Rolfe
Adult human female
OK, I see what you mean.
Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Diocletus
- Start date
- Status
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
I wonder what s/he uses for her/his proof? And, what exactly does s/he mean by "Innocentisti"? Is s/he talking about those who absolutely believe with 100% certainty that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, or folks like me who only believe they are probably innocent?
There are just too many improbabilities that have to be overcome for me to think that they're not probably innocent.
Now about the "mentally ill" part, does s/he mean that anyone who thinks they are probably innocent are "mentally ill", and what exactly would be the diagnosis? Paranoia with a little psychosis thrown in for good measure? I'd sure like to know what kind of mental illness I actually have and what specific criteria s/he is using to make this diagnosis.
It's interesting to read that thinking that too many improbabilities in a case means they're probably innocent is now a mental illness.
Good to know,
d
-
-
I wonder what s/he uses for her/his proof? And, what exactly does s/he mean by "Innocentisti"? Is s/he talking about those who absolutely believe with 100% certainty that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, or folks like me who only believe they are probably innocent?
There are just too many improbabilities that have to be overcome for me to think that they're not probably innocent.
Now about the "mentally ill" part, does s/he mean that anyone who thinks they are probably innocent are "mentally ill", and what exactly would be the diagnosis? Paranoia with a little psychosis thrown in for good measure? I'd sure like to know what kind of mental illness I actually have and what specific criteria s/he is using to make this diagnosis.
It's interesting to read that thinking that too many improbabilities in a case means they're probably innocent is now a mental illness.
Good to know,
d
-
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I put it on the short end but I have never tried to time it. I think we have a pretty good handle on all the actions that we could start cooriographing a fact inspired depiction of the crime..
I imagine the opening scenes being at the kindergarten where facts are very well known.
Well, here it is, moved to the main thread, so I guess I live with it. The Machine and his cohorts are plumbing new depths. It might be worth them noting that there is no evidence of a sex offence concerning Amanda Knox. It requires that fiction be declared fact.
Just say "No" [a reminder that extradition is a choice]:
US - Italy Extradition Treaty
Article XIII
Decision and Surrender
1. The Requested Party {US} shall promptly communicate to the Requesting Party {Italy} through the diplomatic channel its decision on the request for extradition.
2. The Requested Party shall provide reasons for any partial or complete rejection of the request for extradition and a copy of the court's decision, if any.
3. When an extradition request has been granted, ....
____
The braces indicate the case that the Requested Party is US, and the Requesting Party is Italy. Of course, the roles may be reversed depending on circumstances. Rejecting an extradition is foreseen as a possibility in the treaty, is in accordance with the treaty, and does not abrogate the treaty.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,595
Step right up for the next phase
Nigel Scott has a new essay about this case. "From the time when the wrong suspects were in custody (if not before), it became essential to control the past instead of investigating it. Knox and Sollecito were driven around Perugia in a convoy of police cars, sirens wailing, horns blasting, before being deposited in prison. The Interior Minister of Italy, Giuliano Amato declared them to be guilty when he said “It’s an ugly story in which people which this girl had in her home, friends, tried to force her into relations which she didn’t want”. The presumption of innocence never existed." BTW Mr. Scott also references the Dreyfus case.
Nigel Scott has a new essay about this case. "From the time when the wrong suspects were in custody (if not before), it became essential to control the past instead of investigating it. Knox and Sollecito were driven around Perugia in a convoy of police cars, sirens wailing, horns blasting, before being deposited in prison. The Interior Minister of Italy, Giuliano Amato declared them to be guilty when he said “It’s an ugly story in which people which this girl had in her home, friends, tried to force her into relations which she didn’t want”. The presumption of innocence never existed." BTW Mr. Scott also references the Dreyfus case.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,595
Not a few bad apples
Here is link to a good article, both on DNA forensics in general and on this case.
Here is a quote from a link that Kaosium found a few days ago: "Paul Giannelli, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who has been studying crime lab failures for 20 years, says he used to think the problem was limited to the occasional misdeeds of a few bad apples. But given the many lab scandals that have gone undiscovered for so long, he’s come to the conclusion the problem is a systemic one that can only be remedied through regulation." Professor Giannelli was the reporter for the group that drafted the current ABA standards on DNA evidence (to which I have linked many times), the standards that make the EDFs discoverable upon request.
Here is link to a good article, both on DNA forensics in general and on this case.
Here is a quote from a link that Kaosium found a few days ago: "Paul Giannelli, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who has been studying crime lab failures for 20 years, says he used to think the problem was limited to the occasional misdeeds of a few bad apples. But given the many lab scandals that have gone undiscovered for so long, he’s come to the conclusion the problem is a systemic one that can only be remedied through regulation." Professor Giannelli was the reporter for the group that drafted the current ABA standards on DNA evidence (to which I have linked many times), the standards that make the EDFs discoverable upon request.
Last edited:
The following judgment, relating to a demonstration, can also be applied to evidence from DNA profiling, where there is no domestic legislation regulating the manner of collecting and methods of testing and verifying the DNA specimens.
CASE OF VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE 20372/11 11/04/2013
84. The Court notes that, according to its established case-law reflecting a principle related to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999‑I, with further references).
85. The Court also reiterates that its duty, under Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45‑46, Series A no. 140, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998‑IV).
86. In that context, regard must also be had, in particular, to whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use. The quality of the evidence is also taken into account, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 96, ECHR 2006‑IX).
87. In the present case, the applicant’s arguments before the judicial authorities concerned both the factual circumstances and the legal issues of his case. In particular, in his appeal he advanced a number of legal arguments concerning the legislative regulation of the procedure for holding peaceful demonstrations, mainly complaining that he had been accused of holding one without permission, even though such permission was not required by law. In the Court’s opinion, these arguments were both important and pertinent. Furthermore, the legal framework for the exercise of freedom of assembly in Ukraine, which has been examined in detail in the present case, clearly demonstrates that the answers to his arguments were not obvious and self-evident. Nevertheless, the domestic courts, in particular the Court of Appeal, which examined the applicant’s written arguments on the issue, ignored them altogether, simply stating that they were refuted by the (unnamed) case-file materials and the body of evidence in the case. Neither did it answer to the applicant’s complaints about a violation of his procedural rights as guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (b-d) of the Convention (see paragraphs 76, 79 and 82 above).
88. The Court has previously held, in the context of its examination of the fairness of criminal proceedings, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, the domestic courts had fallen short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011). It observes a similar issue in the present case, where that requirement was not met.
89. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of adequate reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions.
CASE OF VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE 20372/11 11/04/2013
84. The Court notes that, according to its established case-law reflecting a principle related to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999‑I, with further references).
85. The Court also reiterates that its duty, under Article 19 of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45‑46, Series A no. 140, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998‑IV).
86. In that context, regard must also be had, in particular, to whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use. The quality of the evidence is also taken into account, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 96, ECHR 2006‑IX).
87. In the present case, the applicant’s arguments before the judicial authorities concerned both the factual circumstances and the legal issues of his case. In particular, in his appeal he advanced a number of legal arguments concerning the legislative regulation of the procedure for holding peaceful demonstrations, mainly complaining that he had been accused of holding one without permission, even though such permission was not required by law. In the Court’s opinion, these arguments were both important and pertinent. Furthermore, the legal framework for the exercise of freedom of assembly in Ukraine, which has been examined in detail in the present case, clearly demonstrates that the answers to his arguments were not obvious and self-evident. Nevertheless, the domestic courts, in particular the Court of Appeal, which examined the applicant’s written arguments on the issue, ignored them altogether, simply stating that they were refuted by the (unnamed) case-file materials and the body of evidence in the case. Neither did it answer to the applicant’s complaints about a violation of his procedural rights as guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (b-d) of the Convention (see paragraphs 76, 79 and 82 above).
88. The Court has previously held, in the context of its examination of the fairness of criminal proceedings, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, the domestic courts had fallen short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011). It observes a similar issue in the present case, where that requirement was not met.
89. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of adequate reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Well, it's a little different than deciding not to extradite someone under these provisions. What italy actually did was prospectively decide that a whole class of persons (persons who committed capital offenses) aren't extraditable. It did this despite a provision of the treaty that addresses when and how such persons should be extradited. So, in effect, this is at least a partial abrogation of the treaty, although the us has not treated the treaty as abrogated . . . yet.
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
It seems to me that this effort is likely to be helpful to Amanda--maybe very helpful, so, carry on.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
I found this interesting:
"We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being 'too low,'" Dalla Vedova told the court.
Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.
After the judge rejected the request by the defense, the trial resumed with the testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci, forensic consultant for Sollecito, who challenged the alleged DNA of Sollecito found on Kercher's bra clasp.
Tagliabracci testified that the amount of biological material from which the DNA was extracted was minimal. He also said that ("he"? presumably) saw mistakes that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni made during her analysis of DNA evidence.[/HILITE]
http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=3
"We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being 'too low,'" Dalla Vedova told the court.
Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.
After the judge rejected the request by the defense, the trial resumed with the testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci, forensic consultant for Sollecito, who challenged the alleged DNA of Sollecito found on Kercher's bra clasp.
Tagliabracci testified that the amount of biological material from which the DNA was extracted was minimal. He also said that ("he"? presumably) saw mistakes that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni made during her analysis of DNA evidence.[/HILITE]
http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=3
Last edited:
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
A further thought on this. The provision that was abrogated would apply to most mafia extraditions, because presumably they involve murders. The Venezia decision occurred in 1998. So, I have to assume that there have been none or few organized crime extradition issues in the last 20 years.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
The decision was actually 1996. I found this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/w...radition-citing-death-penalty-in-florida.html
"Though the full implications of the decision are not clear, a Justice Department spokesman in Washington said "there's concern" about the effect on future cooperation between the United States and Italy in the war against organized crime. In the past, both countries have worked closely and the 1983 treaty has been invoked to help extradite mob figures for trial in the United States.
The spokesman, John Russell, said of the court decision today, "I think it serves as a bad omen.""
Also:
Last December, Rome's Justice Ministry agreed to Mr. Venezia's extradition after the Dade County prosecutor's office made assurances that it would not seek the death penalty.
"Mary Cagle, the Dade County prosecutor who sought Mr. Venezia's extradition and had agreed to forgo the death penalty, said, "I just don't think there's any justice there."
In at least several instances, Mr. Russell said, the United States has given assurances to Canada about forgoing the death penalty.
But Giovanni Leone, a former President of Italy who had taken up Mr. Venezia's cause, described the decision as "one of historic character that does honor to Italy.""
And:
"Italian officials pointed out that the penal code requires that Mr. Venezia be tried by an Italian court. But American officials were not satisfied. Mr. Russell, the Justice Department spokesman, said, "That falls short of what we want.""
The facts of the case are quite plain. It is a little disingenuous of the pro guilt mob to seek to lecture the United States in the Kercher case with regard to its obligations in matters of Italy/USA cooperation.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Court documents should never be ironic. . . .Harry Rag is in effect accusing Nencini of being an idiot if he is being ironic in a court document.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
"Jackie", PMF's resident struck off law clerk is at it again but this time he's been a bit spooked by the ECHR. He thinks the court is "naive" (sic). Jackie, baby. You've really got to get a grip of the post Salduz case law.
In Zaichenko V Russia, Jackie, the important bit is that while Zaichenko's freedom of action, the court held, was not significantly abated and the absence of legal assistance at that point (a traffic stop) did not violate his right under Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR, the subsequent use at trial of his answers to these questions violated the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent contained in Article 6. You see, Jackie, statements made without benefit of counsel, later used to convict, are a big no no.
On the issue of waiver, Jackie, you should look at "Pishchalnikov", (also against Russia). The Court held that a waiver of the right to legal assistance “must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance”.
The right to counsel is a fundamental right, which from ECHR case law, underpins the concept of a fair trial. This is why the court emphasized in Pishalnikov that any waiver "must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be”.
A valid waiver has not been made where a suspect simply continues to talk to the police in an interrogation even if advised of his or her rights. And before you start to witter on again, Jackie about Ms Knox not being under arrest or not really being in custody or being just a witness, you should look at both Shabelnik V Ukraine and Brusco V France. Hey! we can't do all your work for you!
When you have reviewed these two cases, Jackie, come back to us with your thoughts and then we will see what can be done about your failing grade.
None of the convictions in the present cases can survive ECHR scrutiny, Jackie. Time for you to face up to it. When you state that "Knox may have a chance of winning a couple thousand Euro and a piece of paper for her PR people to crow about.", you are simply ignoring Article 46 of the Convention as if Article 41 is where the real action is!
Restitutio in integrum, Jackie. That's what it's all about. An Article 6 violation means the game is up and a conviction will not stand. Watch with us as the judiciary goes into humiliating retreat. It might take a bit of time. But it's gonna happen, Jackie, baby, one way or another. It's gonna happen!
In Zaichenko V Russia, Jackie, the important bit is that while Zaichenko's freedom of action, the court held, was not significantly abated and the absence of legal assistance at that point (a traffic stop) did not violate his right under Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR, the subsequent use at trial of his answers to these questions violated the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent contained in Article 6. You see, Jackie, statements made without benefit of counsel, later used to convict, are a big no no.
On the issue of waiver, Jackie, you should look at "Pishchalnikov", (also against Russia). The Court held that a waiver of the right to legal assistance “must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance”.
The right to counsel is a fundamental right, which from ECHR case law, underpins the concept of a fair trial. This is why the court emphasized in Pishalnikov that any waiver "must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be”.
A valid waiver has not been made where a suspect simply continues to talk to the police in an interrogation even if advised of his or her rights. And before you start to witter on again, Jackie about Ms Knox not being under arrest or not really being in custody or being just a witness, you should look at both Shabelnik V Ukraine and Brusco V France. Hey! we can't do all your work for you!
When you have reviewed these two cases, Jackie, come back to us with your thoughts and then we will see what can be done about your failing grade.
None of the convictions in the present cases can survive ECHR scrutiny, Jackie. Time for you to face up to it. When you state that "Knox may have a chance of winning a couple thousand Euro and a piece of paper for her PR people to crow about.", you are simply ignoring Article 46 of the Convention as if Article 41 is where the real action is!
Restitutio in integrum, Jackie. That's what it's all about. An Article 6 violation means the game is up and a conviction will not stand. Watch with us as the judiciary goes into humiliating retreat. It might take a bit of time. But it's gonna happen, Jackie, baby, one way or another. It's gonna happen!
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Ah yes, 1996. I believe he was tried and sentenced in 1998 and out if jail sometime prior to 2008.
If you think about, this extradition treaty isn't much use anymore. The US can't get from Italy any murderers, including mafioso murderers, or terrorists because their crimes are capital. In fact, it makes Italy a haven for these folks. So, basically all it's good for, for US purposes, is getting drug dealers and fraudsters.
So here we have Italy potentially demanding the extradition if Knox in a situation where it would not extradite Knox to the US if the crime had occurred there.
Pretty interesting--I'll have to look into how the US responds to nonreciporical extradition issues. It certanly does gut the whole "US has to extradite Knox or the treaty will be at risk" argument--Italy already gutted the treaty.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Yes. But she's not going anywhere.
On the other hand she probably wants to go to lots of places in Europe and elsewhere and it is for these practical reasons that she needs to clear her name in Italy, probably with the invaluable assistance of the ECHR.
Last edited:
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
Sly? It couldn’t have been that sly - both you and sept79 seemed to figure it out easily.
We shall have to agree to differ on this it seems. I am not as fast as you are to give the benefit of the doubt to a sex killer no matter how ‘purty’.
Hmm.
Your upset at my perfectly natural observation would rather tend to support the contention.
No matter.
- Status