Certainly a cause for universal rejoicing.

Is this not the case?

Do you have any evidence, say in the ECHR website, that they could do all or any of the things you jocularly claim?

The guilters seem to enjoy misrepresenting; it's all quite funny.

 

[platonov]

There is just so much about this case which just baffles me. We have feminists who write that she should be extradited. Do they look at the evidence?

Not just you, comrade. It appears to be a widespread affliction

 

[Kauffer]

Er, so nothing has changed assuming the caluunia application passes the admissibility phase of the process, both sides are given the opportunity to argue their case in writing and a judgement is rendered based on the interpretation of ECHR convention (case-law), yea that sounds impartial.

By the way, do you accept as a fact that Amanda’s lawyers submitted the caluunia application on the 25th November 2013, because she said so in her blog?

The case WAS submitted.

The case at the ECHR is set up to permit adversarial opinion, but there's nothing to say that Italy must defend it's judiciary's outcome. One of the problems the Italian lawyer who looks at this is going to realise is there's no real defence Italy can make in the post Salduz world - if you think differently, then have a go! Construct an argument for keeping the calunia evidence using the case law. I mean, we can all do it, but it wouldn't be convincing.

If you were the country, Italy, rather than ISC, you've got different priorities. If I were Italy and thinking of my interests, I'd want the Amanda Knox issue off my desk. I don't want to stand up for some other guys damn fool verdict or the hubris of the judiciary and I certainly don't want to get dragged into an extradition fight which is probably going to get nasty and have the British media and the American media playing tug of war and making me miserable, so I'd quite like the ECHR to take the problem away.

If the ISC goes guilty in March there will be two more applications to the ECHR. You can bet your house on that.

 

[Numbers]

Well in that case, I’m afraid, you are starting from a position of less than zero knowledge.

Presuming that AK’s lawyers have more respect for the intelligence of ECHR than she has for that of her fans they will hardly submit an appeal with such an obvious lie at its heart.
As this contradicts what AK stated in the witness box in 2009 it’s unlikely to feature. That was the appearance where she was also caught out in a lie on this very issue – directly contradicting what she had said with her lawyers present in the Dec 2007 interrogation.
You know the one where she explained her false accusation by stating ‘because I thought it might be true’ before refusing to answer further Q’s.

& they have both of those on tape

Have a look at her testimony – happy hunting.

The application to the ECHR is not an appeal. It is a claim consisting of one or more allegations that Italy violated one or more Convention rights enjoyed by a person residing in Italy.

I am intentionally not addressing the rest of your statement at this time, except to point out that the police did not offer any recording or transcript of the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Therefore, it is her word against theirs as to who brought out Patrick Lumumba's name and in what context first. And indeed, she apparently did come to consider, for a short period of time - some hours, during the interrogation and apparently afterwards but not later than her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6 - that Lumumba could be involved, as a result of the suggestion of the coercive interrogation. But that is not important for the ECHR case, which relates to the alleged violation by Italy of Amanda Knox's rights under the Convention, for example, by not providing a lawyer during an interrogation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I hope he brought his lunchbox

The application to the ECHR is not an appeal. It is a claim that consisting of one or more allegations that Italy violated one or more Convention rights enjoyed by a person residing in Italy.

I think Numbers must be a bus driver, because platonov just got taken to school.

 

[Kauffer]

What
I thought the whole point was that the ECHR would make the Italians rewrite their penal code, set aside the murder convictions, give Britney a big bag of money & make her Queen of Italy and hand back Monte Cassino (or something).

Which would be a form of redress or relief. Certainly a cause for universal rejoicing.

Is this not the case?

As for rewriting the penal code - all courts in Italy are under instruction from the Constitutional Court to interpret law in a manner which is compliant with Convention case law. If this cannot be done, the judge in question is required to refer the law to the Constitutional Court who will strike it down if necessary. The ECHR does not, directly, instruct member states to change their laws.

One of the problems with this process is that most of Italy's judges have never heard of the ECHR.

 

[Numbers]

As for rewriting the penal code - all courts in Italy are under instruction from the Constitutional Court to interpret law in a manner which is compliant with Convention case law. If this cannot be done, the judge in question is required to refer the law to the Constitutional Court who will strike it down if necessary. The ECHR does not, directly, instruct member states to change their laws.

One of the problems with this process is that most of Italy's judges have never heard of the ECHR.

Or of the Italian Constitution.

 

[Numbers]

An online pamphlet:

Rights and Freedoms in Practice: teaching resources
Council of Europe - European Convention on Human Rights

This pamphlet provides a brief overview of the Convention, ECHR, and the Committee of Ministers and how this (rather cumbersome) system functions within the Council of Europe States. Includes the flow chart for ECHR/CoM judgment and supervision of cases.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Teaching_resources_ENG.pdf

 

[Numbers]

From:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Teaching_resources_ENG.pdf

The execution of a judgment continues
to be under the supervision of the
Committee of Ministers until the desired
results are achieved. The Committee of
Ministers takes an active part in seeking
solutions by offering encouragement,
assistance, or if necessary applying
pressure. Once the Committee considers
that the judgment has been fully executed,
it publicly adopts a “Final Resolution”,
setting out in detail the measures taken.

The Court’s judgments are binding: when it finds a violation,
the country in question is obliged to execute the
judgment taking measures to ensure that a similar violation
cannot take place and to erase the consequences
for the victim. The Court may also order the state to pay
the applicant a sum of money as “just satisfaction”, in
that the money in question serves as compensation.
Other specific measures may also be necessary, such as
releasing the applicant if he or she is being detained, reestablishing
contacts with the applicant’s child, granting
him or her a resident’s permit, etc.
It is the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
which is responsible for monitoring application of the
Court’s judgments: it helps states identify the necessary
measures and find solutions when the adoption of certain
measures comes up against problems. In addition,
it assesses the effectiveness of the measures taken for
the applicant and for any other persons who might find
themselves in the same situation.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Numbers must be a bus driver, because platonov just got taken to school.

If platonov didn't have ad hominem like "Britney" or "Queen of Italy", there'd be nothing to say at all.