Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
MichaelB said:
I've been reading the treasure trove of new documents on Naseer Ahmad's fake wiki.

We've all heard so much about Raffaele's Kate Mansey interview with guilters saying he changed stories and told lies and we always said she was a useless hack and her articles were filled with mistakes. Well on page 25 of the Knox phone taps she's telling someone Raffaele is pissed because he spoke to a journalist and they twisted everything he said.

In Raffaele's phone taps on page 9-10 he's telling someone he did the interview because they worked for the paper that the father of the girl who died worked for and he couldn't say no.

on page 28 he says "she slept with me that night then we went to the house the next morning and found everything".

on page 95 of the prison bugging. Amanda tells her parents the cops beat her and her parents tell her the lawyers said they can't say that because they'd have to file a complaint and it'll lead to more problems. In another part she clearly identifies the person who did it was the woman who lead her outside on the 6th.
Click to expand...

I might regret asking, but is there a link? Is their stuff trustworthy?
 
MichaelB said:
It's all in Italian. If you want to read machine translations of something in particular I can upload the PDF.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with God Naseer's web site. Is that PMF?

If I can see the source, I'd be curious to see what's there.

(and thanks for all the goodies you're always digging up)
 
Machiavelli said:
The ECHR cannot reverse convictions.
Click to expand...

True. But any convictions in Italy following a finding of Article 6 violations WILL be reversed in Italy. I have explained this to you before. And you don't like it. No sirreee, you do not like it!

Restitutio integrum!
 
MichaelB said:
I've been reading the treasure trove of new documents on Naseer Ahmad's fake wiki.

We've all heard so much about Raffaele's Kate Mansey interview with guilters saying he changed stories and told lies and we always said she was a useless hack and her articles were filled with mistakes. Well on page 25 of the Knox phone taps she's telling someone Raffaele is pissed because he spoke to a journalist and they twisted everything he said.

In Raffaele's phone taps on page 9-10 he's telling someone he did the interview because they worked for the paper that the father of the girl who died worked for and he couldn't say no.

on page 28 he says "she slept with me that night then we went to the house the next morning and found everything".

on page 95 of the prison bugging. Amanda tells her parents the cops beat her and her parents tell her the lawyers said they can't say that because they'd have to file a complaint and it'll lead to more problems. In another part she clearly identifies the person who did it was the woman who lead her outside on the 6th.
Click to expand...
I wonder what 'more problems' means? Let's see: why would complaining to the unaccountable police force of this former fascist dictatorship with its intellectually corrupt and bankrupt legal system cause 'more problems'? Maybe Napoleone gave us an example when she got her lings to scratch the child expert's car and invade the police data base. I bet there are a thousand ways these thugs could screw you good for having the temerity to accuse them of wrongdoing.

I am sure the lawyers were doing their best when giving their advice and I may well have given the same advice in the same circumstances but what's interesting to me is the implacable nature of the cops and prosecutors. For them, it's total war from the beginning to the end. Not complaining earns you no marks at all. Not accusing them does nothing to soften them. On the contrary, they use the failure to complain against you, as Mach frequently does here. If you complain, we will **** you good and if you don't complain we will use your failure to do so as proof that we did nothing wrong.
 
Machiavelli said:
Amanda's conviction is final. It cannot be reversed nor annulled.
Click to expand...

Oh dear! Wrong again. Article 6 violations will mean exactly that. Dorigo V Italy caused the Constitutional Court to change the law in the absence of legislative action. Conviction and sentence will be set aside following the ECHR's ruling in the application currently before it in connection with the calunnia wrongful conviction.

Just think for a moment: If a trial has even judged unfair by the ECHR, then a conviction cannot stand alongside the necessary principle of Restitutio integrum as per Article 46 of the convention. For years this was not the case, absurdly.

Or do you think Italy should continue to keep victims of unfair trials in prison? Now that would just not be convention compliant would it?
 
Bill Williams said:
Probably not. As Machiavelli reminds us, in Italy people giving evidence are not on trial. Especially police, they are simply giving the facts and no one has the right to ask how they came to the conclusions they did.
Click to expand...

This is not what I said.
I said that defenses indeed can question the about you they reached their conclusions, an can question their credibility.
But if they want to push a theory that they are lying, they need to present evidence of that.

This right to cross question witnesses is essential, in order to make someone be a witness, but this goes for all parties not just the defence, and all kind of witnesses. Thus, it would be also essential if there are experts who may have opinions on some scientific findings. Without answering questions and be questioned, there is no witness.
 
Kauffer said:
Oh dear! Wrong again. Article 6 violations will mean exactly that. Dorigo V Italy caused the Constitutional Court to change the law in the absence of legislative action. Conviction and sentence will be set aside following the ECHR's ruling in the application currently before it in connection with the calunnia wrongful conviction.

Just think for a moment: If a trial has even judged unfair by the ECHR, then a conviction cannot stand alongside the necessary principle of Restitutio integrum as per Article 46 of the convention. For years this was not the case, absurdly.

Or do you think Italy should continue to keep victims of unfair trials in prison? Now that would just not be convention compliant would it?
Click to expand...

You need to study. I mean exactly what I said.
Reversal and annulment are institutions not applicable to final verdicts.

The ECHR cannot revert nor annul verdicts.

There is an institute called trial review, but it is extremely rare that this follows to a finding of violation of the ECHR, almost no violations are followed by trial review, and the trial review anyway is not an annulment and mostly does not end with a reversal.
Anyway no trial review is being granted nor us going to be granted soon, no matter what ECHR will find. So assuming that would premature to say the least.
 
Kauffer said:
True. But any convictions in Italy following a finding of Article 6 violations WILL be reversed in Italy. I have explained this to you before. And you don't like it. No sirreee, you do not like it!

Restitutio integrum!
Click to expand...

I explained that it us not true.
 
Strozzi said:
You are of course correct. The ECHR cannot reverse convictions. I should have been more precise in my earlier comment, and appreciate your correction of my casual statement.

The ECHR may determine that the manner in which Knox's statements were obtained and used (interrogation of one who is clearly suspected, without providing the suspect with legal protections due a suspect) violated her rights, and order Italy to remedy (vacate) the resultant conviction. Italy can of course refuse to do so.

I wonder how other countries or organizations might respond if Italy were ordered to remedy the conviction and failed to do so? The U.S. Department of State would almost certainly include this in both internal use and public assessment of human rights and legal conditions in Italy. Would they have to issue guidance or a "travel advisory" to U.S. citizens in Italy or to citizens contemplating travel to Italy?

Would U.S. college and university administrations have to consider this as they contemplate continuing their study abroad programs in Italy? Suppose a university sent students to Italy and one fell under suspicion in a crime and had their rights as a suspect violated by Italian authorities in a similar way as occurred to Knox. What is the legal obligation and liability of the university in such a case? I suppose universities can ask students to sign waivers before going on a university-approved study trip to Italy.
Click to expand...

The US is not in a position of lecturing Italy about human rights.
Nobody in Italy cares about what American institutions think about human rights in Italy.
And you may be equally concerned about what Europeans may think about US handling of human rights and international laws.
 
Last edited:
toto said:
Out of interest, what percentage of Fast track trials ends with acquittal? I would have thought such trials allow less time for evidence to be properly examined?
Click to expand...

Those trials allow less evidence to be examined, but this also means less accusation evidence. I don't know about the percentage as opposed to normal trials. But I know of several famous cases where fast tracks lead to acquittals. For example Alberto Stasi was acquitted twice on fast track trial. Parolisi was convicted, but then it was annulled. Franzoni was acquitted on appeal (then acquittal annulled however).
 
Strozzi said:
IIRC, Mignini in an interview with an American journalist stated that perhaps Amanda was bumped from behind. He is clearly trying to "spin" the hit as an accident.

Amanda said she was slapped twice in two separate actions by a policewoman subsequently identified as Ficarra. Amanda said that Ficarra after one hit told her it was to "help her remember".

Mignini, who gave the order to detain Amanda, knew from Amanda's account that she alleged that she had been hit in interrogation in a police interrogation room by a policewoman. Mignini should have instantly taken action to compartment Amanda for her safety from the police officers present in the interrogation. Mignini left his prisoner exposed to potential further assault. Mignini bears moral responsibility as a senior official with authority over Amanda for this failure, irrespective of his other failures in this case.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely false. Amanda's alleged hitting would have occurred during the 01:45 interrogation. Mignini was not there during that interrogation.
Knox wrote about the alleged hitting for the first time in her hand written note which she presented to Ficarra in 8:00 am, by that time she was no longer under control of the mobile squad, because she was already removed from their control by a prosecutor's decree and taken into prison within the following half hour.

You should think about how false and biased many of your deductions are. You may employ self-criticism skill and note how often your prejudice leads you to make false assumptions.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Being mistaken is not always lying, Dan O.
Click to expand...

When dealing with honest brokers, true enough. But when rank tripe is continuously - and condescendingly - proffered as adamantine fact, the difference becomes difficult to descry.
 
js202 said:
When dealing with honest brokers, true enough. But when rank tripe is continuously - and condescendingly - proffered as adamantine fact, the difference becomes difficult to descry.
Click to expand...

The dishonesty of the guilters rarely takes the form of out and out lies in my experience of the phenomenon. In fact, it is some sort of weird testament to something or other, maybe the internet, that it doesn't. I know MichaelB will be climbing up the wall reading that but stupidity, bias and wilful blindness probably account for most of the grotesque distortions and errors on 'the fake wiki'.
 
carbonjam72 said:
That's much better, I can see the far wall inside the door. Now, by any chance is there a photo handy from the inside looking out, so as to see the walls by the front door from an inside view.

Give me that shot, and I'm satisfied the door was in fact open in that picture.
Click to expand...

I agree that the door appears open. Look toward the bottom where the door should be and one sees a wall and floor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom