Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
A complete trollish post, perhaps setting a record for strawman.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
- Status
A complete trollish post, perhaps setting a record for strawman.
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
Trollish. I should be insulted but can’t quite raise the energy at this hour. In fact, if I may be allowed a moment of candour, I do not foresee such an hour occurring in my natural span.
But, to more serious matters. Can it be possible that at this late stage you don’t even begin to comprehend the extent of the conspiracy?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Your post suggests there has never been a case of wrongful conviction. Wrongful convictions are almost never dependent upon conspiracy. However the Canadian study on wrongful convictions do cite breakdowns in police, prosecution, courts, and appeals courts of some manner.
Your post was filled with strawman argument. It was not meant to be insulting to point that out. Strawman argument is to make a statement you believe the other side is claiming, which the other side has never claimed. Once made, however, you begin to knock down the strawman you, yourself, have constructed.
You still have not answered the question as to what you regard as Amanda Knox's "obvious lie"... which I'll repost, rather than direct you back....
platonov said:
Bill Williams said:
Once again, what was the "obvious lie"?
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Possibly the police used a body double then used their near supernatural powers of persuasion to convince Amanda that she was there.
Or it was holograms.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Probably similar to the extent of the conspiracy in many other wrongful convictions.
For skeptics and others:
ECHR case files are accessible by the public. One does need to know the case title, application number, and date, and file an application (online) to view the file giving reason(s). Then, after approval, travel to Strasbourg* to view the file.
*{Apparently the website was not informed about my skepticism about the existence of this alleged city in France, skepticism based on my never having been there for visual verification.}
http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/howitworks&c=#newComponent_1346158325959_pointer
General rule
Article 40 § 2 of the Convention provides that documents deposited with the Registrar are accessible to the public unless the President of the Court decides otherwise.
The Rules of Court provide for two exceptions:
documents deposited with the Registry in connection with friendly-settlement negotiations are not accessible to the public (Rule 33 § 1);
in cases referred to the Court under Article 5 §§ 2 to 5 of Protocol No. 11, documents composing the case file of the former Commission, including all pleadings, remain confidential unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise (Rule 106 § 4 of the Rules of Court).
Practical arrangements
Requests for permission to consult files should be made using the online form.
You must give the exact references of each case you wish to consult (application number, date, etc.). To avoid unnecessary travel and expense, it should be noted that the internal documents of the Court are not accessible. The parties are reminded that “documents deposited with the Registrar” by the Government are forwarded for information or comments to the applicant and vice versa.
If the request is accepted the documents may be consulted at the European Court of Human Rights by appointment only, made at least 15 working days in advance.
ECHR case files are accessible by the public. One does need to know the case title, application number, and date, and file an application (online) to view the file giving reason(s). Then, after approval, travel to Strasbourg* to view the file.
*{Apparently the website was not informed about my skepticism about the existence of this alleged city in France, skepticism based on my never having been there for visual verification.}
http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=court/howitworks&c=#newComponent_1346158325959_pointer
General rule
Article 40 § 2 of the Convention provides that documents deposited with the Registrar are accessible to the public unless the President of the Court decides otherwise.
The Rules of Court provide for two exceptions:
documents deposited with the Registry in connection with friendly-settlement negotiations are not accessible to the public (Rule 33 § 1);
in cases referred to the Court under Article 5 §§ 2 to 5 of Protocol No. 11, documents composing the case file of the former Commission, including all pleadings, remain confidential unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise (Rule 106 § 4 of the Rules of Court).
Practical arrangements
Requests for permission to consult files should be made using the online form.
You must give the exact references of each case you wish to consult (application number, date, etc.). To avoid unnecessary travel and expense, it should be noted that the internal documents of the Court are not accessible. The parties are reminded that “documents deposited with the Registrar” by the Government are forwarded for information or comments to the applicant and vice versa.
If the request is accepted the documents may be consulted at the European Court of Human Rights by appointment only, made at least 15 working days in advance.
Last edited:
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
I find it curious that you replied to this bard by platonov towards Chris' post, but totally ignored Chris' questions to you. Why is this?
The case of Dvorski v Croatia 25703/11 has been suggested as countering the application of Salduz to Amanda Knox's application to ECHR on her calunnia conviction.
First, it should be noted that Dvorski has been appealed to and will be heard by the Grand Chamber, which potentially could judge differently than has the Chamber. This, by the way is an indication of the importance of such Article 6.3c with Article 6.1 cases to the ECHR. However, even if the Grand Chamber judgment agrees with that of the Chamber on Dvorski, the cases are so different that the Dvorski ruling would not be relevant.
In the Dvorski case, the police prevented Dvorski, who was under arrest and to be interrogated, from meeting with his lawyer of choice, who was summoned to the police station by Dvorski's father. Instead, the police had Dvorski choose a lawyer from a list (which was not provided to the Court); this lawyer had previous association with the police and never accepted payment from Dvorski. Dvorski was interrogated and signed a confession. He was tried and renounced his confession, but was convicted. He did use his lawyer of choice during the trial.
The ECHR Chamber judgment found that there was no violation of Convention Article 6.3c with Article 6.1 in this case. The reasons in brief are:
1. There was substantial additional evidence presented at trial of Dvorski's guilt.
2. The Court did not find credible Dvorski's claim of coercion.
3. The confession was not the sole or decisive element in his conviction.
4. There was no indication of impropriety by the lawyer chosen from the police.
5. The Court saw no other indication of violation of rights regarding this area in the trial.
These above four statement may be contrasted with the circumstance of Amanda Knox's interrogation, false statement, and trial for calunnia.
1. The only evidence of the calunnia is her statement(s).
2. She claims the statement(s) were the product of coercion.
3. The statement(s) made by Amanda Knox were the sole evidence and decisive for the conviction of calunnia.
4. She did not have the counsel of a lawyer during her interrogation on Nov. 5/6, and the police should have provided her with a lawyer because:
4.1 She was under police interrogation as soon as she was asked to enter the interrogation room to answer questions.
4.2 She had made an incriminating statement by 1:45 am, stating that she had observed a murder.
5. There are other violations apparent in her trial; for example, the Hellmann court did not consider all her defenses, such as expert opinion testimony relating to suggestibility during interrogation, in the motivation report, and there are other indications of arbitrariness in the Hellmann court reasoning.
CASE OF DVORSKI v. CROATIA 25703/11 28/11/2013 {excerpts; bolding added}
106. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant’s confession was not the central platform of the prosecution’s case (see, by contrast, Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 45, ECHR 2000‑VI), and that the trial court relied on his statement interpreting it in the light of a complex body of evidence assessed by the court (compare Bykov, cited above, § 103). Specifically, when convicting the applicant, the trial court relied on the statements of a number of witnesses cross-examined during the trial, numerous expert reports and the records of the crime-scene investigation and searches and seizures, as well as relevant photographs and other physical evidence (see paragraphs 29-43 and 45-46 above). In addition, the trial court had at its disposal the confessions made by the applicant’s co-accused at the trial and neither the applicant nor his co-accused ever argued that any of their rights had been infringed when they had made those statements.
107. Therefore, although the applicant was not represented by a lawyer selected on the basis of a fully informed choice during the police questioning, the Court does not consider that this rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (compare O’Kane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30550/96, 6 July 1999), since all the applicant’s rights were adequately secured during the trial and his confession was not the sole, let alone the decisive, evidence in the case and as such did not call into question his conviction and sentence (compare Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 187, ECHR 2010; and, by contrast, Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, § 95-96, 30 May 2013).
108. Against the above background, and in view of the principle that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Zagorodniy, cited above, § 51) and the requirement for the Court to evaluate the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011), the Court considers that it has not been shown that the applicant’s defence rights have been irretrievably prejudiced or that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 has been adversely affected (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamaç and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29486/95, 29487/95 and 29853/96, § 48, 20 April 2004, and Sarıkaya v. Turkey, no. 36115/97, § 67, 22 April 2004; and, by contrast, Martin, cited above, § 97).
109. Accordingly, in the light of these considerations, given the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with § 3 (c) of the Convention .
First, it should be noted that Dvorski has been appealed to and will be heard by the Grand Chamber, which potentially could judge differently than has the Chamber. This, by the way is an indication of the importance of such Article 6.3c with Article 6.1 cases to the ECHR. However, even if the Grand Chamber judgment agrees with that of the Chamber on Dvorski, the cases are so different that the Dvorski ruling would not be relevant.
In the Dvorski case, the police prevented Dvorski, who was under arrest and to be interrogated, from meeting with his lawyer of choice, who was summoned to the police station by Dvorski's father. Instead, the police had Dvorski choose a lawyer from a list (which was not provided to the Court); this lawyer had previous association with the police and never accepted payment from Dvorski. Dvorski was interrogated and signed a confession. He was tried and renounced his confession, but was convicted. He did use his lawyer of choice during the trial.
The ECHR Chamber judgment found that there was no violation of Convention Article 6.3c with Article 6.1 in this case. The reasons in brief are:
1. There was substantial additional evidence presented at trial of Dvorski's guilt.
2. The Court did not find credible Dvorski's claim of coercion.
3. The confession was not the sole or decisive element in his conviction.
4. There was no indication of impropriety by the lawyer chosen from the police.
5. The Court saw no other indication of violation of rights regarding this area in the trial.
These above four statement may be contrasted with the circumstance of Amanda Knox's interrogation, false statement, and trial for calunnia.
1. The only evidence of the calunnia is her statement(s).
2. She claims the statement(s) were the product of coercion.
3. The statement(s) made by Amanda Knox were the sole evidence and decisive for the conviction of calunnia.
4. She did not have the counsel of a lawyer during her interrogation on Nov. 5/6, and the police should have provided her with a lawyer because:
4.1 She was under police interrogation as soon as she was asked to enter the interrogation room to answer questions.
4.2 She had made an incriminating statement by 1:45 am, stating that she had observed a murder.
5. There are other violations apparent in her trial; for example, the Hellmann court did not consider all her defenses, such as expert opinion testimony relating to suggestibility during interrogation, in the motivation report, and there are other indications of arbitrariness in the Hellmann court reasoning.
CASE OF DVORSKI v. CROATIA 25703/11 28/11/2013 {excerpts; bolding added}
106. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant’s confession was not the central platform of the prosecution’s case (see, by contrast, Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 45, ECHR 2000‑VI), and that the trial court relied on his statement interpreting it in the light of a complex body of evidence assessed by the court (compare Bykov, cited above, § 103). Specifically, when convicting the applicant, the trial court relied on the statements of a number of witnesses cross-examined during the trial, numerous expert reports and the records of the crime-scene investigation and searches and seizures, as well as relevant photographs and other physical evidence (see paragraphs 29-43 and 45-46 above). In addition, the trial court had at its disposal the confessions made by the applicant’s co-accused at the trial and neither the applicant nor his co-accused ever argued that any of their rights had been infringed when they had made those statements.
107. Therefore, although the applicant was not represented by a lawyer selected on the basis of a fully informed choice during the police questioning, the Court does not consider that this rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair (compare O’Kane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30550/96, 6 July 1999), since all the applicant’s rights were adequately secured during the trial and his confession was not the sole, let alone the decisive, evidence in the case and as such did not call into question his conviction and sentence (compare Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 187, ECHR 2010; and, by contrast, Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, § 95-96, 30 May 2013).
108. Against the above background, and in view of the principle that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Zagorodniy, cited above, § 51) and the requirement for the Court to evaluate the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011), the Court considers that it has not been shown that the applicant’s defence rights have been irretrievably prejudiced or that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 has been adversely affected (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamaç and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29486/95, 29487/95 and 29853/96, § 48, 20 April 2004, and Sarıkaya v. Turkey, no. 36115/97, § 67, 22 April 2004; and, by contrast, Martin, cited above, § 97).
109. Accordingly, in the light of these considerations, given the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with § 3 (c) of the Convention .
Last edited:
The Feb. 4, 2015 Grand Chamber hearing of Mozer v the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 11138/10) and its associated information may be of interest regarding how the ECHR communicates to Governments. See:
MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
11138/10 | Communicated Case | 29/03/2010
MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
11138/10 | Communicated Case | 29/03/2010
Amazing isn't it. And, somehow, they think their remarks make them look intelligent. In true "guilter" fashion they're only fooling themselves.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Well, it is always possible that we are fooling ourselves . . . .I don't think so and will work off of the best understanding I can. Still, one must always consider your own fallibilities.
Actually it's the replies.
Why don't you reply to the direct questions you're asked?
Completely disagree. I haven't seen one shred of credible evidence that indicates they're guilty. I haven't seen or heard any argument that wasn't based on junk science, confirmation bias, hearsay, or straight up lunacy. There's nothing there. This case would have been closed in 30 days by a class of high school students because they would have had enough sense to wait for the forensics before announcing "case closed".
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
All I am really arguing is that I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Of course, I expect to the pro guilt side to support their position with solidly argued points which they seem unwilling to do.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
I referred to this case earlier, Numbers, perhaps without sufficient explanation. The Dvorski case is "relevant" in that it reveals the circumstances in which the court is minded not to support applicants' claims under Article 6 in respect of pre-trial activity. It provides a contrasting position to Ms Knox's.
It is useful to consider such cases where applicants are unsuccessful with similar claims of rights violations in order to understand the practical limits of the positions applicants may take with the court in order to be succesful.
Dvorski's position is demonstrably much weaker than Ms Knox's.
There seems to be an argument doing the rounds that even if Ms Knox is succesful at the ECHR, she will likely be awarded a few thousand euros and that will be the end of the matter. In other words, her conviction and sentence will remain unaffected and so her victory would be hollow. This is not so.
Through the council of ministers and with the willing cooperation of Italy, conviction and sentencing will be set aside.
One way or another, the other convictions in these cases, either through direct acquittal or retrial or by way of further applications to the ECHR must also fall. What is particularly intruiguing is that there will be lawyers, judges and politicians in Italy who have worked this out already.
Last edited:
They don't because they can't.
anglolawyer
Banned
As far as I can tell s/he doesn't know enough about the case to reply to detailed questions. S/he probably has a general position that the case for innocence does not pass the smell test, resting as it does on a vast conspiracy theory. I see nothing wrong with that. We can't all be experts about everything and nor can we be expected to confine our opinions to subjects we are experts in. The only problem I have is with the failure to admit it by piping up now and then and saying 'I dont know' for fear of the same ridicule posters of this type heap on others when faced with their honesty.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
To the pro-guilt advocates: Would you be happy if....
.....setting aside questions of guilt and innocence, your best friend was treated the way Amanda Knox was treated in Italy?
So, taking facts which are not in dispute, if your best friend ....
1) Was interviewed by police for more than 50 hours out of 140 hours
2) Signed incriminating statements without consulting an attorney at 1:45 and 5:45 in the morning.
3) Was arrested and did not consult an attorney for a further 48 hours and not before the first hearing in front of a judge.
4) Was kept in detention for 7 months before he or she was charged.
If all that happened to your best friend and not Amanda Knox, would you be supportive of your best friend or of the system that treated him or her like that?
Would your view of your friend's treatment be any different if you believed your friend was innocent or guilty of the crime in question?
.....setting aside questions of guilt and innocence, your best friend was treated the way Amanda Knox was treated in Italy?
So, taking facts which are not in dispute, if your best friend ....
1) Was interviewed by police for more than 50 hours out of 140 hours
2) Signed incriminating statements without consulting an attorney at 1:45 and 5:45 in the morning.
3) Was arrested and did not consult an attorney for a further 48 hours and not before the first hearing in front of a judge.
4) Was kept in detention for 7 months before he or she was charged.
If all that happened to your best friend and not Amanda Knox, would you be supportive of your best friend or of the system that treated him or her like that?
Would your view of your friend's treatment be any different if you believed your friend was innocent or guilty of the crime in question?
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
There are ways which on can argue that minimize the conspiracy. Becomes more various individuals covering their gluteus maximus combined with some incompetence.
- Status