Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

How on earth is that an "obvious lie"? This is the very substance of the problem. Regarding the flow of information, Knox (and Sollecito) were at the mercy of what the PLE were telling them. The very last opportunity for Knox to get any information unfiltered through the PLE agenda.....

.... "She buckled and told us what we already knew"....

Was when she hung up with Filomena at the Questura before Ficarra's appearance. After that ALL information was managed by the PLE, until the Nov 8 appearance before Matteini, when Knox met her lawyers for the first time.

She was not in a position to know anything, really, other than what she was told.

The weakness of your case is astounding. No wonder you default to ad hominem.

 

[tsig]

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.

Hint:

You're supposed to wait til the ball is kicked before you move the goal posts.

 

[Wattson]

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

He, somehow, thinks that his silly palaver makes him look intelligent. (See, I can do it too)

 

[Desert Fox]

Hint:

You're supposed to wait til the ball is kicked before you move the goal posts.

Why the cryptic remark?

 

[platonov]

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

It’s a widely used, and by many on this thread, shorthand halides 1.
If I wanted to offer a defence I could claim 'I wasn’t speaking legally'
If I did that in a more serious matter like say weaseling out an angry ‘lynch the ******’ comment you might with justification accuse me of wanting to ride at the front of the bus.

But I didn’t so in this case I’m happy to keep using it.

 

[platonov]

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.

As that is your best argument to date I’d better respond. It’s not like it was found I had confused a civil case with a criminal case after posting thousands of words on said case. If I had I might be accused by some unkind types of riding the bus to the special school

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.

OK to the discussion of your knowledge of the ECHR appeal and to an extent the appeal itself.
I’m not sure how this can be simplified any further. They have her statements before the PM and in court – they don’t have to take the police at their word. Seriously is that really so complicated.

Britneys blog will not form part of the legal landscape of the case. Her statements in various police & judicial settings will. That is (part of) what her lawyers and the ECHR will have to work with if the case is ever heard.

Knock yourself out with her blog and spurious internet comment but if you are completely unfamiliar with the ‘legal stuff’ you may as well be reading & posting bus timetables.



BTW This is priceless.

 

[platonov]

Simply delicious

How on earth is that an "obvious lie"? This is the very substance of the problem. Regarding the flow of information, Knox (and Sollecito) were at the mercy of what the PLE were telling them. The very last opportunity for Knox to get any information unfiltered through the PLE agenda.....

.... "She buckled and told us what we already knew"....

Was when she hung up with Filomena at the Questura before Ficarra's appearance. After that ALL information was managed by the PLE, until the Nov 8 appearance before Matteini, when Knox met her lawyers for the first time.

She was not in a position to know anything, really, other than what she was told.

The weakness of your case is astounding. No wonder you default to ad hominem.

Oh Bill, Bill, Bill - that’s hopeless.
I’m referring to what she admitted in open court in 2009.

 

[Bill Williams]

How on earth is that an "obvious lie"? This is the very substance of the problem. Regarding the flow of information, Knox (and Sollecito) were at the mercy of what the PLE were telling them. The very last opportunity for Knox to get any information unfiltered through the PLE agenda.....

.... "She buckled and told us what we already knew"....

Was when she hung up with Filomena at the Questura before Ficarra's appearance. After that ALL information was managed by the PLE, until the Nov 8 appearance before Matteini, when Knox met her lawyers for the first time.

She was not in a position to know anything, really, other than what she was told.

The weakness of your case is astounding. No wonder you default to ad hominem.

Oh Bill, Bill, Bill - that’s hopeless.
I’m referring to what she admitted in open court in 2009.

I think one of the issues on this thread is that a guilter often gets replies to them from all directions, so loses track of what;s what. Fair enough.

My answer to your quip, "I’m referring to what she admitted in open court in 2009," is: I know you were.

What she was talking about in open court is what her state of mind was at interrogation.

What she said in open court is as you said: "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."

Please not the past-tense of her remark in court. You said that this was an "obvious lie" based on her interrogation of Dec 2007.... I believe THAT was the time when she refused to answer any more questions, on lawyer's advice I presume.

Clear now? You still have not made your point.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's a guy, Lenroot Mays, who has seemingly come out of nowhere with very astute observations. This guy is in a league with Kauffer and Numbers....

As an aside, does anyone know of a "new person" who has come out of the woodwork to bolster a guilt narrative (not that there is one, really)?

https://amandaknoxauguriesofinnocence.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/happy-new-year/

I have written (but not posted) another extended piece, an anatomy of the exceedingly odd and confused habits of mind that characterize judges in Italy. Exhibit A for the moment is the lamentable Nencini’s extraterrestrial masterpiece. More people should read it because in so doing they would recognize immediately that they have entered the realm of science fiction, not compelling legal prose. Nencini creates a wonderful imaginative world that is quite unlike the world in which we actually live, a world with its own logic and technology and its own laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. And when he is not indulging flights of fancy, he is just plain dishonest.​

The critical things to understand is that the people who will be making decisions henceforth are of a much higher caliber than the deplorable types who created this mess. As filled with contempt as I am for the Italian courts, the same is not true of my feelings for the Italian people. I am convinced that serious people in and out of the Italian government—as distinguished from the pagliacci who hold sway in the courts at the moment— know perfectly well that Knox is innocent and are working quietly to set things right. These serious people also know that Italian courts are an international embarrassment and a major drag on the Italian economy.​

Once again, I reference Gloria Allred's comments to Piers Morgan (then on CNN circa April 2013) in discussing the, then, Cassazione's reasons for reversing the acquittals......

... she referenced her own experience in trying to set up a business in Italy. She said that these sorts of bizarre decisions, even of the highest court in the land, were the reasons why she advises people to avoid Italy.

 

[Desert Fox]

Once again, I reference Gloria Allred's comments to Piers Morgan (then on CNN circa April 2013) in discussing the, then, Cassazione's reasons for reversing the acquittals......

... she referenced her own experience in trying to set up a business in Italy. She said that these sorts of bizarre decisions, even of the highest court in the land, were the reasons why she advises people to avoid Italy.

Do you have any links?

 

[platonov]

Please stop

I think one of the issues on this thread is that a guilter often gets replies to them from all directions, so loses track of what;s what. Fair enough.

My answer to your quip, "I’m referring to what she admitted in open court in 2009," is: I know you were.

What she was talking about in open court is what her state of mind was at interrogation.

What she said in open court is as you said: "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."
Please not the past-tense of her remark in court. You said that this was an "obvious lie" based on her interrogation of Dec 2007.... I believe THAT was the time when she refused to answer any more questions, on lawyer's advice I presume.

Clear now? You still have not made your point.

Oh Bill, its worse than hopeless

That’s not from ‘open court’ in 2009 that’s the Dec 17 appearance before Mignini.

Give it up please or at least wait till I can down a bottle or three of vodka.

 

[sept79]

Originally Posted by Lenroot Mays I have written (but not posted) another extended piece, an anatomy of the exceedingly odd and confused habits of mind that characterize judges in Italy. Exhibit A for the moment is the lamentable Nencini’s extraterrestrial masterpiece. More people should read it because in so doing they would recognize immediately that they have entered the realm of science fiction, not compelling legal prose. Nencini creates a wonderful imaginative world that is quite unlike the world in which we actually live, a world with its own logic and technology and its own laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. And when he is not indulging flights of fancy, he is just plain dishonest.

After the Conti-Vecchiotti independent study debunked the scientific evidence and after Hellmann's acquittal, anyone still believing in the guilt of Knox/Sollecito is most puzzling . . .

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh Bill, its worse than hopeless

That’s not from ‘open court’ in 2009 that’s the Dec 17 appearance before Mignini.

Give it up please or at least wait till I can down a bottle or three of vodka.

When somebody's posts come off as only mocking, they make that person look insincere.

One of the problems with this case is information (even if bad information) overload. As such, one needs to quote and provide sources.

 

[Desert Fox]

I was reading this:
http://www.artharris.com/2011/10/03/amanda-knox-not-first-case-of-italian-injustice/

Allred came armed with files proving Dykstra had warned American authorities that Ventre, a balding, 57-year-old plumbing supplies salesman she once lived with, had threatened to kill her long before their fatal encounter. (He denies this and says she died accidentally during a fall when attacking him with an axe.) A judge at the time said there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges.

Not enough evidence yet they have enough evidence to convict Amanda and Raff.

 

[tsig]

Oh Bill, Bill, Bill - that’s hopeless.
I’m referring to what she admitted in open court in 2009.

Probably another one of those spontaneous false declarations that she is famous for.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think one of the issues on this thread is that a guilter often gets replies to them from all directions, so loses track of what;s what. Fair enough.

My answer to your quip, "I’m referring to what she admitted in open court in 2009," is: I know you were.

What she was talking about in open court is what her state of mind was at interrogation.

What she said in open court is as you said: "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."

Please not the past-tense of her remark in court. You said that this was an "obvious lie" based on her interrogation of Dec 2007.... I believe THAT was the time when she refused to answer any more questions, on lawyer's advice I presume.

Clear now? You still have not made your point.

Oh Bill, its worse than hopeless

That’s not from ‘open court’ in 2009 that’s the Dec 17 appearance before Mignini.

Give it up please or at least wait till I can down a bottle or three of vodka.

For the record, p., where's the obvious lie? That is getting lost in all this.

 

[Dougm]

For the record, p., where's the obvious lie? That is getting lost in all this.

I guess it's not that obvious.

 

[platonov]

Glug, glug, glug.

I guess it's not that obvious.

Well you and Bill are obviously of one mind on this.
Let’s see if Numbers can make sense of it.

 

[Numbers]

The bus ride has ended.
Since we are now at school, it's time for our lesson today.
We will have a brief remedial lesson in ECHR based on information kindly supplied by the Council of Europe expressly for the benefit of school children.

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

Role of the European Court of Human Rights:
Safeguarding democracy and the rule of law

Set up in 1959, the European Court of Human Rights is
a judicial body guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the
European Convention on Human Rights for everyone
under the jurisdiction of a contracting state. There has
been a single Court since 1 November 1998 which sits
permanently in Strasbourg (France).

The number of judges at the Court is the same as that
of the States Parties to the Convention. The judges are
totally independent, do not represent their country and
are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe.

In its 50 years of existence, the Court has delivered more
than 10,000 judgments. These judgments are binding
on the states concerned and require them to erase the
consequences of violations for the applicants and amend
their legislation and practices in numerous areas, under
the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. The
Convention evolves through the Court's case-law as a
living instrument to face new challenges and as a force
for the consolidation of the rule of law and democracy
throughout Europe.

{Glossary}

Judgment
The ruling delivered by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the merits of a case, or in other words, the actual complaints. A judgment should not be confused with a…

… Decision
A Court decision relating to the admissibility of an application. This is when the Court verifies that all the requirements have been fulfilled.

Application or case
Dispute to be settled by a court.

Complaints
The reason for the application. Complaints are examined when the Court deals with the merits of an application.

Inadmissible
An application which is unfounded or insufficiently well-founded is declared inadmissible and dismissed.
{To be continued}

 

[Matthew Best]

Here's a long story in the Guardian about another Italian case, the murder of Yara Gambirasio:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/-sp-the-murder-that-has-obsessed-italy

I feel that long-standing readers of this thread will find several things in here that will ring bells.