Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

This concession has not been passed through the proper channels at Central Control before publication. Williams! You are skiing off piste again. How many more times?

Sorry. David Marriott broke his ankle skiing, and will not pick-up if call display shows it's me asking for advice. Marriott, I'm told, thinks I'm an idiot. No comments, please.

Could you put in a good word for me, so that I do not go off-message again? Marriott only has himself to blame for this one. There was a time when he could run a decent massive PR-campaign.... then he discovered skiing.... bugger.

 

[Numbers]

LOL. Another popper siting at PMF. First he was bitching about a restaurant somebody suggested, and then he dropped this question:



Well, Popper, now that you mention it, those thousands and thousands of applications are written by people who allege that Italy violated their human rights. The sheer volume of these Italian cases is so great that the court can't even handle them all. So, your point is well-taken: there are many victims of Italian human rights violations who appear to be aware that their rights have been violated. However, this does not affect our main point, which is that Italian judges, in particular the ISC, are totally ignorant of Article 6.

The Italian judges (at least those in this case) do not acknowledge the ECHR. They don't follow Italian law or constitution, either. This may all be a survival of the inquisitorial system, which was eliminated, with the exception of the fast track trial, by modification of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.

The lawyers may or may not be aware of the ECHR.

In 2013, ECHR reports overall that 57% of applications were manifestly unfounded, and 11% requested the quashing of a domestic court decision. Such applications are inadmissible. Since the application form may be filled out without the assistance of a lawyer, it may be that in the high application volume countries including Italy, that there are not enough lawyers to help fill out the applications to get them to be in admissible form.


ETA:
Source: http://appform.echr.coe.int/echrappchecklist/default.aspx?lang=eng&cookieCheck=true

The principal reasons why applications were declared inadmissible in 2013 were as follows:

57% were rejected as manifestly ill-founded
In 14% of applications, the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies
10% were lodged more than 6 months after the final decision taken by a domestic court
11% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")
8% of applications were found to be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols

 

[Numbers]

Technical note on ECHR HUDOC

Don't have time to go into detail, but check out the echr's decision in chopenko v Ukraine, decided today. Doesn't bode well for Italy.

I wasn't able to bring up Chopenko by a search on Salduz by HUDOC case-law, although Chopenko is in HUDOC, and Salduz is cited in Chopenko.

The "Details" item for Chopenko doesn't list any case-law cites, but does list keywords.

I don't know if these deviations from the usual database methods of HUDOC are due to the newness of the Chopenko judgment, a change in policy at HUDOC for handling citations, or an aberration. Chopenko does show up under a keyword search.

So the number of cases found under a search by Court case-law may be an undercount compared to the number found by keyword.

There are 1712 ECHR cases based on a keyword search for 6.3c with 6.1, rather than the 77 based on a case-law search for Salduz.

A thought-provoking difference.

 

[Numbers]

A correction

I wasn't able to bring up Chopenko by a search on Salduz by HUDOC case-law, although Chopenko is in HUDOC, and Salduz is cited in Chopenko.

The "Details" item for Chopenko doesn't list any case-law cites, but does list keywords.

I don't know if these deviations from the usual database methods of HUDOC are due to the newness of the Chopenko judgment, a change in policy at HUDOC for handling citations, or an aberration. Chopenko does show up under a keyword search.

So the number of cases found under a search by Court case-law may be an undercount compared to the number found by keyword.

There are 1712 ECHR cases based on a keyword search for 6.3c with 6.1, rather than the 77 based on a case-law search for Salduz.

A thought-provoking difference.

The number 1712 turns out not to be based on the correct search: I had forgotten to select "AND" rather than "OR".

Doing the search on keywords with "AND" and selecting for a single language (English) gives 204 Chamber or Grand Chamber judgments, a more reasonable number. Some of these will of course pre-date Salduz (Nov. 11, 2008). Chopenko is the first case appearing when sorted by date, newest first. The earliest case is John Murray v. the UK, Feb. 8, 1996.

ETA: There have been 115 cases since Salduz, including Chopenko. Only 40 of these cases appear in a search by case-law citation looking for Salduz; however, Chopenko does not, although it cites Salduz. Therefore, the original concern that case-law searches may not turn up all cases that cite the requested case remains.

 

[Numbers]

One more issue?

The number 1712 turns out not to be based on the correct search: I had forgotten to select "AND" rather than "OR".

Doing the search on keywords with "AND" and selecting for a single language (English) gives 204 Chamber or Grand Chamber judgments, a more reasonable number. Some of these will of course pre-date Salduz (Nov. 11, 2008). Chopenko is the first case appearing when sorted by date, newest first. The earliest case is John Murray v. the UK, Feb. 8, 1996.

ETA: There have been 115 cases since Salduz, including Chopenko. Only 40 of these cases appear in a search by case-law citation looking for Salduz; however, Chopenko does not, although it cites Salduz. Therefore, the original concern that case-law searches may not turn up all cases that cite the requested case remains.

Another interesting point is that when I search the entire HUDOC database by case-law for Salduz, in English only, 76 results (cases) are reported (including Salduz itself makes 77). Chopenko does not appear in the list. So there may be some non-overlap in the items within categories within HUDOC either by intent or inadvertence.

ETA: "Entire" means Chamber and Grand Chamber judgments in this search.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Come on, ECHR accepts that right to defence counsel can be delayed just when there are "good reasons" for that.

And there is nothing arbitrary nor of routine in Mignini's prohibition to access attorney, that was entirely under legal provisions (art. 104 § 4 cpp), where "specific and exceptional" are defined by the law as a "quid pluris" which basically consists in preventing multiple suspects from attempting to agree to a defensive version.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Well, Popper, now that you mention it, those thousands and thousands of applications are written by people who allege that Italy violated their human rights. The sheer volume of these Italian cases is so great that the court can't even handle them all. So, your point is well-taken: there are many victims of Italian human rights violations who appear to be aware that their rights have been violated.

Maybe you should write: there are many self-proclaimed victims of violations (whereas almost all violations are found to be non-existent).

However, this does not affect our main point, which is that Italian judges, in particular the ISC, are totally ignorant of Article 6.

It looks like your "main point" is just plain delusional, it bears a burden of proof, rather than demand a counter-argument.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Come on, ECHR accepts that right to defence counsel can be delayed just when there are "good reasons" for that.

And there is nothing arbitrary nor of routine in Mignini's prohibition to access attorney, that was entirely under legal provisions (art. 104 § 4 cpp), where "specific and exceptional" are defined by the law as a "quid pluris" which basically consists in preventing multiple suspects from attempting to agree to a defensive version.

What complete and utter tripe, Machiavelli. The only thing that would be worse is if what you had said above were true.

It's hard to believe you would float this, this way.

Do you still think Anna Donnino was right in trying to pull hidden memories from Amanda Knox? Please note - Donnino is a translator, not a forensic psychologist.

Do you really believe your postings here are making Mignini's case more palatable. Please say yes!

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

Nobody compelled Knox to make statements, except in the internet propaganda of pro-Knox supporters. The convicting judge's ruling was annulled, even in the part where they stated that the calunnia was non-aggravated (thus, the scenario is blown apart).
But anyway the convicting judge did convict, that means, in the merits the court made a factual finding of malice on the part of Knox.

You may also recall that the Supreme Court pointed out that the calunnia (has 1 "l" and 2 "n"s) was not a statement released during an interrogation but a prolonged behaviour, consisting in several subsequent statements and decisions by Knox.

You need to understand that you have no clue of what the ECHR case law means, nor about the rest of the law. But you will find out that when the ECHR decision comes out.

The prosecution can decide alone. The investigating judge confirmation is required only to prolong the time.

 

[Machiavelli]

What complete and utter tripe, Machiavelli. The only thing that would be worse is if what you had said above were true.

Of course it's true. This is established jurisprudence.

Do you still think Anna Donnino was right in trying to pull hidden memories from Amanda Knox?

Anna Donnino was absoultely right. But she didn't "pull" anything out of nobody. Knox decided to fabricate false testimony against an innocent man on her on will, out of malice, and she did so repeatedly (not just during the police interrogation).

 

[Dougm]

You are not alone in your (claims of) incomprehension. They were once a mainstay of these threads when tricky issues like this were addressed.

As were claims of ITS IRRELEVANT


So do you also think what RS said on the 5th is irrelevant or is the Q incomprehensible to you?

You act like your point of view is the obvious conclusion that everyone should make, and requires no explanation. That's not convincing anyone, you need to explain your position if you expect anyone to give your POV any credence.

For example, I certainly would not say that RS's statement to the police (which we have never seen or heard, BTW), is irrelevant to the case, but if you want anyone to understand what it proves, you might want to explain that. The problem with this case is that the pro-guilt position does not follow a logical narrative, so just using rolling eye emoticons while expressing shock that anyone would post a certain opinion does not convince anyone.

What I would ask is, what do you think is the relevance of RS's statement to police? I'll even help you with some options:

1) It is evidence that Amanda Knox went out without him the night of the murder. We know she went out because of _____________________
2) It is evidence that Raffaele is a liar because we know Amanda Knox did not go out that night, and he said she did. This proves that _________________
3) It is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda committed the murder, because he was lying when he said she went out by herself. We know they went out together because __________________
4) It is evidence he caved in to police pressure, started telling the truth, which is _______________________ . Even though turning on Amanda would have saved him from 7 years of criminal prosecution in this case, he then decided to go back to protecting her because ___________________

I assume none of these is your point of view, but what is? RS's statement to the police is not irrelevant, but it doesn't fit any plausible narrative that also fits the evidence in the case, except for what he has told us, that he got confused and explained the wrong date. In most cases, I would be skeptical of a suspect that said such a thing, except that, in this case, it matches all the other known facts.

Please explain what you think his statement indicates.

Thanks!

 

[Diocletus]

Come on, ECHR accepts that right to defence counsel can be delayed just when there are "good reasons" for that.

And there is nothing arbitrary nor of routine in Mignini's prohibition to access attorney, that was entirely under legal provisions (art. 104 § 4 cpp), where "specific and exceptional" are defined by the law as a "quid pluris" which basically consists in preventing multiple suspects from attempting to agree to a defensive version.

This isn't even close to the Kind of case where it is appropriate to do that. In addition, mignoni never prepared the memo that he had to submit to Matteini.

But, none of this matters anyway, because they still weren't allowed to use any statement made without counsel to convict.

 

[Numbers]

Priceless

Nobody compelled Knox to make statements, except in the internet propaganda of pro-Knox supporters. The convicting judge's ruling was annulled, even in the part where they stated that the calunnia was non-aggravated (thus, the scenario is blown apart).
But anyway the convicting judge did convict, that means, in the merits the court made a factual finding of malice on the part of Knox.

You may also recall that the Supreme Court pointed out that the calunnia (has 1 "l" and 2 "n"s) was not a statement released during an interrogation but a prolonged behaviour, consisting in several subsequent statements and decisions by Knox.

You need to understand that you have no clue of what the ECHR case law means, nor about the rest of the law. But you will find out that when the ECHR decision comes out.
The prosecution can decide alone. The investigating judge confirmation is required only to prolong the time.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The statement in the quote that I highlighted is priceless.

Who does the statement refer to though? I suggest it does not refer to any of us who have been researching the ECHR, the Convention, and the ECHR case-law, and have provided the relevant citations.

Note that none of the guilters have provided any ECHR citations (without distortion) that support their position, nor can they; such judgments do not exist.

 

[Diocletus]

Nobody compelled Knox to make statements, except in the internet propaganda of pro-Knox supporters.

The echr doesn't require coercion to be proved. They just require indications of compulsion, i.e., a situation where the person's will is overcome. No problem finding that here, given the hour, the nature of the questioning, the lack of a lawyer, the inaccuracy of the statement, etc.

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course it's true. This is established jurisprudence.



Anna Donnino was absoultely right. But she didn't "pull" anything out of nobody. Knox decided to fabricate false testimony against an innocent man on her on will, out of malice, and she did so repeatedly (not just during the police interrogation).

It was you who said this is what Donnino did, in her role as mediator. She recovered memories for Amanda Knox. That is what you said. Should I repost what you said?

 

[platonov]

Slow going

Make an argument! Your posts are pointless to date.
What is the argument you want to make with regard to the interrogation of Mr Sollecito? Do you want to argue that he denies Ms Knox an alibi and asserts that she went out without him, continues to believe that and that you believe he stayed in? If so say so.

Or do you believe they went out together?

The problems with the callunia case for the Italians are certainly enhanced by the fact that the police in Ms Knox's interrogation claimed that Mr Sollecito took away her alibi. She continued to be denied counsel in violation of Article 6 ECHR.

The police got Mr Sollecito to say what they wanted him to say for the purposes of getting to Ms Knox. It's irrelevant to the truth of what happened the night of the murder but relevant to the issue of abusive police behaviour and the denial of procedural rights to suspects.

Pointless.!! I hardly think so.

Why as a result of my posts you have changed your position on the Nov 5th ‘disavowal’ from ‘It never happened – RS would have used it in court ’ to ‘It’s irrelevant’.
This I think we can agree is progress of a sort although we’re not finished yet. You are welcome BTW.

For my part – well it was funny and informative. Thank you

So why did RS throw AK under the bus on Nov 5th ? How did the cops
manage this?

And as regards the calunnia issue, and the case as a whole, a further salient Q arises.
In her many versions of the false accusation where does AK place her notification by the cops that RS had withdrawn her alibi.
Now like Numbers no doubt you prefer to ignore AK’s testimony – but it may profit y'all to start there.

 

[platonov]

Irrelevant to what, Platonov? Her prospects in the ECHR on calumny or something else?

And I ask in good faith. I am not claiming incomprehension, I am uncomprehending. Maybe you have a great point, in which case I would like to show you what's wrong with it

Still pleading incomprehension I see.

Well you needn’t have troubled yourself to intervene just to tell me that.
Even on issues as simple as this you make take it as read that you not understanding is the default position I adhere to until evidence to the contrary is produced

Do you agree with the entire prosecution case for guilt or there's certain things you don't find credible? Eg you find toto credible but Nara unreliable or the knife wasn't the murder weapon but the bra clasp is good evidence.

What in particular would you side with the defense on?

And you want to change the subject.
Why, just when we were getting somewhere

Why so touchy over RS's Nov 5th betrayal?

 

[Numbers]

No electronic or even written recording presented

The echr doesn't require coercion to be proved. They just require indications of compulsion, i.e., a situation where the person's will is overcome. No problem finding that here, given the hour, the nature of the questioning, the lack of a lawyer, the inaccuracy of the statement, etc.

The lack of an electronic (audio or video) recording, or even of a written transcript (which would need to be contemporaneous and detailed) is another significant issue to the ECHR in such cases. In an interview or interrogation by police in which they do not intend to violate the rights of the subject, the police record the questions and answers, and any noteworthy events. That there is no such record allows for inferences to be drawn.

 

[Kauffer]

Pointless.!! I hardly think so.

Why as a result of my posts you have changed your position on the Nov 5th ‘disavowal’ from ‘It never happened – RS would have used it in court ’ to ‘It’s irrelevant’.
This I think we can agree is progress of a sort although we’re not finished yet. You are welcome BTW.

For my part – well it was funny and informative. Thank you

So why did RS throw AK under the bus on Nov 5th ? How did the cops
manage this?

And as regards the calunnia issue, and the case as a whole, a further salient Q arises.
In her many versions of the false accusation where does AK place her notification by the cops that RS had withdrawn her alibi.
Now like Numbers no doubt you prefer to ignore AK’s testimony – but it may profit y'all to start there.

Yes - pointless!

Your comprehension skills need work.But what is the relevant argument you wish to make with regard to Mr Sollecito's interrogation? Your single issue fanaticism is a study in itself but what is it you are trying to say? You're not going to get very far unless you can learn how to make your point.

I'll be happy to engage with you when you can do that.

You ask; "where does AK place her notification..." I have absolutely no idea what this means!! You're not Catnip from PMF are you? Similar style ...

 

[Dougm]

Why so touchy over RS's Nov 5th betrayal?

When people disagree with you, or ask you to clarify your position, you decide they are being "touchy". Nice attempt to keep yourself from having to actually explain your position, but I don't think it is working.