Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Reading this thread fascinates me. Occasionally I feel the need to comment, but I usually refrain. Things like a lab that claims to never have had contamination issues make me laugh (as one who works at a lab).

This is a pro-Knoxes' straw man. Stefanoni only said they never happened to have the evidence that a contamination problem had occurred on a sample.

That's...I'm not sure I have any polite words for that.

You can have the words you like. It is the law.

False memory that is the result of...coercion. Actually kind of a classic example, I think.

You know, I am using the meaning of coercion as an action by which a person forces another person to do something against his/her will as a direct consequence of the use of violence, threat or intimidation.
If the consequence of an action is a memory, we have another element and the action cannot be described as coercion, at least not subjectively; the event should be better described as brain manipulation or cognitive hijacking, while two segments of consequential link, rather than just one, would require to be proven (because there is this element, the memory, in between, that makes the consequential linke become indirect).

Having read the statements, the highlighted is false. You actually have to deliberately ignore everything else in the note to reach this conclusion. Context is important.

No, context here does not save Knox. The only possible way to read those statements is that they are a calunnia, unless you decide to assume that Knox's position is "the only truth is that she doesn't know what the truth is", and at the same time you assume that Knox is credible.
The statements are false testimonies placing evidence against other people, it is a calunnia, there is no other possible legal reading.

 

[Machiavelli]

The ECHR will be looking at the actual events, including Memoriales 1 and 2 that Knox wrote, that the prosecution had; the prosecution should then have approached Knox to have her file any legalism regarding her allegation. She did not have a lawyer when she wrote the Memoriales.

Knox had full access to lawyers within useful time to file a complaint for being hit; she had 90 days to do so. She was also interrogated on Dec. 17., and still didn't complain about the alleged incident (instead she refused to talk about it).

My understanding is that Mignini and Comodi did begin an investigation of her allegations of abuse by the police after her testimony in 2009 claiming that she was abused during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Perhaps they were not as informed about the law as you. Of course, that investigation, I have been informed, has somehow stalled.

Your understanding is wrong. Mignini and Comodi investigated her possible calunnia, not her allegation. Her allegation may have been investigated but only as a fact-finding activity in consequence of the calunnia charge, to corroborate or disprove the suspicion of calunnia.

 

[Machiavelli]

We're not talking about a regular old beating. We're talking about police (an agency if the state) hitting a suspect in their custody. That's different.

No it isn't. There is nothing that makes it different inside the penal code. There is an aggravation circumstance if the perpetrator is a police officer, but beating does not have mandatory prosecution under any circumstance, victim complaint is always required.

 

[Diocletus]

Knox had full access to lawyers within useful time to file a complaint for being hit; she had 90 days to do so. She was also interrogated on Dec. 17., and still didn't complain about the alleged incident (instead she refused to talk about it).



Your understanding is wrong. Mignini and Comodi investigated her possible calunnia, not her allegation. Her allegation may have been investigated but only as a fact-finding activity in consequence of the calunnia charge, to corroborate or disprove the suspicion of calunnia.

I don't know why you're so obsessed with filing a complaint. A statement derived from an art 3 violation can't be used for any purpose. It's a rule of admissibility and it is applied within the case in chief. No secondary case necessary.

 

[Bill Williams]

You know, I am using the meaning of coercion as an action by which a person forces another person to do something against his/her will as a direct consequence of the use of violence, threat or intimidation.
If the consequence of an action is a memory, we have another element and the action cannot be described as coercion, at least not subjectively; the event should be better described as brain manipulation or cognitive hijacking, while two segments of consequential link, rather than just one, would require to be proven (because there is this element, the memory, in between, that makes the consequential linke become indirect).

No one cares about your definition of coercion, Machiavelli.

However, once again, here is your account of why the translator, Anna Donnino, was justified in manipulating Amanda Knox..... these are your own words, my friend:

"But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused."

You see absolutely nothing wrong with Donnino messing up like this.... apparently, neither does Mignini. And the courts have shown themselves unwilling to hold to account ANY agent of the police or prosecutor.

You need to get your stories straight.

 

[Diocletus]

No it isn't. There is nothing that makes it different inside the penal code. There is an aggravation circumstance if the perpetrator is a police officer, but beating does not have mandatory prosecution under any circumstance, victim complaint is always required.

Well, that's dumb. Putting that aside, see above.

 

[Machiavelli]

DON'T YOU GET IT? It was the responsibility of the 20 year old girl, who had no idea that she was even suspected of a crime, did not understand the language or the legal system, did not have legal council, and had never been interrogated by police in her whole life, to bring the charges??

Oh, and once she even dared to mention that some of this happened, she was slapped with a suit by the police, who conveniently did not turn on the tape recorder so there is no record of what happened.

I'm sure the ECHR will find this fair. It's her fault. If they don't understand that, they should ask Machiavelli.

Her lawyers knew perfectly well that she would have to file a complaint within 90 days and testify about it, if she wanted to claim she suffered a beating and coercion.

 

[Machiavelli]

No one cares about your definition of coercion, Machiavelli.

I already know that nobody among the pro-Knoxes cares about anything related to truth or logical consistency.

However, once again, here is your account of why the translator, Anna Donnino, was justified in manipulating Amanda Knox..... these are your own words, my friend:

You see absolutely nothing wrong with Donnino messing up like this.... apparently, neither does Mignini. And the courts have shown themselves unwilling to hold to account ANY agent of the police or prosecutor.

You need to get your stories straight.

I don't see anything wrong in Donnino's behaviour, she is not messing up anything, and my "story" - that's a difference between me and Amanda Knox - is only one, and it's straight.

And remind this, don't forget it: Knox committed calunnia at least four times, in at least different circumstances, also without any mediation.

 

[Numbers]

Knox had full access to lawyers within useful time to file a complaint for being hit; she had 90 days to do so. She was also interrogated on Dec. 17., and still didn't complain about the alleged incident (instead she refused to talk about it).



Your understanding is wrong. Mignini and Comodi investigated her possible calunnia, not her allegation. Her allegation may have been investigated but only as a fact-finding activity in consequence of the calunnia charge, to corroborate or disprove the suspicion of calunnia.

Then why would the prosecutors investigate if, as you say, there was no formal complaint? According to your previous statement, they should not be looking at this; if they found that there had been coercion, for example, they would be in a quandary with no complaint from the victim.

I don't find your view at all compatible with the ECHR case-law. The ECHR takes allegations of abuse by police very seriously. There must be an investigation upon receipt of an allegation, with no reliance by the authorities to avoid an investigation on the failure to follow obscure formalisms.

The fact that rather than conducting an effective investigation of Ms. Knox's allegations, another charge of criminal calunnia, against the police, was initiated, and furthermore civil cases of calunnia against her, and against her parents were initiated, would be considered by the ECHR as indications of the practical inability to pursue allegations of misconduct by the police through legal channels.

 

[Bill Williams]

I already know that nobody among the pro-Knoxes cares about anything related to truth or logical consistency.



I don't see anything wrong in Donnino's behaviour, she is not messing up anything, and my "story" - that's a difference between me and Amanda Knox - is only one, and it's straight.

And remind this, don't forget it: Knox committed calunnia at least four times, in at least different circumstances, also without any mediation.

Give it up, Machiavelli. You've been rebutted upthread. All anyone needs to know, really, is that you see no problem with Donnino's behaviour. You will not mind, then, if I repost your words. They're classic.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't know why you're so obsessed with filing a complaint. A statement derived from an art 3 violation can't be used for any purpose. It's a rule of admissibility and it is applied within the case in chief. No secondary case necessary.

This is your other fallacy. You say this, because you fail to acknowledge that Knox's calunnia is a crime on its own, it cannot be considered as a statement "derived" from some external circumstance, and it is not an "incriminating" statement elicited from a suspect since Knox was not a suspect of the crime of calunnia; she was suspected only of crimes that, at the time, were not connected to the crime of calunnia (since the latter didn't exist yet).

 

[Machiavelli]

Give it up, Machiavelli. You've been rebutted upthread.

Nobody here has rebutted anything I said over the last 2 days.

 

[Machiavelli]

Give it up, Machiavelli. You've been rebutted upthread. All anyone needs to know, really, is that you see no problem with Donnino's behaviour. You will not mind, then, if I repost your words. They're classic.

Don't forget to recall the audience that Knox's calunnia was a prolonged and repeated behaviour, that she presented false incriminating testimony at least four times, in at least different circumstances, also without mediation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Then why would the prosecutors investigate if, as you say, there was no formal complaint? According to your previous statement, they should not be looking at this; if they found that there had been coercion, for example, they would be in a quandary with no complaint from the victim.

I don't find your view at all compatible with the ECHR case-law. The ECHR takes allegations of abuse by police very seriously. There must be an investigation upon receipt of an allegation, with no reliance by the authorities to avoid an investigation on the failure to follow obscure formalisms.

The fact that rather than conducting an effective investigation of Ms. Knox's allegations, another charge of criminal calunnia, against the police, was initiated, and furthermore civil cases of calunnia against her, and against her parents were initiated, would be considered by the ECHR as indications of the practical inability to pursue allegations of misconduct by the police through legal channels.

This one is a classic. Machiavelli cannot explain why John Follain and/or the Daily Telegraph were NOT so charged. It was in Follain's Telegraph article that the so-called offending words of Knox's parents were found.

It is the first time since cave-men scribbled on walls that the publisher of an offence was not charged.

Can you spell - predatory prosecution?

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't forget to recall the audience that Knox's calunnia was a prolonged and repeated behaviour, that she presented false incriminating testimony at least four times, in at least different circumstances, also without mediation.

You will not mind, then, if I repost your words. They're classic.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why would the prosecutors investigate if, as you say, there was no formal complaint? According to your previous statement, they should not be looking at this; if they found that there had been coercion, for example, they would be in a quandary with no complaint from the victim.

I don't find your view at all compatible with the ECHR case-law. The ECHR takes allegations of abuse by police very seriously. There must be an investigation upon receipt of an allegation, with no reliance by the authorities to avoid an investigation on the failure to follow obscure formalisms.

The fact that rather than conducting an effective investigation of Ms. Knox's allegations, another charge of criminal calunnia, against the police, was initiated, and furthermore civil cases of calunnia against her, and against her parents were initiated, would be considered by the ECHR as indications of the practical inability to pursue allegations of misconduct by the police through legal channels.

The fundamental principle of ECHR is that the applicant must have used the available legal path to pursue alleged violations, which Knox obviously didn't do.

It won't explain about Mignini and Comodi investigation further, since I think it's clear. They were investigating a calunnia - a malicious false testimony - not a beating.

There were no calunnia charges filed against Amanda's parents. Those were complaints of defamation, you seem to confuse the charge of defamation with calunnia. But they are very different. They also belong to different sections of the penal code, dealing with different topics.

 

[Machiavelli]

This one is a classic. Machiavelli cannot explain why John Follain and/or the Daily Telegraph were NOT so charged. It was in Follain's Telegraph article that the so-called offending words of Knox's parents were found.

It is the first time since cave-men scribbled on walls that the publisher of an offence was not charged.

Can you spell - predatory prosecution?

This is defamation, not calunnia.

Defamation is - in fact - exactly like beating: it is prosecuted for personal interest on a victim's complaint.

Calunnia is very different. It is an aggravated form of obstruction of justice, it is a crime against the state.

 

[Bill Williams]

This one is a classic. Machiavelli cannot explain why John Follain and/or the Daily Telegraph were NOT so charged. It was in Follain's Telegraph article that the so-called offending words of Knox's parents were found.

It is the first time since cave-men scribbled on walls that the publisher of an offence was not charged.

Can you spell - predatory prosecution?

This is defamation, not calunnia.

Defamation is - in fact - exactly like beating: it is prosecuted for personal interest on a victim's complaint.

Calunnia is very different. It is an aggravated form of obstruction of justice, it is a crime against the state.

You've missed the point Machiavelli. No matter.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've missed the point Machiavelli. No matter.

Don't think I missed the point. Maybe you did. Prosecution is private and selective because it's defamation, not calunnia.

 

[Numbers]

What available means

The fundamental principle of ECHR is that the applicant must have used the available legal path to pursue alleged violations, which Knox obviously didn't do.

It won't explain about Mignini and Comodi investigation further, since I think it's clear. They were investigating a calunnia - a malicious false testimony - not a beating.

There were no calunnia charges filed against Amanda's parents. Those were complaints of defamation, you seem to confuse the charge of defamation with calunnia. But they are very different. They also belong to different sections of the penal code, dealing with different topics.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The ECHR has found that a supposed legal path is not an "available legal path" if the applicant was subjected to prosecution in relation to taking that path or in related action. That is, Ms. Knox was subjected to a false prosecution for voicing in court that she had been mistreated by the police.

She had written a statement (Memoriale 1) stating that she had been mistreated and coerced (threatened and slapped):

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

The receipt of this note by the authorities means, by ECHR case-law, that the authorities must initiate measures, including an investigation, to evaluate Ms. Knox's allegations. That they did not is a violation of Convention Article 3, procedural part. If there were any formalities, such as a particular type of document to be filled out in order for the prosecution to proceed in the investigation, it was the obligation of those authorities to see that is was done.

That it was not done and that a calunnia against the police charge was launched against Ms. Knox for her stating in court that she was mistreated by the Italian authorities - that is, the police - will indicate to the ECHR that no path of complaint was available to her.