Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Poor Jackie is still going on about custody. OMG.

I'll give him this, though: Zaichenko is interesting, because the court held that the applicant’s procedural rights under Art. 6 had been triggered, but then decided that his right to counsel wasn’t violated even though his right to remain silent was violated. How could one procedural right (right to be silent) be violated, at the same time that another procedural right (right to counsel) wasn’t violated?

Well, for one thing, you don’t get a lawyer at a road check. Duh. But, you do have a right not to have your statements used against you if you are already a suspect when you make them.

In Zaichenko’s particular case, his right to a lawyer wasn’t violated because: 1) he waived his right to counsel (para. 50), 2) his lawyer’s letter to the ECHR confirmed his waiver of the right (para. 46), and 3) there was no compulsion (i.e., curtailment of “freedom of action,” para. 48) in the context of the road check procedure. The guy was already a "suspect," so "custody" is not at issue here, but compulsion is, as explained in paragraphs 37-38 (which Jackie would know if he had bothered to read the whole case).

Compare this with Knox’s situation, where she not only didn’t waive counsel but was affirmatively denied counsel, her lawyer is obviously not going to tell the ECHR that everything was fine, and most importantly, the interrogation was:

[of] obsessive length. . . , carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes), and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who . . . did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories . . .

So, yeah, there was compulsion and defiance of her will.

In the end, the whole issue is moot anyway, because there was a violation of the right to silence when the court used the statement to convict the applicant. Just like the ECHR will decide in Knox’s case.

 

[Bill Williams]

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".

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.

Nina Burleigh's piece from March 2013 echoes just about every independent or journalistic voice out there. Those who have pulled back the curtain on the insane prosecution of those case almost universally come to the conclusions Burleigh came to. One except may be Alan Dershowitz, and now NOBODY references him any more!

I remember Peggy Ganong contacting "Strange Dave" of the "Strange Dave" radio show. One week, Strange Dave had had one of the Knox relatives on. Ganong contacted Dave apparently wanting equal time.

Dave came armed with (what he claimed was) a full set of trial transcripts. Who knows if he actually had a set, really. And remember, I believe this was transcripts from the trial which convicted Knox and Sollecito in 2009!

Every time Ganong made an outlandish claim, he'd ask her to reference where in the trial record the particular factoid claimed was. Crickets.

It's been hard to take Ganong seriously since. Quennell manages to take this to another level - with what he threatened Burleigh with in an e-mail, "How are the kiddies?"

Here on ISF we have platonov, who will make all sorts of allegations - this time about press conferences - and never, never, never ever reference one source, other than the allegation itself.

What can one say when encountering the wild and wacky world of the pro-guilt lobby?

 

[Numbers]

Reading for comprehension

Poor Jackie is still going on about custody. OMG.

I'll give him this, though: Zaichenko is interesting, because the court held that the applicant’s procedural rights under Art. 6 had been triggered, but then decided that his right to counsel wasn’t violated even though his right to remain silent was violated. How could one procedural right (right to be silent) be violated, at the same time that another procedural right (right to counsel) wasn’t violated?

Well, for one thing, you don’t get a lawyer at a road check. Duh. But, you do have a right not to have your statements used against you if you are already a suspect when you make them.

In Zaichenko’s particular case, his right to a lawyer wasn’t violated because: 1) he waived his right to counsel (para. 50), 2) his lawyer’s letter to the ECHR confirmed his waiver of the right (para. 46), and 3) there was no compulsion (i.e., curtailment of “freedom of action,” para. 48) in the context of the road check procedure. The guy was already a "suspect," so "custody" is not at issue here, but compulsion is, as explained in paragraphs 37-38 (which Jackie would know if he had bothered to read the whole case).

Compare this with Knox’s situation, where she not only didn’t waive counsel but was affirmatively denied counsel, her lawyer is obviously not going to tell the ECHR that everything was fine, and most importantly, the interrogation was:



So, yeah, there was compulsion and defiance of her will.

In the end, the whole issue is moot anyway, because there was a violation of the right to silence when the court used the statement to convict the applicant. Just like the ECHR will decide in Knox’s case.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I recall a "new" poster on IAF/IIPF who claimed to be a top-notch legal scholar who wished to start debates about legalisms but never quite got past the first few lines of some reference. In particular, he/she provided a definition of "hearsay" that was the first sentence of an online reference.

Had he/she read farther down in the article, the exceptions (for US courts) would have shown up.

Maybe this lack of reading in depth is a common phenomenon among the guilters. Or the apparently different online names are sock puppets of one individual.

 

[Diocletus]

Maybe this lack of reading in depth is a common phenomenon among the guilters. Or the apparently different online names are sock puppets of one individual.

Either that or just not being very bright.

 

[Machiavelli]

.
If Italian judges feel justified convicting scientists for not predicting earthquakes, then it seems justifiable that judges should be penalized for not being fair arbiters.

Cody
.

Seismologists were never accused of not predicting earthquakes. They were accused of lying to the public.

 

[Machiavelli]

.
But only if Mignini exhumes her body, determines it really is her, and that there has not been another Narducci style double body swap.

Cody
.

Spezi was convicted for calunnia by the appeals court in Milan two months ago.

The Milan judge pointed out, by the way, that indeed it had been ascertained that Narducci had been killed, and that the lake corpse was not Narducci's.

It was also established that Spezi is a malicious liar.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
In the end, the whole issue is moot anyway, because there was a violation of the right to silence when the court used the statement to convict the applicant. Just like the ECHR will decide in Knox’s case.

They didn't use it to convict her for the crimes for which she was a suspect, they used it to investigate her for a new crime that was committed, which didn't exist before.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

They certainly know more about what evidence is and about the case. But the scientists were in fact fully allowed to tell everything of what they thought about the evidence, and be cross-questioned. And actually it's what defence scientists did: Tagliabracci, Pascali & C. brought their arguments, told everything they felt to say about forensic evidence; they brought up the same arguments of Hampikian and Budowle.
They only failed to convince the courts.

 

[Diocletus]

They didn't use it to convict her for the crimes for which she was a suspect, they used it to investigate her for a new crime that was committed, which didn't exist before.

Yes, we know. You think that whenever the police deny a suspect access to a lawyer, and then compel them to make a false statement, they get to file charges. Yet, you can point to no echr case that endorses this theory, which is contrary to the entire purpose of article 6.

And BTW they also used the statement to convict her if the crime as to which she was suspected.

 

[Bill Williams]

Spezi was convicted for calunnia by the appeals court in Milan two months ago.

The Milan judge pointed out, by the way, that indeed it had been ascertained that Narducci had been killed, and that the lake corpse was not Narducci's.

It was also established that Spezi is a malicious liar.

Welcome back, Machiavelli.

BTW, courts do not have findings with "malicious" in them.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, we know. You think that whenever the police deny a suspect access to a lawyer, and then compel them to make a false statement, they get to file charges. Yet, you can point to no echr case that endorses this theory, which is contrary to the entire purpose of article 6.

And BTW they also used the statement to convict her if the crime as to which she was suspected.

Nobody compelled her to make statements, except in the pro-Knox propaganda on internet forums.

The very statute of ECHR endorse the theory that applicants need to pursue the remedies provided by the law, actually. Obviously there's nothing in this that contradicts article 6.

Knox did not file any complaint to the ECHR about her murder conviction yet. She only filed an application about the crime of calunnia, of which she was not a suspect at the time.

 

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back, Machiavelli.

BTW, courts do not have findings with "malicious" in them.

They do. There are charges that specify "malice" (dolo).

 

[carbonjam72]

A few questions for the resident expert

Spezi was convicted for calunnia by the appeals court in Milan two months ago.

The Milan judge pointed out, by the way, that indeed it had been ascertained that Narducci had been killed, and that the lake corpse was not Narducci's.

It was also established that Spezi is a malicious liar.

Welcome back Mach.

Has the motivation report been released explaining the judgement against Spezi?

(Why do you say the court concluded that Narducci had been killed and the lake body was not his? Is that from the motivation report, or just deduced from the verdicts?)

And this judgement is still not final, correct? Cassation still needs to sign off on it, no? Any chance the statute of limitations will expire and make the case moot?

Unrelated question. Did Inspector Giobbi replace Michele Giuttari at GIDES? Or was Giobbi Giuttari's replacement in some way?

GIDES was disbanded in summer 2006, correct? What did Giuttari and Giobbi do after that? Appreciate any light you can shine on this.

 

[Samson]

Spezi was convicted for calunnia by the appeals court in Milan two months ago.

The Milan judge pointed out, by the way, that indeed it had been ascertained that Narducci had been killed, and that the lake corpse was not Narducci's.

It was also established that Spezi is a malicious liar.

Is this wikipedia entry incorrect?

On 22 March 2013 the Third Circuit Court of Cassation (Supreme Court of Italy) ruled that the main case related to criminal conduct "did not exist", and that Francesco Narducci died by suicide.[22] In sustaining the lower court acquittals, the Court of Cassation also sent back for re-trial some of the parallel slander charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini

 

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back Mach.

Has the motivation report been released explaining the judgement against Spezi?

Yes.

(Why do you say the court concluded that Narducci had been killed and the lake body was not his? Is that from the motivation report, or just deduced from the verdicts?)

It was deduced from the Narducci investigation papers (so the MIlan court states).

And this judgement is still not final, correct? Cassation still needs to sign off on it, no?

Correct, it is not final, yet.
It might become final within 3 months if Spezi doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court.
But it is not the only trial that came to the conclusion that Narducci was killed, there was also another court who found that on another separate case in Perugia.

Any chance the statute of limitations will expire and make the case moot?

No, no chance. The statute of limitations has already expired, but this only effects the criminal consequences, not the civil aspect. The proceedings did not stop like the other ones, because here there was a civil party, Michele Giuttari. The findings of fact will go on and have a value as judicial truth.

Unrelated question. Did Inspector Giobbi replace Michele Giuttari at GIDES? Or was Giobbi Giuttari's replacement in some way?

GIDES was disbanded in summer 2006, correct? What did Giuttari and Giobbi do after that? Appreciate any light you can shine on this.

Gides was not operational after the removal of Giuttari. I have little information about Giobbi and about any other personnel - what I know is that the trusted Giuttari personnell was basically moved to positions from where they couldn't operate as detectives (one was killed).
Giuttari was moved to a formally directive post but out of Florence and factually "forced" to take the promotion. He decided to retire from police service.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is this wikipedia entry incorrect?

On 22 March 2013 the Third Circuit Court of Cassation (Supreme Court of Italy) ruled that the main case related to criminal conduct "did not exist", and that Francesco Narducci died by suicide.[22] In sustaining the lower court acquittals, the Court of Cassation also sent back for re-trial some of the parallel slander charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini

It appears totally incorrect.

Not only "suicide" was not ruled by the Supreme Court, in fact the specific scenario of "suicide" did not exist in the trial papers by any judge, not even in the scenarios hypothesized by investigators and judges in 1985.

The first, and only judge who speculated of a possibility of "suicide" - without giving any detail or reason for that - was judge Micheli in 2011. His dropping of charges was annulled, "razed to the ground" like the Hellmann verdict.

The offically ruled cause of death for Narducci since 1985 has always been "accidental death by drowning", never "suicide".

 

[Desert Fox]

Seismologists were never accused of not predicting earthquakes. They were accused of lying to the public.

They stated that there was no specific evidence that an earthquake was eminent. . . which there was not.

Earthquakes are basically unpredictable and all attempts have failed to predict them.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/earthquakes/html/sidebar2.html

They did not lie to the public and it was a witch hunt.

 

[Desert Fox]

They certainly know more about what evidence is and about the case. But the scientists were in fact fully allowed to tell everything of what they thought about the evidence, and be cross-questioned. And actually it's what defence scientists did: Tagliabracci, Pascali & C. brought their arguments, told everything they felt to say about forensic evidence; they brought up the same arguments of Hampikian and Budowle.
They only failed to convince the courts.

If you are going to be on a skeptical board, you need to at the very least understand logical fallacies. You made a logical fallacy here, argument from authority. Just because a court was not convinced, does not make it factual.
I can point to several dozen cases in various courts where the court found evidence compelling when it is garbage as well as evidence that juries find not compelling when it is very significant.

The reason why scientists are usually a better authority is because of experimental protocols. You test and see how DNA may get transported for example and if the evidence supports a position.

The Italian prosecution speculated and did not use experimental data to support their conclusion yet they still argue that their opinion is more valid than somebody else's position supported by experimental data.

In other words, experimental data should almost always trump speculation. Only case may be when a recreation does not accurately represent a situation.

 

[Diocletus]

Nobody compelled her to make statements, except in the pro-Knox propaganda on internet forums.

The very statute of ECHR endorse the theory that applicants need to pursue the remedies provided by the law, actually. Obviously there's nothing in this that contradicts article 6.

The echr will certainly find that there wa compulsion in the sense that it uses that word. It basically means a coercive atmosphere, and such a situation has already been admitted by the convicting appellate court.

article 6 and article 3 violations render certain evidence unusable. There is no need to commence a separate action to have the benefit of these protections. I don't know why you keep going in about this.

 

[Desert Fox]

I actually have a question for any Italian poster here though. . . .
Is it legal for a landlord to have a house, apartment, etc with a door which requires a key to open from the inside?