Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

They were accused of lying to the public: this is a fact. They were not accused of failing to predict an earthquake: those who report so are lying.

Once made clear something certainly true and something certainly false, the red of your assertions are opinions - whether they lied or not, that us your opinion.

Btw the appeals court did find that they did lie, and were ethically wrong (they reported what they were ordered by a government executive, Mr. Bertolaso, and I was an unscientific report) however it was only ethical breach and not criminal.

 

[Desert Fox]

They were accused of lying to the public: this is a fact. They were not accused of failing to predict an earthquake: those who report so are lying.

Once made clear something certainly true and something certainly false, the red of your assertions are opinions - whether they lied or not, that us your opinion.

Btw the appeals court did find that they did lie, and were ethically wrong (they reported what they were ordered by a government executive, Mr. Bertolaso, and I was an unscientific report) however it was only ethical breach and not criminal.

Your response to me effectively says nothing . . . .Show me somewhere in writing where the scientists specifically stated that there was not risk of a dangerous earthquake. Otherwise, the position that they lied is an unsupported claim.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.
(...)

You are wrong, I am not making an argument of authority; I am pointing out people saying false things. You said police wanted to tell scientist, and this is false; it was that the scientist who testified for the defence failed to convince the judges.
That they are better than other scientists or judges is your opinion, that they failed to convince the judges is a fact.

Maybe you are making an argument from authority instead, it's you who says that someone has a "better authority", and this is nothing but an argument from authority which aims at cutting off arguments.

In fact justice by definition is made by judges, the authority is a judiciary power representing a community, not a scientist.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your response to me effectively says nothing . . . .Show me somewhere in writing where the scientists specifically stated that there was not risk of a dangerous earthquake. Otherwise, the position that they lied is an unsupported claim.

They were not accused of failing to predict an earthquake.

Bertolaso was wiretapped while dictating the "conclusion" statement of the scientist committee before the committee meeting, and it was an unscientific reasoning about big number of tremors meaning lower risk.

 

[Desert Fox]

You are wrong, I am not making an argument of authority; I am pointing out people saying false things. You said police wanted to tell scientist, and this is false; it was that the scientist who testified for the defence failed to convince the judges.
That they are better than other scientists or judges is your opinion, that they failed to convince the judges is a fact.

Maybe you are making an argument from authority instead, it's you who says that someone has a "better authority", and this is nothing but an argument from authority which aims at cutting off arguments.

In fact justice by definition is made by judges, the authority is a judiciary power representing a community, not a scientist.

Your post is fractally wrong to the point where I have a hard time believing that you are actually serious.

The way science works is that one makes a hypothesis, let us use "It is possible through secondary transfer to transfer dna evidence." They then use experimental data to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

A scientist will state "This is my conclusion and this is the evidence to support it." It is all about the data.

Your argument from authority is "A judge says it so it is so no matter what the data says."

Italy can do what it wants and I have no control over that but a judge stating something does not make it factual. It is the data supporting a position that makes it probable or not.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

It is absolutely fruitless to engage Machiavelli here. His posts are propaganda in the purest sense of the word.

For instance, he believes it is legitimate for a translator to pull memories out of a suspect. The translator.

He does not post in good faith.

 

[Desert Fox]

They were not accused of failing to predict an earthquake.

Bertolaso was wiretapped while dictating the "conclusion" statement of the scientist committee before the committee meeting, and it was an unscientific reasoning about big number of tremors meaning lower risk.

I live in a potential hurricane area although much lower risk than Florida for example. If a meteorologist states that a storm has a low risk of hitting my location, I realize that she is doing the best she can with available data. If she is wrong, she is just wrong not lying.

This catogorizes the problem with the whole issue:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...l?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news#.VLdQVHt7bvI

 

[Desert Fox]

It is absolutely fruitless to engage Machiavelli here. His posts are propaganda in the purest sense of the word.

For instance, he believes it is legitimate for a translator to pull memories out of a suspect. The translator.

He does not post in good faith.

As I stated previously, I used to argue creation vs evolution
You never argued to change the mind of the creationist you were arguing with but those who are reading the arguments. Granted, even today I sometimes lose sight of that myself.

 

[Numbers]

It is absolutely fruitless to engage Machiavelli here. His posts are propaganda in the purest sense of the word.

For instance, he believes it is legitimate for a translator to pull memories out of a suspect. The translator.

He does not post in good faith.

There are 76 ECHR cases that reference Salduz, including Ibrahim. Looking at Ibrahim, which in a sense summarizes all the case-law with its 5-point evaluation outline, one can conclude that the calunnia conviction is a violation of Convention Article 6.3c with Article 6.1. There is no case-law to conclude otherwise.

Excerpts from Salduz. Bold emphasis added.

52. ...Article 6 will normally require that the accused be allowed to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer already at the initial stages of police interrogation.

53. These principles, outlined in paragraph 52 above, are also in line with the generally recognised international human rights standards (see paragraphs 37‑42 above) which are at the core of the concept of a fair trial and whose rationale relates in particular to the protection of the accused against abusive coercion on the part of the authorities. They also contribute to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused....

54. ...Early access to a lawyer is part of the procedural safeguards to which the Court will have particular regard when examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination....the CPT {Committee for the Prevention of Torture, a organization of the Council of Europe} repeatedly stated that the right of a detainee to have access to legal advice is a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment....

55. ... the Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police....The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.

The Ibrahim case-law explains when the ECHR may or may not find an exception, based on the 5-point evaluation outline; the calunnia case not fit as an exception, but does as following Salduz.

No guilter has stated a reasonable counter to the above statement that an objective person would agree with. Their repeated misstatements are merely a propaganda technique.

 

[Planigale]

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?

It is certainly legal in the UK (or at least common), many house have back doors with mortice locks that need a key to open from the inside. The main door usually has a lock that can be opened without a key, but I have lived in flats where you can double lock the front door from the inside with a key from the inside so it can not be opened without a key. Legal or not it is common.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Jackie was given Zaichenko by us so he could understand all this! Nor has he looked at Brusco, Shibelnik and Pischalnikov...the whole shift of post Salduz case law he hasn't understood. But I loved the last para:

"PPS I spent a LOT of money on my legal education, LJ. I'm not going to let it go to waste because some fool thinks it's funny to publish lies on the internet. I've never been "struck off". Stop lying. You don't even know who I am. Some people, however, know BOTH my screen name and my real name and they may think less of me, and decide not to hire me, if they see your (stupid) lie. Cease and desist. Thank you, in advance, for your retraction."

No Jackie, they may think less of you and decide not to hire you because you're not very good at thinking about case law and making arguments. But the people who do know your real name who've been relying on what you've said about this case are gonna turn on you when the judgements come in and they're angry at you for getting it all so wrong.

And hey Jackie, what about Cassation decision no. 2800? Bad news huh? Lol!

One Art 6 violation and the case is toast!

 

[Kauffer]

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.

I thought you'd gone away to read some case law. Now I see that you've even forgotten what the callunia convicting judge said about the interrogation.

You need to understand that the meaning of the convention articles is what the case law says it is.

But hey! Serious question - can the prosecutor decide of his own volition to deny counsel for 48 hours post arrest or does he require the investigating judge to sign an order for that?

 

[Kauffer]

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.

There can, of course, be no retrial. There will be no evidence and the charge in any case would be out of time for callunia.

Italy is going to be embarrassed by the outcome of the cases against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. The only real question on this point is how much embarrassment and that depends on the March decisions.

 

[Kauffer]

It is certainly legal in the UK (or at least common), many house have back doors with mortice locks that need a key to open from the inside. The main door usually has a lock that can be opened without a key, but I have lived in flats where you can double lock the front door from the inside with a key from the inside so it can not be opened without a key. Legal or not it is common.

When letting a house to tenants, fire regs prevent the operation of a key to unlock exit doors. They don't want people burning to death trying to escape and finding the key has gone missing. Modern doors lock automatically so you can't access without a key from the outside but can open the door without a key from the inside - at least in the UK, the last time I looked. But you are right - all sorts of arrangements are common.

 

[Planigale]

When letting a house to tenants, fire regs prevent the operation of a key to unlock exit doors. They don't want people burning to death trying to escape and finding the key has gone missing. Modern doors lock automatically so you can't access without a key from the outside but can open the door without a key from the inside - at least in the UK, the last time I looked. But you are right - all sorts of arrangements are common.

Yes I guess you are right. The rules for rented property are stricter than for private accommodation. I guess it is not unusual for students to be in a rather grey area with regards to accommodation shared flats rather than formally rented. In Italy I am sure that no one ever ignores the rules unlike England where people are relaxed about the letter of the law (this is sarcasm btw).

 

[Planigale]

I thought you'd gone away to read some case law. Now I see that you've even forgotten what the callunia convicting judge said about the interrogation.

You need to understand that the meaning of the convention articles is what the case law says it is.

But hey! Serious question - can the prosecutor decide of his own volition to deny counsel for 48 hours post arrest or does he require the investigating judge to sign an order for that?

Also do you accept that denying counsel for 48 hours is contrary to the ECHR rulings that right to counsel should be early and not routinely or arbitrarily restricted? I think this was a strategic error by Mignini, although he believed this was legal under Italian law, it appears that since European Human Rights supersedes national law, this was not legal. I think that this is clearly a breach of right to counsel. The impact on the callunia conviction I am less certain of, we will have to await the court decision.

 

[anglolawyer]

Jackie was given Zaichenko by us so he could understand all this! Nor has he looked at Brusco, Shibelnik and Pischalnikov...the whole shift of post Salduz case law he hasn't understood. But I loved the last para:

"PPS I spent a LOT of money on my legal education, LJ. I'm not going to let it go to waste because some fool thinks it's funny to publish lies on the internet. I've never been "struck off". Stop lying. You don't even know who I am. Some people, however, know BOTH my screen name and my real name and they may think less of me, and decide not to hire me, if they see your (stupid) lie. Cease and desist. Thank you, in advance, for your retraction."

No Jackie, they may think less of you and decide not to hire you because you're not very good at thinking about case law and making arguments. But the people who do know your real name who've been relying on what you've said about this case are gonna turn on you when the judgements come in and they're angry at you for getting it all so wrong.

And hey Jackie, what about Cassation decision no. 2800? Bad news huh? Lol!

One Art 6 violation and the case is toast!

He's a bit thin-skinned, our Jackie, isn't he? Especially for one who posts as much nasty vitriol as he does. He nicely epitomises the guilter spirit.

 

[platonov]

Oh My

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.

Bill

What is this about?
Nobody on the planet bar yourself claims that RS brought up the Nov 5th “out from 9 till 1” Issue at his press conf. Its beyond nonsensical.

Although to be fair it’s no worse that Kauffer’s latest argument.

 

[platonov]

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.

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?

The subtle distinction between word salad and non sequiturs comes into play once again

If you can’t defend the ‘He would have brought it up at trial had it happened’ argument or no longer claim that, then just say so.
It’s a thing of beauty – it would be a shame if it were to be dropped so quickly.

& This Q still stands –

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.

 

[Matthew Best]

Word salad.