Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Except for the statement "we find that there has been a violation of article 6". That will change everything. I mean, maybe some lunatic Italians will prefer to continue to say that the kids are "convicted killers" per the human-rights-violating-court. But who would care.

Interpol will always care.

 

[Machiavelli]

I just read this on TJMK, where you post, by P Quennell.

Extensive forensic evidence within days tied them both to the scene. Not a single element of it has been discredited in the eyes of the Massei trial and Nencini appeal court. Not even one. Nothing was proven falsified, no item at all.

Considering Matteini used the shoeprints in the bedroom as evidence tying Sollecito to the crime, and a reason to detain, can you find any explanation for PQ making this very strongly worded false statement?

It is obvious that Quennell is talking about the evidence that was collected and presented to a court, that means after the closing of the investigation.
It is normal for pieces of evidence to be disproven or for detectives to change directions and scenarios during the course of the investigation. It is absolutely obvious that investigative paths are disproven or changed, elements of evidence are dropped, others are added. This is clearly not what Quennell is talking about, he is talking about the established points of evidence.

 

[Machiavelli]

-
ETA: *As an example, I personally know the red (pink in my opinion) bathroom photo is not a myth, because I remember seeing it and reading some of the article that accompanied it. Sorry I don't have a source, but that don't prove it ain't a myth to me. It just makes it my opinion only. Maybe someone here can supply a source.

-

It is a myth that "the police" has orchestrated the publishing of the picture on a British tabloid. It is disproven, and it is also, well, nonsense.

 

[Numbers]

You have the right to believe any nonsense and delusion you like; I also recall that you had the idea that to find someone guilty you should find forensic evidence still in the murder room, otherwise the suspect must be innocent. You can believe any irrational theory and make up any baseless reasoning of your like.
This conviction will never be erased, and no ECHR statement will ever change thus.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,
Regarding the sentence I highlighted in your statement, I have some questions.
Which of the following do you mean, or do you mean something else?

1. If the ECHR finds that Italy violated Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial) in convicting Ms. Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, the judicial system in Italy would not permit the Italian government, working under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to invalidate (or annul) that conviction.

2. If the ECHR finds that Italy violated Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial) in convicting Ms. Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, you believe that the judicial system in Italy would not permit the Italian government, working under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to invalidate (or annul) that conviction.

3. If the ECHR finds that Italy violated Convention Article 6 (right to a fair trial) in convicting Ms. Knox of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, you believe that while the judicial system in Italy would permit the Italian government, working under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to invalidate (or annul) that conviction, you personally would continue to view her as guilty.

I may not have listed exactly what you were trying to convey, but please feel free to explain what you meant.

 

[Numbers]

Interpol will always care.

Interpol only notifies law enforcement agencies of persons sought upon notice by a law enforcement agency.

How is that relevant to Ms. Knox and the calunnia conviction finalized in 2013?

She and Mr. Sollecito remain innocent of all other charges until such time as there is a final sentence, if indeed the CSC should declare either or both guilty, on the other charges.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Richard Owen's reports

You talk about police lying about bleach receipts and smuggling bathroom pictures to tabloids, you make claims of "lies" that never existed, and you call my statement "obfuscation"...

Machiavelli,

I said nothing about smuggling; that is your invention. Here is one description of two articles written by Richard Owen: "On November 19, 2007, Richard Owen reported for the UK Times that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. The information was specific: one alleged purchase was made at 8:30, and a second was made at 9:15. No receipts were ever found. Then, in a November 25, 2007, report, Owen quoted an apparently official source as saying that the entire cottage, except for Meredith’s room and the bathroom she shared with Amanda, had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach.”"

In Continuation part 5 anglolawyer wrote, "I have definitely seen the Richard Owen article. It was published on or about 17 Nov and it attributes the bleach story to 'police sources'. He does not claim to have seen receipts but he records the times of the purchases, made 45 minutes apart early on 02 Nov.

Barbie Badeau writes in her book that bleach was purchased on 04 Nov and used to clean their shoes."

Ian Morris commented elsewhere, " The prosecution did lie about bleach receipts. An unnamed police source told Richard Owen of the Times that bleach receipts were found on the morning of the murder. The information provided by the police was specific. One purchase was made at 8.30 am and the second was made at 9.15 am. The police and prosecution failed to provide these receipts. There was no record of bleach purchases on the till were the bleach was supposedly purchased. The police clearly lied."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

red bathroom misdirection

It is a myth that "the police" has orchestrated the publishing of the picture on a British tabloid. It is disproven, and it is also, well, nonsense.

Machiavelli,

The photograph appeared in January of 2008 in a British tabloid. It was also discussed by Judy Bachrach in her Vanity Fair article. Whether the police supplied it to the press openly or covertly is not finally the point. They were the only ones who could have supplied it.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Amy, my positions and perceptions and those of most of those writing here are so far apart from each other that I believe I too will be seen as a fool or a liar by many of those holding those views.

Several people writing here, btw, have said they would never be ready to accept a guilty verdict (Diocletus, carbonjam) at no condition, others (Kauffer) have set absurdly undue conditions. Some others set conditions that are openly irrational about a number if points of evidence and believe a series of unsupported postulates at the same time. Some believe a series of myths (carbonjam is ready to believe Mignini was inspired by Carlizzi, even she proven that Carlizzi was arrested by Mignini and that her theory was totally different; or some think it makes sense to believe fake ELISA tests or think police publishes red bathroom pictures etc. all in the face of evidence of the contrary). Some have expressed positions that I consider plain racist and prejudicial.
I am not particularly optimistic about the possibility of being proven false give the absence of any ground for dialogue.

The Wikipedia page about the Narducci case says Cassazione in 2013 stated that the double body theory was false and Narducci committed suicide. This is false, I have the 2013 Cassazione ruling, and it says nothing like that. Many things like this are proven false to the Knox supporters all the time, and they seem to not notice or to forget.

-

I understand Mach. Basicly, you're in enemy territory and well, to be perfectly honest, your interpretations are met with disbelief and snarkiness (subtle ridicule) and I have to admit that I have been guilty of that in the past myself, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the case between us using critical thinking as a way to agree on some things.

For example, no one here can disagree that Meredith was murdered, and that Rudy was there at the time.

That's a good starting point.

Is there anything else we can agree on?

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

Interpol will always care.

You think Interpol is interested in arresting victims of human right violations? I think not. And anyway, it doesn't matter because they will have no power to do anything.

 

[Numbers]

Machiavelli,

The photograph appeared in January of 2008 in a British tabloid. It was also discussed by Judy Bachrach in her Vanity Fair article. Whether the police supplied it to the press openly or covertly is not finally the point. They were the only ones who could have supplied it.

Even if the photo was given to the media without the official permission of the Italian authorities, it had to have originated with someone in the police or other official organization (scientific police, for example, or prosecution office).

The point is that the State of Italy is responsible for the actions of it agents, before the ECHR, even if those actions are not authorized. The ECHR would ask, if this leak to the media was unauthorized, was there an investigation of the source, and was there some disciplinary action against the person who leaked the photo. If there was not, then the ECHR would make inferences regarding a violation of Article 6.2, Right to Presumption of Innocence.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It is a myth that "the police" has orchestrated the publishing of the picture on a British tabloid. It is disproven, and it is also, well, nonsense.

-

I agree on that point, There is no real proof that the police orchestrated the publishing of the picture, but it's a reasonable inference since it was originally a police photo to begin with or do you have another hypothesis?

d

-

 

[Numbers]

You think Interpol is interested in arresting victims of human right violations? I think not. And anyway, it doesn't matter because they will have no power to do anything.

Some persons, perhaps including Mach, may believe that Interpol is a police agency with the power to arrest. In fact, it does not have that authority; it is an information-sharing organization, and may also have some educational programs for law-enforcement.

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

The International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, is a non-governmental organization facilitating international police cooperation.
....
To keep Interpol as politically neutral as possible, its charter forbids it, at least in theory, from undertaking interventions or activities of a political, military, religious, or racial nature or involving itself in disputes over such matters.[4] Its work focuses primarily on public safety and battling terrorism, crimes against humanity, environmental crime, genocide, war crimes,[5] organized crime, piracy, illicit traffic in works of art, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.

ETA: Interpol is not a supranational law enforcement agency and has no agents who are able to make arrests.[17] Instead, it is an international organization that functions as a network of criminal law enforcement agencies from different countries. The organization thus functions as an administrative liaison among the law enforcement agencies of the member countries, providing communications and database assistance, assisted via the central headquarters in Lyon, France. {From the Wikipedia article}

 

[Samson]

It is obvious that Quennell is talking about the evidence that was collected and presented to a court, that means after the closing of the investigation.
It is normal for pieces of evidence to be disproven or for detectives to change directions and scenarios during the course of the investigation. It is absolutely obvious that investigative paths are disproven or changed, elements of evidence are dropped, others are added. This is clearly not what Quennell is talking about, he is talking about the established points of evidence.

I disagree. PQ is making a very particular claim, that the evidence to detain was complete. The truth is that no piece of evidence to detain was correct until they planted the bra clasp dna. Also, I belong to the category that is totally certain you are wrong about this case, and that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with any crime perpetrated that night.

 

[Desert Fox]

I disagree. PQ is making a very particular claim, that the evidence to detain was complete. The truth is that no piece of evidence to detain was correct until they planted the bra clasp dna. Also, I belong to the category that is totally certain you are wrong about this case, and that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with any crime perpetrated that night.

I am as certain as I human can be of their innocence although I do not operate with absolute certainty on anything. Don't take my uncertainty of their innocence as any real argument.

 

[Numbers]

Amy, my positions and perceptions and those of most of those writing here are so far apart from each other that I believe I too will be seen as a fool or a liar by many of those holding those views.

....

The Wikipedia page about the Narducci case says Cassazione in 2013 stated that the double body theory was false and Narducci committed suicide. This is false, I have the 2013 Cassazione ruling, and it says nothing like that. Many things like this are proven false to the Knox supporters all the time, and they seem to not notice or to forget.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,

The source for the information about the CSC ruling that Narducci had died by suicide is the following wikipedia entry, which references an online article from Il Messaggero. The statement appears to be supported by a contemporaneous Italian media source.

If the CSC ruling was indeed different, please provide the relevant text.

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


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]

22. http://m.ilmessaggero.it/m/messaggero/articolo/umbria/260272 Caso Narducci, l'inchiesta riparte da una lettera, Il Messaggero, 23 March 2013

 

[Machiavelli]

-

I agree on that point, There is no real proof that the police orchestrated the publishing of the picture, but it's a reasonable inference since it was originally a police photo to begin with or do you have another hypothesis?

d

-

But it can't be a reasonable inference, given that:

1) the photo was bought by the tabloid from a press photo agency
2) the tabloid actually did not by the specific photo, but the the whole batch of crime scene photos the photo agency had; and the agency had a whole batch, not the specific photo alone, and sold them together.
The two first points alone should prove there is no direct connection between the publiching of the photo and "the police".
3) the police would have no power to tell a tabloid about what to write on a photo caption
4) orchestrating the publication of a photo on a British tabloid would make no sense in terms of influencing the course of a trial, since judges and Perugians don't read British tabloids
5) the photo was not published in Italy
6) orchestrating the publication of that particular photo with that caption would make no sense, but to sell copies of the lurid tabloids; it would make no sense if the purpose was to influence the course of the trial or persuade the public opinion, since it was known and available information within the investigation papers that the photo was not blood.
7) it would make no sense to publish the photo in order to influence the preliminary judges or the court, since judges have seen all photos already.
8) it would make no sense for "the police" to disseminate stories for the public in the first place, they have nothing to gain from that
9) "the police" is not an entity that commits wrongdoings, those are committed by individuals.
10) multiple subjects may access investigation files in the Italian system, they include lawyers from all parties and various bearocrats and clerks; as a result, photos and information are always leaked as a rule.

For the above said reasons, it is not reasonable, it is rather idiotic to assume the police orchestrated the publishing of a photo in a British tabloid.

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,

The source for the information about the CSC ruling that Narducci had died by suicide is the following wikipedia entry, which references an online article from Il Messaggero. The statement appears to be supported by a contemporaneous Italian media source.

If the CSC ruling was indeed different, please provide the relevant text.

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


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]

22. http://m.ilmessaggero.it/m/messaggero/articolo/umbria/260272 Caso Narducci, l'inchiesta riparte da una lettera, Il Messaggero, 23 March 2013

But the reporting of the citation is plain false: the article by Il Messaggero doesn't say at all that the Supreme Court of Cassazione ruled that Narducci died by suicide.

 

[Numbers]

But it can't be a reasonable inference, given that:

1) the photo was bought by the tabloid from a press photo agency
2) the tabloid actually did not by the specific photo, but the the whole batch of crime scene photos the photo agency had; and the agency had a whole batch, not the specific photo alone, and sold them together.
The two first points alone should prove there is no direct connection between the publiching of the photo and "the police".
3) the police would have no power to tell a tabloid about what to write on a photo caption
4) orchestrating the publication of a photo on a British tabloid would make no sense in terms of influencing the course of a trial, since judges and Perugians don't read British tabloids
5) the photo was not published in Italy
6) orchestrating the publication of that particular photo with that caption would make no sense, but to sell copies of the lurid tabloids; it would make no sense if the purpose was to influence the course of the trial or persuade the public opinion, since it was known and available information within the investigation papers that the photo was not blood.
7) it would make no sense to publish the photo in order to influence the preliminary judges or the court, since judges have seen all photos already.
8) it would make no sense for "the police" to disseminate stories for the public in the first place, they have nothing to gain from that
9) "the police" is not an entity that commits wrongdoings, those are committed by individuals.
10) multiple subjects may access investigation files in the Italian system, they include lawyers from all parties and various bearocrats and clerks; as a result, photos and information are always leaked as a rule.

For the above said reasons, it is not reasonable, it is rather idiotic to assume the police orchestrated the publishing of a photo in a British tabloid.

Was there an official investigation of this leak? It was a potential violation of Convention Article 6.2, Right to Presumption of Innocence.

The fact that the presumption of innocence is often routinely violated in practice in Italy is not a defense for the State of Italy before the ECHR.

 

[Machiavelli]

Even if the photo was given to the media without the official permission of the Italian authorities, it had to have originated with someone in the police or other official organization (scientific police, for example, or prosecution office).

The point is that the State of Italy is responsible for the actions of it agents, before the ECHR, even if those actions are not authorized. (...)

The only point is that the pro-Knoxes who accuse the police of "lying" because they orchestrated a press operation using the bathroom photo, are liars.

 

[Machiavelli]

Was there an official investigation of this leak? It was a potential violation of Convention Article 6.2, Right to Presumption of Innocence.

The fact that the presumption of innocence is often routinely violated in practice in Italy is not a defense for the State of Italy before the ECHR.

The leak is not a violation of any law; only the publication may be a violation.

ECHR has nothing to do with this, and you know it. It only has to do with the fact that the pro-Knox supporters show themselves to be asserting idiotic myths.