Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Bill Bill Bill.

You are bringing up the appeal (and press conf) and confusing it with the apparent anomaly of why a ‘tough nut’ like RS threw her under the bus on Nov5/6th.

I don’t need a video – your post is just up the page

Samson (or someone) is about to explain it hopefully.

Huh?

If it were not for rumour and factoids, the pro-guilt lobby would have no case at all.

Please show where RS threw anyone under any bus? The point is you can't except to repeat the claim. Repetition only counts in the pro-guilt lobby....

..... it's a sub-set of "all the other evidence." It doesn't matter that the DNA evidence is bogus, there is "all the other evidence". It doesn't matter that the prosecution had to dredge up a hobo, a store owner, and a deaf woman six months after all the other evidence fell apart, there is "all the other evidence".

This business of the press conference is part of guilter-land's, "all the other evidence". It's like the car park video and the "Knox traded sex for drugs with Rudy Guede, and referenced Rudy in the MySpace post about a beautiful black guy." If they had evidence, they'd show it. If Raffaele or Bongiorno had said what you claim, someone like Mignini would be shouting it from the mountain tops. Why it needs to be repeated in an obscure internet forum (this one) and nowhere else is all you really need to know.

Platonov - if you had evidence, you'd show it. More import, there is not a single media outlet who was at that press conference who heard what you claim was said. But no matter, don't feel bad for your side of the fence, there is still "all the other evidence".

 

[Bill Williams]

The best example is that many conservative politicians want creationism taught in school. When scientists state that it is garbage (like to use a stronger word), those politicians will argue that they have to stand up against the scientists.

It's worse than this. Some wish to teach Intelligent Design as if it were science.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The case for the Intelligent Design folks fell apart at trial when the ONE scientist they could get to testify for them......

..... had to admit on the stand that the methodology he was arguing for meant that Astrology also had to be taught "as science" as well. The conservative religious folks were not happy with that!

 

[Kauffer]

Bill Bill Bill.

You are bringing up the appeal (and press conf) and confusing it with the apparent anomaly of why a ‘tough nut’ like RS threw her under the bus on Nov5/6th.

I don’t need a video – your post is just up the page

Samson (or someone) is about to explain it hopefully.

There is no mileage in this nonsense. Mr Sollecito was pressured, coerced and tricked in his interrogation as was Ms Knox. If there were any substance to the claim that he really disavowed Ms Knox, he would have pursued the matter at trial to his benefit. If you on the other hand really believed Mr Sollecito stayed in and Ms Knox went out then you would have to support Mr Sollecito's innocence. If you don't believe that but rather that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are guilty, then you have no point to make.

You consistently attempt to bully Bill - it appears to be your only motivation.

 

[sept79]

The best example is that many conservative politicians want creationism taught in school. When scientists state that it is garbage (like to use a stronger word), those politicians will argue that they have to stand up against the scientists.

'Creationism' or 'consciousness' ?

-------------------------

However, this topic is inappropriate on this thread.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no mileage in this nonsense. Mr Sollecito was pressured, coerced and tricked in his interrogation as was Ms Knox. If there were any substance to the claim that he really disavowed Ms Knox, he would have pursued the matter at trial to his benefit. If you on the other hand really believed Mr Sollecito stayed in and Ms Knox went out then you would have to support Mr Sollecito's innocence. If you don't believe that but rather that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are guilty, then you have no point to make.

You consistently attempt to bully Bill - it appears to be your only motivation.

Bully?

I do not experience what platonov is doing as "bullying". It's just nonsense.

 

[Diocletus]

The decision in Dorigo v Italy (ECHR November 2000) set events in motion in Italy resulting in the position that any Article 6 violation found by the ECHR will result in the nullification of sentence and conviction. This applies to the present callunia case of Ms Knox and in any subsequent cases brought by Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. Here is the short form of what happened:

The principle of "restitutio integrum" was reiterated in Council of Ministers Recommendation No.R(2000)2. This means that states found in violation of the convention are required as far as is possible, to put applicants back in the position they would have enjoyed had their rights not been violated.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=334147&Site=CM

Subsequently, numerous resolutions were adopted by the CofM in connection with the Dorigo case. In particular, in ResDH(2004)13, the committe "strongly urged (that) the Italian authorities.... erase the consequences of the violation for the applicant in the case be adopted quickly."

http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

In 2006, the Bologna Appellate Court on application for review by Dorigo, questioned the constitutional legitimacy of domestic law (art 630 CCP), since it did not permit for the re-opening of proceedings following an ECHR decision. This court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court but at the same time suspended Dorigo's sentence and let him go.

The public prosecutor in Udine also referred the case back to the Court of Assises arguing that the continued detention of Dorigo was unlawful. When the application was rejected, he appealed it to the Court of Cassation, which set aside the rejection, also ordering Dorigo's immediate and unconditional release in decision 2800, stating:

"the judge...must declare the unenforeceability of the sentence if the ECtHR established that the conviction had been issued in violation of the right to a fair trial established by Art 6 ECHR"

At the Constitutional Court, Decision 129/2008 rejected consideration of the issue as raised by the Bologna Appellate Court, contending that as raised, it was a matter for the legislature to correct. However, following different argument at the appellate level, the issue of constitutionality was successfully raised to the Constitutional Court in connection with Article 117 of the constitution and Article 46 of the convention, which states that the contracting parties agree:

"to abide by the final judgement of the court in any case to which they are parties"

http://www3.unisi.it/dipec/palomar/italy015_2011.html#1

The response of the Constitutional Court was to declare Art 630 CCP unconstututional in decision 113/2011.

http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2011&numero=113

Thus, imprisoning or continuing to imprison an applicant after a finding by the ECHR of a violation of Article 6, is unlawful in Italy and the act itself a breach of Article 5 of the convention.

See also, Italian Constitution:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

And the European Convention Human Rights:

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

But, but, but . . .

Popper says that Italy doesn't have to and won't do anything if the ECtHR goes against it. Because it wouldn't be fair, that's why.

And Popper is very sure that he's right.

 

[Kauffer]

Bully?

I do not experience what platonov is doing as "bullying". It's just nonsense.

I said "attempt". I didn't say he was succesful. I'm glad you don't feel bullied.

 

[Kauffer]

But, but, but . . .

Popper says that Italy doesn't have to and won't do anything if the ECtHR goes against it. Because it wouldn't be fair, that's why.

And Popper is very sure that he's right.

Yeah I know. It's going to be such fun. They don't get any of this stuff.
I'm really starting to doubt that Cassation could be quite as dumb as they would need to be, to confirm in March. Someone in Italy who gets it surely must be having a conversation with someone who doesn't?

 

[Diocletus]

Yeah I know. It's going to be such fun. They don't get any of this stuff.
I'm really starting to doubt that Cassation could be quite as dumb as they would need to be, to confirm in March. Someone in Italy who gets it surely must be having a conversation with someone who doesn't?

Yes, I've been doubting, too. But then I remember that we have Chieffi and my belief that Italian courts are salted with lawless morons is confirmed.

 

[Bill Williams]

I said "attempt". I didn't say he was succesful. I'm glad you don't feel bullied.

Then the attempt was completely lost on me. Platonov is simply trying to curry favour within the pro-guilt-lobby by passing on the predictable factoids.

Oh yes, and engage in the ad hominem which is also endearing.... "Bill Bill Bill" and "Britney", or whatever else his/her imagination can conger up.

In the latest, perhaps his/her imagination can conger up ANY independent source which buttresses the claim that Raffaele is throwing Amanda under a bus. Just one.

No? I thought not. Yet three months from now, that factoid will make the rounds again.

 

[Kauffer]

Then the attempt was completely lost on me. Platonov is simply trying to curry favour within the pro-guilt-lobby by passing on the predictable factoids.

Oh yes, and engage in the ad hominem which is also endearing.... "Bill Bill Bill" and "Britney", or whatever else his/her imagination can conger up.

In the latest, perhaps his/her imagination can conger up ANY independent source which buttresses the claim that Raffaele is throwing Amanda under a bus. Just one.

No? I thought not. Yet three months from now, that factoid will make the rounds again.

I think you called it "whack a mole" Bill. Back up through the dirt they come eh?

 

[platonov]

Confusion & more confusion.

There is no mileage in this nonsense. Mr Sollecito was pressured, coerced and tricked in his interrogation as was Ms Knox. If there were any substance to the claim that he really disavowed Ms Knox, he would have pursued the matter at trial to his benefit. If you on the other hand really believed Mr Sollecito stayed in and Ms Knox went out then you would have to support Mr Sollecito's innocence. If you don't believe that but rather that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are guilty, then you have no point to make.

You consistently attempt to bully Bill - it appears to be your only motivation.

You think that his bringing this [out from 9 till 1 etc] up at trial would be to his advantage
That’s one of the better ones I’ve heard on this thread and there are some real howlers out there.

Now, to the matter at hand. In this alternate reality what was he ‘pressured, coerced and tricked’ into if not this ‘disavowal’. It sounds very ominous.
Did he forget the date of her birthday or something – that might explain the need for a calendar.

 

[Desert Fox]

'Creationism' or 'consciousness' ?

-------------------------

However, this topic is inappropriate on this thread.

It is still the functional equivalent of the Italian law enforcement and techs telling scientists that they know more about forensic sciences than they do.

 

[Bill Williams]

You think that his bringing this [out from 9 till 1 etc] up at trial would be to his advantage
That’s one of the better ones I’ve heard on this thread and there are some real howlers out there.

Speaking of howlers.....

Wasn't there a poster to this thread who claims he tried to bring it up at a press conference to his advantage?

Now I remember, that was you!

Candles get very short very quickly when you burn both ends of them. Given that you have directly contradicted yourself, can you inform us what (non-contradictory) point you're trying to make.... and if you can do this without ad hominem or without sprinkling in those silly terms which endear you to the pro-guilt-lobby, that would be better.....

Present evidence or make a (non contradictory) point.

 

[Kauffer]

You think that his bringing this [out from 9 till 1 etc] up at trial would be to his advantage
That’s one of the better ones I’ve heard on this thread and there are some real howlers out there.

Now, to the matter at hand. In this alternate reality what was he ‘pressured, coerced and tricked’ into if not this ‘disavowal’. It sounds very ominous.
Did he forget the date of her birthday or something – that might explain the need for a calendar.

Duh! You don't think that actually and really claiming his co defendant had gone out while he stayed in wouldn't have helped him? Of course he was tricked.

But again, what is your point? Were they together or apart?

 

[Desert Fox]

Duh! You don't think that actually and really claiming his co defendant had gone out while he stayed in wouldn't have helped him? Of course he was tricked.

But again, what is your point? Were they together or apart?

If they were guilty and they turned on each other, I expect a much better job

 

[Samson]

Diocletus,

I agree. Maresca's statement to the effect that Italy was "teaching the whole world and the United States how to collect, analyze and evaluate scientific technical aspects of the case," needs to be held up to the ridicule it richly deserves.

Chris, I am unaware of any scientist with known qualifications who suggests guilt is plausible.

I suspect this is the case in other exonerations too.

I will watch PMF to see if they rise to the challenge to name one, and cite what they have said on this case. I am genuinely interested, as I regard this as being a necessary condition to consider guilt.

On the other hand there are plenty of judges and lawyers who have weighed in for guilt, who are required to prove nothing.

 

[JREF2010]

Huh?

If it were not for rumour and factoids, the pro-guilt lobby would have no case at all.

Please show where RS threw anyone under any bus? The point is you can't except to repeat the claim. Repetition only counts in the pro-guilt lobby....

..... it's a sub-set of "all the other evidence." It doesn't matter that the DNA evidence is bogus, there is "all the other evidence". It doesn't matter that the prosecution had to dredge up a hobo, a store owner, and a deaf woman six months after all the other evidence fell apart, there is "all the other evidence".

This business of the press conference is part of guilter-land's, "all the other evidence". It's like the car park video and the "Knox traded sex for drugs with Rudy Guede, and referenced Rudy in the MySpace post about a beautiful black guy."

If they had evidence, they'd show it. If Raffaele or Bongiorno had said what you claim, someone like Mignini would be shouting it from the mountain tops. Why it needs to be repeated in an obscure internet forum (this one) and nowhere else is all you really need to know.


Platonov - if you had evidence, you'd show it. More import, there is not a single media outlet who was at that press conference who heard what you claim was said. But no matter, don't feel bad for your side of the fence, there is still "all the other evidence".[/QUOTE]

From the beginning its been a case of superstitions and insane ramblings...
I came across this recently as a reminder of the unsubstantiated "Guiltard" claims in general.

link to article:
http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/

EXCERPT: After a month in Italy doing reporting, however, I realized that some of the “facts” on Quennell’s website didn’t seem to be in the police record in Italy. I emailed him to ask where he had found out that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket in hand. That damning incident was nowhere in the record, not even the prosecutor would confirm it, nor had Italy’s Polizia Scientifica ever tested such items, which would surely have offered up some useful DNA evidence, had they been used to clean blood.

 

[Kauffer]

More constitutional change in Italy caused by ECHR

With further relevance to the cases against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito and derived from the fallout in the Luca v Italy case cited previously (Numbers).

"Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as amended in November 1999, gave constitutional status to certain requirements laid down in Article 6 of the Convention. This new constitutional provision was implemented by Act No. 63 of 1 March 2001, which amended Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under the law as it stands, statements made by other accused persons in a non-adversarial context outside the court may be used in court against an accused person only with his consent (unless the judge finds that the other accused persons' refusal to be questioned at the trial results from corruption or intimidation). This rule applies not only to statements made in the same, but also in different proceedings. In current proceedings, Act No. 35 of 25 February 2000 provides that statements made by witnesses who have not been exposed to questioning may be used against an accused person in court only if corroborated by other evidence."

http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

It would appear from the discussions here that there should also and urgently be a mechanism for incorporating quickly into Italian law something approximating to the American Bar Association's standards on disclosure of DNA evidence. The overall question of equality of arms is not one that the Italian judicial system appears ready to tackle of it's own accord.

 

[Numbers]

What prevents Italian judges from breaking Italian laws?

With further relevance to the cases against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito and derived from the fallout in the Luca v Italy case cited previously (Numbers).

"Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as amended in November 1999, gave constitutional status to certain requirements laid down in Article 6 of the Convention. This new constitutional provision was implemented by Act No. 63 of 1 March 2001, which amended Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under the law as it stands, statements made by other accused persons in a non-adversarial context outside the court may be used in court against an accused person only with his consent (unless the judge finds that the other accused persons' refusal to be questioned at the trial results from corruption or intimidation). This rule applies not only to statements made in the same, but also in different proceedings. In current proceedings, Act No. 35 of 25 February 2000 provides that statements made by witnesses who have not been exposed to questioning may be used against an accused person in court only if corroborated by other evidence."

http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

It would appear from the discussions here that there should also and urgently be a mechanism for incorporating quickly into Italian law something approximating to the American Bar Association's standards on disclosure of DNA evidence. The overall question of equality of arms is not one that the Italian judicial system appears ready to tackle of it's own accord.

If the Italian judicial system follows Italian and Convention law after the ECHR rules that Italy violated her Article 6 rights in the conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia, she would be entitled to a retrial or dismissal of charges with her record cleared. That is, if the Italian judiciary follows Italian law after the ECHR judgment. The Italian judiciary broke Italian law and violated the Italian Constitution to convict Amanda Knox, so following their own laws and constitution will be a new and refreshing experience for them.