Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Welshman]

The bloody bathroom photo and the other lies and misinformation fed to the media raises a very important issue. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, why did they have to resort to leaking false information to the media when they supposedly had plenty of genuine evidence at their disposal. Having to resort to lying is always a sign the prosecution have a weak case and a lack of evidence. This is why Machiavelli can never admit the police and prosecution were behind leaking false information to the media or if someone from the police leaked false information, it was not authorised at senior levels and done by a junior police officer or member of the prosecution.

If your case is a slam dunk and you have hard evidence, you should never have to resort to lying and using falsehoods. I will use an example to illustrate my point. A man has been arrested on suspicion of entering a woman's home, raping her and battering her to death. The police have the following evidence :-

The suspects DNA is all over the crime scene
The suspects has left bloody palm prints and fingerprints in the victim's home
The victim's blood is on the suspect's clothing
Bloody footprints match shoes belonging to the suspect and the shoes have the victim's blood on them
The suspect's DNA is in the victim's private parts
The suspect's hair are all over the crime scene
There is clear CCTV footage of the suspect running away from the victim's house covered in blood
When they check the suspect's mobile phone, there are photographs of the victim and time of the photos match the time of death for the victim
They check the suspect's computer and find an account describing how the suspect killed the victim. The account contains details only the killer could know.
The victim was battered by an iron bar. The police search the suspect's house and find an iron bar with the victim's blood and DNA.

Despite having all this evidence, the police spread false information to the media such as the suspect using the victim's credit card and the suspect buying bleach which turn out not to be true. Would people not find it odd that the police spread lies and falsehoods when the police have a mountain of hard evidence, a slam dunk case and plenty of genuine evidence at their disposal they could provide the media with.

Machiavelli constantly attacks Amanda for lying but when the prosecution lie, he makes excuses such as the lies not being authorized at senior level. If the PR company hired by Amanda's family spread lies to the media and PIP on this board said the lie was not authorized by Amanda or her family and was relesed by a junior member of staff, I can't see Machiavelli accepting this explanation.

 

[Kauffer]

The problem you seem to have is being able to identify by citation from the case law, support for your contention that the ECHR is going to recognise "compelling reasons" for the denial of counsel in the present case. I cannot confirm an exhaustive search of all the 115 or so post Salduz judgements handed down by the ECHR, but between us here we have considered a good many.

There really is "no point of balance", no "conflicting rights" - not in this case.

But that's not your major problem. Your major problem is finding any exception relevant to the present case where statements used from interrogations without the benefit of counsel have been permitted to support convictions. Or perhaps you think the ECHR will anyway conclude that the 5:45 statement was the product of a "not an interrogation" kind of interrogation and congratulate Mignini for his most proper work?

...and you do realise don't you, unlike Popper, that one Article 6 violation and this conviction and this sentence is history, toast, never happened, doesn't count...etc etc. Have you explained that to all your boys and girls? CSC decision no. 2800? You have seen it right?

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.

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? (Numbers)


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.

You are so disconnected from the realities present in the relationships between the relevant institutions involved in matters relating to the convention, it is breathtaking.

Oddly, until the Italian Constitutional Court ruled on the matter in 2011, the overwhelming obstacle to Italy fulfilling its obligation to the Council of Europe and thus the convention with regard to satisfying the principle of restitutio integrum, was the legislature. Nevertheless, from the CSC decision no. 2800 in the Dorigo case:

"the court affirmed that the national judge must state, under Article 670 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, that a final judgment in a criminal case cannot be executed where the European Court of Human Rights:

1. has ascertained that the conviction was obtained as a result of violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

2. has recognised the right of the sentenced party to reopen national proceedings, even if the Italian legislature has not introduced appropriate means to initiate the new trial.

http://www.vathek.org/doi/pdf/10.1350/jcla.2007.71.5.406

And as noted by the Committee of Ministers (Council of Europe) when closing the Dorigo case:

"The Court of Cassation.......ruled that the detention of the applicant, who had been convicted in unfair judicial proceedings, was unlawful.

• Subsequent action: In view of the Court of Cassation's decision, the applicant now has several new remedies which he can use to obtain compensation for his unlawful detention, and secure deletion of the conviction from his criminal record."

http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

The Court of Cassation had in fact already affirmed this principle in the Somogyi Judgment of 12 July 2006, holding that the Italian judge has the duty to comply with the Strasbourg Court’s judgments and consequently must recognise:

"the right to a new trial, even if this implies the necessity to question, through the re-examination or reopening of the penal proceedings, the intangibility of the final judgment"

However, the problem of initiating a new trial remained as a result of the restrictions of art 630, although suspension of sentence is provided for under art 635 (and was used in the Dorigo case to let him go). Subsequently, the Constitutional Court issued an "additive" decision in 2011, effectively standing in for the legislature temporarily, to amend the law, such that art 630 of the Criminal Code of Procedure may be applied in cases where there is an adverse art 6 convention ruling from Strasbourg. (Decision 113/2011).

Embarrassingly, in the absence of the legislature acting decisively on this issue, in 2005, before Cassation decision 2800 and decision 113/2011 of the Constitutional Court, a decree was issued by the President of the Italian Republic (no. 289), providing a new ruling for criminal records, stating that ECHR decisions must be added to the defendant’s criminal record below the Italian final decision to which they are referred.

http://www.internationallawreview.eu/fisiere/pdf/LR_007RomitoandTracogna_1.pdf

Decoded, of course, what that meant was an admission that Italy could not do what it needed to in order to meet its treaty obligations and humiliatingly, effectively had to declare that it's own courts' decisions were but sham judgements and that nobody had the wit to correct them. Shameful.

Once the ECHR has ruled on art 6 violations in Knox v Italy, her calunnia conviction and sentence will be set aside and there are a number of mechanisms now available in Italian law to achieve this under supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

What you must note also is that:

1) Strasbourg judgements are binding on Italy through the CofM
2) art 117(1) Italian constitution is a bridge to art 46 of the convention
3) The convention has the standing of constitutional law in Italy
4) Italian ccp must be convention compliant or yield to the convention
5) It's not just about the ECHR award of money to successful applicants; it's mainly about restitutio integrum provided by States.

 

[platonov]

Well done

Not acc. to Sollecito he didn't. Please read "Honor Bound". He said there that the police interrogators would not let him clarify the difference between Wed and Thurs night of the previous week.

It was the police who took this as him "withdrawing his alibi".

What is strange though is that you seem unaware of the guilter's dilemma. The guilter's dilemma is that Knox was supposed to have spontaneously and without warning suddenly blamed Lumumba; without Knox first being a suspect.

Yet, isn't pressuring Sollecito to remember the difference between Wed and Thurs night evidence that the cops right there right then suspected them? Isn't that why they called in Sollecito in the first place, to get him to surrender his Nike's.

The guilter's dilemma has never been addressed by the pro-guilt lobby.

Bill.
First, credit where it’s due. Well done, kudos to you, a tip of the hat etc etc


You have correctly identified the episode under discussion the Nov5/6th ‘disavowal’ by RS.
And its only taken 4/5 days [or 4 years]

However.....
What he says in his book

That won’t do – he probably also says in his book he is innocent. This is the book published in the US which prompted his father to appear on Italian TV to disavow the more insane claims made therein. Even at that your later extract is hardly helpful.

He couldn’t remember which night it was without a calendar or was giving 2 versions.
How many murders has he committed with Knox?
Or if you prefer ..How Many bodies did he discover with her in the 6 days they were together?

No - what did he say on the 5/6th. You might look into the GUP hearing of the 8th or his later scribblings around that time.
[You might even ask the fans that Knox’s family entrusted with the images of the victim’s naked corpse if they have a copy of the statement]

What was causing such the ‘white kids’ such memory malfunctions on that evening.
If the source could be discovered it might be included in AK’s ECHR appeal – which is apparently a very wide ranging document

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill.
First, credit where it’s due. Well done, kudos to you, a tip of the hat etc etc


You have correctly identified the episode under discussion the Nov5/6th ‘disavowal’ by RS.
And its only taken 4/5 days [or 4 years]

However.....
What he says in his book

That won’t do – he probably also says in his book he is innocent. This is the book published in the US which prompted his father to appear on Italian TV to disavow the more insane claims made therein. Even at that your later extract is hardly helpful.

He couldn’t remember which night it was without a calendar or was giving 2 versions.
How many murders has he committed with Knox?
Or if you prefer ..How Many bodies did he discover with her in the 6 days they were together?

No - what did he say on the 5/6th. You might look into the GUP hearing of the 8th or his later scribblings around that time.
[You might even ask the fans that Knox’s family entrusted with the images of the victim’s naked corpse if they have a copy of the statement]

What was causing such the ‘white kids’ such memory malfunctions on that evening.
If the source could be discovered it might be included in AK’s ECHR appeal – which is apparently a very wide ranging document

Platonov;: is there any point to the post above other that your belief Sollecito is lying?

It would be better if tried to address the guilters' dilemma. If you believe Knox "spontaneously" named Lumumba, why then ANY prior questions to Sollecito about her whereabouts?

Or does the guilter dilemma include spontaneous uncoerced statements from Sollecito? If so, why were they not suspects as soon as Sollecito buckled and told them what they already knew?

It's quite the dilemma for your side, isn't it!

 

[platonov]

It's getting better!

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.

It's perfectly plausible (and indeed probable in my view) that the person within the police/PM's office who leaked these photos used a photo agency as an intermediary. After all, suppose that an Italian public official working on this case - let's call him Moroni - realises that there is a salacious appetite for the lurid details of this case among the UK tabloid press in particular. Moroni realises he can make a tidy bit of baksheesh selling lurid-looking photos to which he has access, plus he realises he can also help poison UK public opinion in his department's favour by doing so.

So what does Moroni do? He doesn't know the photo editors on the various UK newspapers. Moreover, he very probably wants to insulate himself from any direct negotiations - it might be embarrassing (to say the very least) if he were directly linked to the sale. So Moroni contacts a UK photo agency and says he has some juicy photos that he thinks the UK tabloids would be very interested in buying. He negotiates a percentage deal with that agency, and the agency then does the sort of thing it knows very well how to do: it calls round all the UK tabloids and offers the photos for sale. It takes the highest offer - the Mail in this case - and takes the fee, a large chunk of which it passes back to Moroni. Job done.






Agreed. And if the police/PM truly thought that those K-M aftermath photos were in any way relevant or useful to the investigation, then they are total morons. So, either way, they are somewhat damned, aren't they.......

Wow

Let’s recap.

This bathroom photo was originally part of ‘the jury should have been sequestered’ trope.
Then it was released as part the Nov DNA planting/discovery.
Later when the timing & location [ Jan ? / UK ] was pointed out it became part of the general ‘Leave Britney alone’/ vast conspiracy chorus.

And now.....

Now its going to form part of the ECHR case regarding a crime committed in 2007 while this photo was published in the UK in 2008.

That’s a remarkable photo & this is a very ‘special’ argument

 

[Vibio]

The bloody bathroom photo and the other lies and misinformation fed to the media raises a very important issue.

What "media" are you talking about?

Please tell us: name the Italian magazines or newspapers where that image ever appeared before or during the trial.

Thanks in advance.

 

[anglolawyer]

And it's also apparently incredibly disingenuous for Machiavelli and others to be claiming that the police/PM were equally (if not more) assiduous in locating and questioning Roman Mero, the Swiss professor who ended up providing a watertight alibi for Lumumba.

According to Darkness Descending (and its account is so specific and detailed as to make it very hard to believe it was an invention in a UK-published book), Mero was first alerted not by the police, but by an Italian friend. Mero realised that he could account for Lumumba's whereabouts and activities, since he (Mero) had been talking with Lumumba in his bar all through the critical time period.

According to the account in DD, Mero called the Perugia police, was at first told that there was nobody around to talk with him, but persisted and finally talked with someone on the investigating team. The account says that he was somewhat rebuffed, and that in reaction to this indifference, he decided to travel to Perugia on his own initiative (and expense) to talk directly to the police, since he knew that his information was crucial to the investigation against Lumumba.

Compare and contrast with the accounts given by those linked with the authorities (including, if I'm not mistaken, Mignini himself), where the impression is given that the police/PM went out of their way to track down Mero, locate him, bring him to Perugia and hear his testimony..........

Such was the grip their crappy theory had over them. What was it that convinced them of Lumumba's involvement? What was the convincer, as the con artists call it? I believe it was the neat pattern apparently made by the texts and calls and of course the axiom that it had to be someone Amanda knew reasonably well.

 

[Strozzi]

Torture is a crime, and a crime must be proven, not just speculated about. This also goes for threats of torture. There needs to be a claim of lying under torture, and it must be clear, consistent and believable.
Here we have Knox repeating multiple times her accusation even in papers which she claim she write voluntarily, we have a failure to claim any factual torture, we have another suspect accusing her, have her failure to answer questions about her false accusation, we have her claim she didn't lie but that she actually remembered those things, we have Donnino's testimony and a Magistrate, we have Knix's being intrinsically and independently non credible and a liar, before and after the questionings. We have her prolonged behavior as a false accuser and a false witness.

Knox stated repeatedly from the day the crime was discovered (Nov 2) that she was not at the cottage the evening/night her friend/housemate was murdered. On the night of the interrogation (Nov 4/5) which began around 11 pm Knox was still adamant (until at least 1 am) that she was not at the cottage. The police would not accept those statements of fact from Knox because it conflicted with their hypothesis that she must have been involved in some way or another, and the police sought to get Knox to change her statements. Donino arrived at police headquarterstenor shortly before 1 am and as she began participating in the interrogation Donino 1) understood Knox was denying being at the cottage, and 2) then rather than serve professionally as a neutral and true translator Donino sought to assist the police side and shape the witness' testimony by convincing Knox that she was there but did not remember it due to being traumatized. (Donino admitted to this during cross-examination in the courtroom.)

Through their (poor) interrogation methods (manipulation + intimidation + traumatization) the police officers and police translator (self-described mediator) Donino manipulated Knox to believe/fantasize (traumatizingly hallucinate ?) she was there when Knox in fact had no authentic memory of being there. In other words, the police led her/fed her the false memory.

The lack of forensic evidence of Knox at the bloody murder scene shows Knox was not present at the murder. The scientifically-reliable stomach contents time-of-death shows Knox could not have been at the cottage at the time of the murder. To get around this the prosecution has to stretch the time-of-death window way beyond what science shows it was so as to try to fit Knox into the murder scenario.

 

[Numbers]

{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?



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.

You are so disconnected from the realities present in the relationships between the relevant institutions involved in matters relating to the convention, it is breathtaking.

Oddly, until the Italian Constitutional Court ruled on the matter in 2011, the overwhelming obstacle to Italy fulfilling its obligation to the Council of Europe and thus the convention with regard to satisfying the principle of restitutio integrum, was the legislature. Nevertheless, from the CSC decision no. 2800 in the Dorigo case:

"the court affirmed that the national judge must state, under Article 670 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, that a final judgment in a criminal case cannot be executed where the European Court of Human Rights:

1. has ascertained that the conviction was obtained as a result of violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

2. has recognised the right of the sentenced party to reopen national proceedings, even if the Italian legislature has not introduced appropriate means to initiate the new trial.

http://www.vathek.org/doi/pdf/10.1350/jcla.2007.71.5.406

And as noted by the Committee of Ministers (Council of Europe) when closing the Dorigo case:

"The Court of Cassation.......ruled that the detention of the applicant, who had been convicted in unfair judicial proceedings, was unlawful.

• Subsequent action: In view of the Court of Cassation's decision, the applicant now has several new remedies which he can use to obtain compensation for his unlawful detention, and secure deletion of the conviction from his criminal record."

http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

The Court of Cassation had in fact already affirmed this principle in the Somogyi Judgment of 12 July 2006, holding that the Italian judge has the duty to comply with the Strasbourg Court’s judgments and consequently must recognise:

"the right to a new trial, even if this implies the necessity to question, through the re-examination or reopening of the penal proceedings, the intangibility of the final judgment"

However, the problem of initiating a new trial remained as a result of the restrictions of art 630, although suspension of sentence is provided for under art 635 (and was used in the Dorigo case to let him go). Subsequently, the Constitutional Court issued an "additive" decision in 2011, effectively standing in for the legislature temporarily, to amend the law, such that art 630 of the Criminal Code of Procedure may be applied in cases where there is an adverse art 6 convention ruling from Strasbourg. (Decision 113/2011).

Embarrassingly, in the absence of the legislature acting decisively on this issue, in 2005, before Cassation decision 2800 and decision 113/2011 of the Constitutional Court, a decree was issued by the President of the Italian Republic (no. 289), providing a new ruling for criminal records, stating that ECHR decisions must be added to the defendant’s criminal record below the Italian final decision to which they are referred.

http://www.internationallawreview.eu/fisiere/pdf/LR_007RomitoandTracogna_1.pdf

Decoded, of course, what that meant was an admission that Italy could not do what it needed to in order to meet its treaty obligations and humiliatingly, effectively had to declare that it's own courts' decisions were but sham judgements and that nobody had the wit to correct them. Shameful.

Once the ECHR has ruled on art 6 violations in Knox v Italy, her calunnia conviction and sentence will be set aside and there are a number of mechanisms now available in Italian law to achieve this under supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

What you must note also is that:

1) Strasbourg judgements are binding on Italy through the CofM
2) art 117(1) Italian constitution is a bridge to art 46 of the convention
3) The convention has the standing of constitutional law in Italy
4) Italian ccp must be convention compliant or yield to the convention
5) It's not just about the ECHR award of money to successful applicants; it's mainly about restitutio integrum provided by States.

There are important points of law and practice here, ones that should not be confused by the lack of knowledge of Italian law or obfuscations of the guilters.

Here is an article from Palomar (n. 15, July 2011), a publication covering top-level Italian legal matters {emphasis added}:

http://www3.unisi.it/dipec/palomar/italy015_2011.html

The Constitutional Court declares unconstitutional the article not providing for the reopening of domestic proceedings following a judgment of the ECtHR for violation of the right to fair trial. (Const. Court decision no. 113/2011)

The Dorigo case might eventually come to an end after the recent decision issued by the Constitutional Court on the possibility to re-opening a criminal trial following a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, ECtHR) finding a violation of art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to a fair trial), hereinafter ECHR.

As a matter of fact, with decision no. 113/2011 issued on April 4, 2011, the Constitutional Judges found article 630 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code (c.p.p.) unconstitutional because it does not include an obligation of compliance with a sentence issued by the ECtHR among the hypothesis of reopening a trial.

The case finds its roots in the long judicial affair concerning Mr. Dorigo (See Palomar Italy no. 3), but it is also deeply linked to a broader issue, i.e. the matter of the execution of ECtHR decisions in the Italian legal system.

In fact, article 46 ECHR (Binding force and execution of judgments) states that «The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties».

The main avenue for implementing a decision of the ECtHR should be the so-called restitutio in integrum, the just satisfaction established by art. 41 playing a residual role and being applicable only when the domestic legal system does not permit a complete reparation. However, in case of judgments against Italy for violation of art. 6, the just satisfaction has been the only way of execution for a long time, because the restitutio in integrum would have implied the reopening of a trial and the re-examination of a final judgment (res iudicata), which, according to art. 630 c.p.p., is exclusively allowed in Italy in case of new findings of fact previously unknown.

The problem of an insufficient reparation provided through the just satisfaction, in case of judgment against a Member State for violation of the right to a fair trial has been addressed both by the ECtHR and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The latter, in its Recommendation no. R(2000) 2 urged the States to take active and timely action to address this issue, underlining the following: «Although the Convention contains no provision imposing an obligation on Contracting Parties to provide in their national law for the re-examination or reopening of proceedings, the existence of such possibilities have, in special circumstances, proven to be important, and indeed in some cases the only, means to achieve restitutio in integrum».

While the legal systems of many European countries already provided for the possibility to reopen a trial, others have adapted their legal systems as a consequence of this exhortation, either through normative or judicial action. Italy though, despite many propositions of law on the matter, has not yet foreseen an hypothesis of reopening of a criminal trial following a judgment of the ECtHR.

The case generating the decision in comment is a leading case because its judicial path has been marking the steps in the Italian jurisprudence towards the execution of ECtHR sentences on article 6.

Mr. Dorigo was convicted by the Court of Udine to thirteen years imprisonment for taking part in the Aviano base attack, on the basis of the accusations made by three co-defendants, without the possibility to conduct before the judge a cross-examination of the persons making accusations, as required by art. 6 ECHR.

After the sentence became res iudicata, Mr. Dorigo filed an appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights for violation of the right to a fair trial. In 1998 the European Commission stated that the Italian authorities had violated art. 6 ECHR, and the Committee of Ministers adopted the Commission’s statement in its decision of 1999 (such decision, before the entry into force of Protocol no. 11, had the same binding force that a decision of the Court has today).

Following this judgment, the General Prosecutor at the Court of Udine requested the suspension of the execution of the sentence until the evaluation of its legitimacy, in light of the European judgment. In 2007, the Court of Cassation, with decision no. 2800, declared the order of imprisonment invalid and thus ordered the liberation of the convicted, stating the following principle: «the judge of the execution must declare the unenforceability of the sentence if the ECtHR established that the conviction had been issued in violation of the right to fair trial established by art. 6 ECHR and that the convicted shall have the right to the reopening of the proceedings, even if the Legislator has not yet provided for the introduction of a proper possibility of re-examination».

In the meantime, Mr. Dorigo proposed a request of re-examination and, in that proceeding, filed a request to the judge to raise an issue of constitutionality for the lack of provisions allowing the reopening of a trial after a judgment of the ECtHR.

The Constitutional Court, with decision no. 129/2008 (See Palomar Italy no. 3), rejected the issue, although it urged the Legislative branch to adopt all necessary measures for giving execution to ECtHR decisions.

Before the Court of Appeal, another issue of constitutionality was raised, for violation of art. 117 Const. and of art. 46 ECHR, this latter as an “interposed” parameter referred to by art. 117 Const (on the “quasi-constitutional” status of the ECHR in the Italian constitutional jurisprudence, see Palomar Italy no. 14).

This time the Constitutional Court went far{th}er than it previously did and, instead of making an exhortation, issued an “additive” decision, declaring art. 630 cpp unconstitutional for not providing a possibility of reopening of the criminal proceeding «when it is necessary, under art. 46 cl. 1 ECHR, in order to enforce a final decision issued by the ECtHR». (Anna Maria Lecis)
____

Note that the unfairness in the trial of Mr. Dorigo, in which he was unable to have cross-examined the witnesses against him, his alleged co-conspirators, was previously declared a violation of Convention Article 6.3d with Article 6.1 in the ECHR case Luca v Italy 33354/96.

This unfairness is one of several violations of the Convention in the trials against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, because results from the fast-track trial of Rudy Guede were brought into their trials with no way for them to cross-examine Guede.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding the addition of the ECHR judgment to a criminal record:

"...on the 28th November 2005 with the decree of the President of the Italian Republic no. 289, which provides a new ruling for the criminal records, stating that the ECHR decisions must be added to the defendant’s criminal record below the Italian final decision to which they are referred. Even if this is not practically useful, it has the implicit meaning of a first step towards a modification of the effects of the Italian decision."

Source: STANDARDIZATION OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN ITALY
Andrea Salvatore Romito*
Clara Tracogna**

{undated essay; but written circa. 2011 after the ICC had ruled cpp 630 unconstitutional due to its conflict with It.Const. 117 and the ECHR Art. 46}

*) Judge Andrea Salvatore Romito is Magistrate at the Civil and Penal Court in Enna, Italy (andrea.romito@libero.it).
**) Dr. Clara Tracogna is PhD in Criminal Procedure at the University of Padova, Assistent
Lecturer at the University of Udine and Attorney-at-law in Udine, Italy (clara.tracogna@unipd.it; clara.tracogna@tin.it).

ETA: It. Const. Art. 117:

Art. 117
Legislative powers shall be vested in the State and the Regions in compliance
with the Constitution and with the constraints deriving from EU legislation
and international obligations....

 

[NotEvenWrong]

A peer reviewed scientific study published in Psychological Science, the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology, found that in the context of a highly suggestive interview, people will quite readily generate "rich false memories" of committing a crime.

70% of the participants in the empirical study were classified as having false memories of committing a crime.

http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/14/0956797614562862.abstract

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox stated repeatedly from the day the crime was discovered (Nov 2) that she was not at the cottage the evening/night of the murder. On the night of the interrogation (Nov 4/5) which began around 11 pm Knox was still adamant (until at least 1 am) that she was not at the cottage. The police would not accept those statements of fact from Knox because it conflicted with their hypothesis that she must have been involved in some way or another. When she arrived at the interrogation at close to 1 am Donino 1) understood Knox was denying being at the cottage, and 2) sought to convince her that she was there but did not remember it due to being traumatized.

Through their (poor) interrogation methods (manipulation + intimidation + traumatization) the police officers and police translator (self-described mediator) Donino manipulated Knox to believe/fantasize (hallucinate ?) she was there when Knox in fact had no authentic memory of being there. In other words, the police led her/fed her the false memory.

The lack of forensic evidence of Knox at the bloody murder scene shows Knox was not present at the murder. The scientifically-reliable stomach contents time-of-death shows Knox could not have been at the cottage at the time of the murder. To get around this the prosecution has to stretch the time-of-death window way beyond what science shows it was so as to try to fit Knox into the murder scenario.

Add to this that Machiavelli describes Donnino's role that night as a diplomat.

 

[carbonjam72]

-


-


Thank you d. That was well said.

In response, not only do I believe that the media is responsible for being truthful, but the public is also responsible for critically analyzing what the press reports
d

-

In Italy???

 

[Bill Williams]

A peer reviewed scientific study published in Psychological Science, the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology, found that in the context of a highly suggestive interview, people will quite readily generate "rich false memories" of committing a crime.

70% of the participants in the empirical study were classified as having false memories of committing a crime.

http://m.pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/14/0956797614562862.abstract

In putting together a timeline of what Raffaele said he knew, and when he knew it, it becomes clear that what the cops were after from him.....

.... were spontaneous statements about Knox. The cops had a heavy agenda to coerce spontaneity out of the two of them, but in a specific order.
I mean, I know it was something the cops originally applied to Knox, "She buckled and told us what we already knew," but consider that this also applies to their view of Sollecito.

Sollecito buckled and told us what we already knew.

When put on a timeline of what the cops knew and when they knew it, as early as the start of Raffaele's interrogation, even before Ficarra took Knox into another interrogation room, Sollecito is being pressured to "remember" that Knox went out and did not come back until 1 am.

Sollecito himself knows that to be a confusion of Wednesday and Thursday nights, and as late as when he's told to sign his statement understands that the cops have written up a cock-up of the events; and Sollecito owns that he is the source of the confusion.

So, the question is this: do guilters really believe that Sollecito, without coercion, simply by himself spontaneously fingered Knox as going out?

What would be helpful to sell the pro-guilt lobby point of view is to put onto a timeline:

- what the cops knew
- when did they know it​

Because even in a guilter timeline, once Raffaele "sings" "spontaneously", then Knox is a suspect - acc. to Raffaele's timeline, she's a suspect even before Knox is called into her interrogation.

No wonder Machiavelli has to quibble about this, calling Knox, "strongly suspected", therefore can be deprived of her rights to a lawyer and a competent diplomat translator......

 

[carbonjam72]

You are making the error, because you are making an argument of immunity. Usability is about documents, but you talk about actions, and you claim immunity from actions.

I would add here that the behavior at issue is that of the police.

The pressure of a pre-planned overnight interrogation, not recorded, without an attorney, and with a biased interpreter.

The whole thing just stinks to high heaven.

The issue isn't the confused statements given by Amanda Knox in a state of diminished mental capacity at the point of exhaustion & collapse - a state of collapse intentionally induced by the police, and which took days or even weeks to wear off of BOTH Amanda and Raf (see their books).

The issue is the police misconduct represented by that interrogation.

The police are the criminals here.

The question isn't whether Amanda committed a crime or "lied". A reasonable person would be able to see she did neither. The only question is whether the police will be held accountable for their criminal assault on Amanda and Raf.

And no, we can't rely on complaints being filed. Not in a country where filing a complaint for police misconduct is itself a crime.

Sadly, I believe Italy simply needs the ECHR to explain what went wrong in this case, and who the guilty parties really are.

Italy has a long road to redemption. Amanda Knox may be their greatest ally on that journey.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would add here that the behavior at issue is that of the police.

The pressure of a pre-planned overnight interrogation, not recorded, without an attorney, and with a biased interpreter.

The whole thing just stinks to high heaven.

The issue isn't the confused statements given by Amanda Knox in a state of diminished mental capacity at the point of exhaustion & collapse - a state of collapse intentionally induced by the police, and which took days or even weeks to wear off of BOTH Amanda and Raf (see their books).

The issue is the police misconduct represented by that interrogation.

The police are the criminals here.

The question isn't whether Amanda committed a crime or "lied". A reasonable person would be able to see she did neither. The only question is whether the police will be held accountable for their criminal assault on Amanda and Raf.

And no, we can't rely on complaints being filed. Not in a country where filing a complaint for police misconduct is itself a crime.
Sadly, I believe Italy simply needs the ECHR to explain what went wrong in this case, and who the guilty parties really are.

Italy has a long road to redemption. Amanda Knox may be their greatest ally on that journey.

On the other side of things - there is evidence of what happens when one cooperates with the police/prosecutor.

When the likes of John Follain, Andrea Bogt, Nick Pisa, etc. act as-if the PR mouthpiece of the PM, then there are rewards.

This is the way Machiavelli puts it, in relation to why Curt Knox and Edda Mellas were charged with a crime, for remarks made in a newspiece by John Follain - where neither Follain nor the publisher of those remarks were co-named:

Follain was not sued because the individuals did not think they had an interest in accusing him. They may have more than one reason for that, among them I can guess they didn't see Follain as someone having a defamatory intent against them."​

It does not get any clearer than that. This added to Machiavelli's claim that it was within Anna Donnino's mandate to pull hidden memories from Amanda Knox at interrogation, acting not just as a diplomat mediator but as a memory-recoverer.... is all one needs to know.

Machiavelli now doesn't even try to hide it. He must be very confident that March 25 will go Mignini's way.

 

[Numbers]

-


-


Thank you d. That was well said.

In response, not only do I believe that the media is responsible for being truthful, but the public is also responsible for critically analyzing what the press reports

d

-

There is some confusion in terms of the issue here, relating to the right of presumption of innocence.

Here are some excerpts from the Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb). What the ECHR looks at, in a case where this is an issue, are the statements and actions (or inactions) of officials, such as police, prosecutors, and judges, which may be reported in the media or are entered in official documents. The issue of defamatory statements in media and not originating from officials is generally separate (for example, a possible Article 8 or 6 violation).

A photograph originating with a police officer that finds its way into the media is the result of an official action or inaction; the police are State agents, and their actions regarding a crime are the responsibility of the State, even if such actions are not authorized. Otherwise, the police could, for example, torture a suspect to gain a confession on their own initiative, and the State could claim no responsibility. The State must hold the police, the State agents, accountable.

Here is some information from the ECHR (Guide on Article 6):

212. Article 6 § 2 is aimed at preventing the undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with those proceedings. Where no such proceedings are or have been in existence, statements attributing criminal or other reprehensible conduct are more relevant to considerations of protection against defamation and adequate access to court to determine civil rights, raising potential issues under Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention (Zollmann v. the United Kingdom, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, § 160).

213. A fundamental distinction must be made between a statement that someone is merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that an individual has committed the crime in question (Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, § 166; Nešťák v. Slovakia, § 89). The latter infringes the presumption of innocence, whereas the former has been regarded as unobjectionable in various situations examined by the Court (Garycki v. Poland, § 67).

214. Whether a statement by a judge or other public authority is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (Daktaras v. Lithuania, § 42; A.L. v. Germany, § 31).

215. Statements by judges are subject to stricter scrutiny than those by investigative authorities (Pandy v. Belgium, § 43).
____
The ECHR does not attempt to make the public more responsible in critically analyzing media reports. [There is no statement in the Convention about the public being made more responsible; the Convention is about the protection of people from arbitrary or unfair practices that States have responsibility for through their actions or inactions.]

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill.
First, credit where it’s due. Well done, kudos to you, a tip of the hat etc etc


You have correctly identified the episode under discussion the Nov5/6th ‘disavowal’ by RS.
And its only taken 4/5 days [or 4 years]

However.....
What he says in his book

That won’t do – he probably also says in his book he is innocent. This is the book published in the US which prompted his father to appear on Italian TV to disavow the more insane claims made therein. Even at that your later extract is hardly helpful.

He couldn’t remember which night it was without a calendar or was giving 2 versions.
How many murders has he committed with Knox?
Or if you prefer ..How Many bodies did he discover with her in the 6 days they were together?

No - what did he say on the 5/6th. You might look into the GUP hearing of the 8th or his later scribblings around that time.
[You might even ask the fans that Knox’s family entrusted with the images of the victim’s naked corpse if they have a copy of the statement]

What was causing such the ‘white kids’ such memory malfunctions on that evening.
If the source could be discovered it might be included in AK’s ECHR appeal – which is apparently a very wide ranging document

Platonov;: is there any point to the post above other that your belief Sollecito is lying?

It would be better if tried to address the guilters' dilemma. If you believe Knox "spontaneously" named Lumumba, why then ANY prior questions to Sollecito about her whereabouts?

 

[Numbers]

More relevant information from Guide on Article 6.
These excerpts pertain to the presumption of guilt issues with Guede's fast-track trial and its appeal, which named Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito as participants in the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher without their legal participation in the trial.

217. The presumption of innocence will be violated if a judicial decision concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty (see, as the leading authority, Minelli v. Switzerland, § 37; and, more recently, Nerattini v. Greece, § 23; Didu v. Romania, § 41). A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably fall foul of this presumption (Nešťák v. Slovakia, § 88; Garycki v. Poland, § 66).

218. What is important in the application of the provision of Article 6 § 2 is the true meaning of the statements in question, not their literal form (Lavents v. Latvia, § 126).

219. The fact that the applicant was ultimately found guilty cannot vacate his initial right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (see Matijašević v. Serbia, § 49; Nešťák v. Slovakia, § 90, concerning decisions prolonging the applicants’ detention on remand).

 

[Numbers]

Here are excerpts from the Guide on Article 6 relating to statements from public officials; arguably the Nov. 6, 2007 press conference by the Chief of Police of Perugia violated these standards of ECHR law, which Italy is obligated to follow.

220. The presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, § 36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, § 42; Petyo Petkov v. Bulgaria, § 91). Article 6 § 2 prohibits statements by public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, § 161; Butkevicius v. Lithuania, § 53).

221. The principle of presumption of innocence does not prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, § 159; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, § 38; Garycki v. Poland, § 69).

222. The Court has emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of an offence (Daktaras v. Lithuania, § 41; Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.); Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, § 94).