Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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.

Here is the Google translation into English. I see that the article is claiming that the CSC ruled the death was indeed a suicide.

PERUGIA - The Strange Case of Dr. Francesco Narducci, the return. If it was not started with a real death, it would seem the third installment of a saga that seems endless. Because after archiving and acquittals, the Third Division of the Court of Cassation gives back piped to the case of the most controversial judicial history and small town in Umbria. The doctor's death in 1985, suicide, not an accident.
Indeed, death tied to the facts of the Monster of Florence. The false leads, twice dead, false witness, and the war of the deputy prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and the super cop Michele Giuttari. The widow Francesca who wants the truth and the family of the young gastroenterologist who has no doubts about the suicide. But after a heartfelt indictment of the Attorney General Peter Gaeta that in 47 minutes he asked the judges to set aside the judgment of acquittal for the twenty defendants, the Court canceled the conspiracy (aimed at exchanging corpse to hide, according allegations, the bonds of the doctor with the monster) but has reopened the mystery. That starts with the letter in which Narducci says goodbye.

The Third Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, in fact, has partially accepted the appeal of the Prosecutor of Perugia and the widow Narducci, civil party with the lawyer Francesco Crisis. On twenty counts of ten are prescribed (except for the lawyer Alfredo Brizioli, who had given up the prescription) and seven you will have to go back before a judge after the judgment of nonsuit signed by Paul gup Micheli on 20 April 2010. a decision that creates the paradox of putting all agree on one point: the satisfaction. Satisfied Francesco Falcinelli assisting the family, met Luciano Ghirga and Giovanni Spina, lawyers Alfredo Brizioli (friend and lawyer Narducci). David Zaganelli happy, lawyer of former superintendent Francesco Trio. Satisfied Francesco Crisis assisting the widow Francesca Spagnoli. All met from its own point of view. "The case is closed Narducci for us - says Falcinelli -. End of the allegations, falls the conspiracy that was the cornerstone of the process. Francis died of a suicide. "

"It went well - comment and Spina Ghirga -. For offenses not prescribed are ready to speak before a trial court. But the demands of the Attorney General have been debased. ""The Court, rejecting the appeals of the Prosecutor of the Republic and the civil party - reiterated Zaganelli - confirmed as three years ago ruled the preliminary hearing judge: there has never been murder, concealment or substitution of a corpse. Never the commissioner Trio and the police began to hand to hide any murder and to make exchanges of corpses. The case Narducci is permanently closed. "And while the deputy prosecutor Giuliano Mignini prefers silence in front of a decision, however, gives new impetus to inquiry followed for years, the lawyer thinks the crisis revived charges against that underpin still the mystery about the death of the husband of his client . Why the mystery there. Maybe in terms of justice, without the association, are minor offenses: false, slander, fraud case, obstruction of justice, interruption of public service. Almost Series B to the idea of the group for more than twenty years he tried to hide in any way the bonds of a respected doctor from Perugia with barbaric killings of the Monster of Florence. But the mystery, of course, remains. The story goes on to discuss.

It will be discussed before a new judge, for example, the perjury of which accused the maid of the house of the Trasimeno Narducci. The one that said that Francis would have left only a note, whereas the doctor before disappearing has "left a letter written thickly on both sides." His farewell. What happened to the letter? Because the woman has lied? And yet, in trouble is the friend, Alfredo Brizioli. That must explain why he tried to force through threats, according to the indictment, the coroner Gabriella Carlesi "to draw up a consultation false" on the death of the doctor or because he tried "to deny the evidence of the fracture of the upper left horn of the thyroid cartilage corpse 'that could suggest strangulation. Along with him, journalist Mario Spezi and former superintendent Francesco Trio will talk about what the prosecution was an attempt to paralyze the activities of the team Giuttari anti monster, he does know that a civil party.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Read the Convention and the ECHR case-law on Presumption of Innocence. The State is responsible for maintaining the security of its files, especially those relating to criminal prosecution.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Total BS. Any person who accessed the investigation file could have supplied it (lawyer, beaurocrat). And even in the event (unproven and unsupported) that it was a police officer, it would be just one individual, not "the police". And even in the event that it was a police officer who supplied the batch of crime scene photos to a press agency, it would be irrelevant to the point, since the hypothetical officer obviously did it only for money, and anyway certainly he/she was not the one who published it on a British tabloid nor wrote the cation and did not orchestrate any media campaign.

 

[Machiavelli]

Read the Convention and the ECHR case-law on Presumption of Innocence. The State is responsible for maintaining the security of its files, especially those relating to criminal prosecution.

It doesn't affect the fact that the pro-Knox supporters are lying, and that they indulge in asserting idiotic myths.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is the Google translation into English. I see that the article is claiming that the CSC ruled the death was indeed a suicide.

You see something that doesn't exist. It is just attorney Zaganelli (the defence lawyer of mr.Trio) who is reported stating that the death was caused by suicide.

Edit: sorry, I see it is Falcinelli, another lawyer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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,

Until and unless you can document 1 and 2, it is only your assertion that an agency had anything to do with this. 5 is misleading; the photo appeared in Frank Sfarzo's blog. 6 is nonsense; intelligent people who saw the photo thought it was blood. 10 is innuendo. Why would the defense lawyers release this photo? If it were a "clerk" then he or she is still an agent of the government.

Are we supposed to accept your unbridled speculation as fact? I do not think so. Are we supposed to forget that a photograph of someone who is part of the investigation shows him holding a small camera? I do not think so.

 

[Numbers]

It doesn't affect the fact that the pro-Knox supporters are lying, and that they indulge in asserting idiotic myths.

This statement of yours is merely an ad hominem.

You seem to have problems understanding that Italian practices that violate the Convention and the ECHR case-law affect convictions in Italy if and when an applicant lodges complaints of human rights violations with the ECHR. Although the ECHR is not empowered to quash convictions, each Council of Europe State, including Italy, is obligated to follow the final judgments of the ECHR, and when there is an Article 6 violation, this generally means a rehearing or retrial held in strict accordance with the Convention, if requested by the applicant.

For the 2013 simple calunnia conviction against Ms. Knox, the statute of limitations may run out by the time for a retrial, so the conviction will, IIUC, be annulled.

It doesn't matter whether or not the practices contrary to the Convention and ECHR case-law are in accord with Italian law. It is the Convention and the ECHR case-law that sets the minimum standard for human rights practices in the Council of Europe countries.

 

[Numbers]

You see something that doesn't exist. It is just attorney Zaganelli (the defence lawyer of mr.Trio) who is reported stating that the death was caused by suicide.

Edit: sorry, I see it is Falcinelli, another lawyer.

Repeating the first lines as Google translated {bold added}:

The Strange Case of Dr. Francesco Narducci, the return. If it was not started with a real death, it would seem the third installment of a saga that seems endless. Because after archiving and acquittals, the Third Division of the Court of Cassation gives back piped to the case of the most controversial judicial history and small town in Umbria. The doctor's death in 1985, suicide, not an accident.

The article has this statement immediately after mentioning the CSC, and thus appears to attribute it to the CSC there. I agree that later in the article there is a quote from the lawyer, but that may merely be his repetition of the CSC finding.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a candid photo; a candid admission

Total BS. Any person who accessed the investigation file could have supplied it (lawyer, beaurocrat). And even in the event (unproven and unsupported) that it was a police officer, it would be just one individual, not "the police". And even in the event that it was a police officer who supplied the batch of crime scene photos to a press agency, it would be irrelevant to the point, since the hypothetical officer obviously did it only for money, and anyway certainly he/she was not the one who published it on a British tabloid nor wrote the cation and did not orchestrate any media campaign.

Machiavelli,

It is my working hypothesis that an officer did do it for money. That is unethical, and that was my assertion. Thank you for your admission.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Until and unless you can document 1 and 2, it is only your assertion that an agency had anything to do with this.

Oh no, this has been already documented several years ago.
But do you accept that if this is the case, then your assertion is totally disproven?

5 is misleading; the photo appeared in Frank Sfarzo's blog.

Let's try to not be ridiculous: Frank Sfarzo's blog at the time was in English, or at least that appeared his intent, and did not appear with the same caption and the context of the British tabloid, but rather re-framed within a pro-Knox propaganda message about how false it was, so it was something saying rather the contrary of what you blame the police of conveying through the media.

6 is nonsense; intelligent people who saw the photo thought it was blood. 10 is innuendo. Why would the defense lawyers release this photo? If it were a "clerk" then he or she is still an agent of the government.

Not at all, since the entire deceptive message consists in writing a made up caption, while every "intelligent" person who saw the crime scene photos or just read the Italian newspapers, would also know what the bloody bathmat print looked like and abotu the kind of blood drops that were visible in the sink.
A for 10., I didn't say just "defence lawyers", I rather specifically wrote "lawyers of all parties"; they include Pacelli, for example, or even the landlady's lawyers.

Are we supposed to accept your unbridled speculation as fact? I do not think so. Are we supposed to forget that a photograph of someone who is part of the investigation shows him holding a small camera? I do not think so.

What I think is that you should refrain from building up sheer lies from trivial pretexts. Small cameras etc. ... this is just blah blah, hypocritical pretexts, rhetorical fallacy; because since the photos exist it's obvious some people took them (it all looks like building a a petitio principii, assuming the obvious presumption demonstrates something).
It is also obvious to any intelligent person that accusations against "the police" (?) of orchestrating campaigns are foolish, and just tools from a propaganda arsenal of a bunch of disingenuous activists.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

It is my working hypothesis that an officer did do it for money. That is unethical, and that was my assertion. Thank you for your admission.

1) a "working hypothesys" Vecchiotti-style: it is automatically promoted from "hypothesys" to "truth" on a petitio principii rule, just because it is, intrinsically, something possible in rerum natura
2) a "working hypothesys" that contradicts the proposed scenario, in which "the police" was orchestrating a media campaign.
3) your "working hypothesys" also contradicts the myth that the subject allegedly committing an action was an entity - "the police" - rather than an individual.

 

[Machiavelli]

This statement of yours is merely an ad hominem.
(.....)

I am talking about the pro-Knox supporters not admitting they are presenting as "truth" a series of myths, which are in fact unsupported an unreasonable accusations.
This is the topic, something that has obviously nothing to do with ECHR.

 

[Machiavelli]

Read the Convention and the ECHR case-law on Presumption of Innocence. The State is responsible for maintaining the security of its files, especially those relating to criminal prosecution.

If Knox has a problem with Italian law on this point, then she should file a lawsuit for damages about the so-called photo incident. Demand to change the law, if that's the problem, rather try to use it as propaganda tool by falsifying it and by making up false accusations and false myths.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

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.

-

Thank you Mach. That was a very lucid explanation as to why it wasn't a reasonable inference and I have to side with your interpretation here.

I just wish the PLE would have said something, but I can also understand how enormous a task that would have been, but ya know Mach, I'm an idealist at heart and things like that bother me.

Like someone passing someone who is hurt and ignores them, or someone trying to make a good point and all they get is snarkiness.

It just doesn't make any sense to me to keep doing that anymore.

At my age (58), real honesty is just so refreshing (and rare), ya know,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Repeating the first lines as Google translated {bold added}:

The Strange Case of Dr. Francesco Narducci, the return. If it was not started with a real death, it would seem the third installment of a saga that seems endless. Because after archiving and acquittals, the Third Division of the Court of Cassation gives back piped to the case of the most controversial judicial history and small town in Umbria. The doctor's death in 1985, suicide, not an accident.

The article has this statement immediately after mentioning the CSC, and thus appears to attribute it to the CSC there. I agree that later in the article there is a quote from the lawyer, but that may merely be his repetition of the CSC finding.

I am saying that you are making a mistake in reading the article.

The article subtitle says "(...) La morte del medico nel 1985, il suicidio, no l’incidente."

It doesn't mean "suicide, not an accident". It means something completely different; it means (I'll try to render this in English):
"It's a suicide, no it's an accident".

It's a mildly ironic, or better "surreal" statement, a series of two assertions, almost exclamations, "it's a suicide, no it's an accident", that points out how conflicting scenarios had been put forward (by the defences, basically).

The SC never found that it was a suicide. Actually, rather the contrary, the SC ruling assumes as a proven fact that Narducci was killed and the body was concealed.

 

[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.

{Bumping this.}

{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.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

photo of the man with the camera

For those interested in how the photo was taken, Dan O.'s comment is helpful.

 

[Strozzi]

Mach, I agree the "police" is an organization of many people and we should speak of individual police officers (even if their identity is unknown to us) rather than speak of the "police" collectively as one.

I also understand that various other people besides police officers had access to the photos. These include court clerks, police department clerks, Lumumba's lawyer Pacelli, and the Kercher's lawyer Maresca.

Who do you think had motive to give or sell the photos to a press agency buyer?

Do you think it was done just for personal profit, or do you think the person who supplied the photos to the press agency that re-sold the photos to the tabloid was trying to inflame news coverage against the defendants?

How about the heavy-set officer in the bunny-suit from the Scientific Police who was photographed near the bathroom door taking photos with a different (personal) camera? What was his role? Were his photos turned in as photographic evidence of the pink bathroom and made available to all parties, or was he permitted to create private/personal photographic evidence and keep it for his personal use? Do you think he might be the one who supplied (sold ?) the pink photo to the press agency?

 

[Numbers]

I am saying that you are making a mistake in reading the article.

The article subtitle says "(...) La morte del medico nel 1985, il suicidio, no l’incidente."

It doesn't mean "suicide, not an accident". It means something completely different; it means (I'll try to render this in English):
"It's a suicide, no it's an accident".

It's a mildly ironic, or better "surreal" statement, a series of two assertions, almost exclamations, "it's a suicide, no it's an accident", that points out how conflicting scenarios had been put forward (by the defences, basically).

The SC never found that it was a suicide. Actually, rather the contrary, the SC ruling assumes as a proven fact that Narducci was killed and the body was concealed.

I see where your reading of the first "suicide, not an accident" may be correct. But what about the following statement in the article:

"... the Court canceled the conspiracy (aimed at exchanging corpse to hide, according allegations, the bonds of the doctor with the monster) but has reopened the mystery. That starts with the letter in which Narducci says goodbye."

The CSC (the article, as translated, claims) apparently ruled against the existence of a conspiracy. This would suggest a death by suicide or an accident, and not a murder of Doctor Narducci.

 

[Machiavelli]

{Bumping this.}

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.

Now, let's make clear that 1. the Italian government will never annul a conviction, because it doesn't have a power to do so.

2. A final conviction anyway cannot be annulled. Under no circumstance.

3. At best, a final conviction could be reviewd, meaning that the Supreme Court could rule that a new trial should be granted (but it is not a trial ex-novo, it is the review of an old trial). That trial wold have, in theory, a potential to result in an acquittal for insufficient evidence for calunnia. But this is only theoretical, in practice I regard such event as unrealistic in the case of Knox, even in the (already unrealistic) event that some violation of Knox's rights was found by the ECHR.