• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
By the way, I think it's very interesting indeed that both Burleigh's Newsweek article and this Guardian article quote well-informed sources as predicting that in the event of confirmation of the convictions, the Italian state will not even request Knox's extradition (thus making the issue of whether or not the USA would grant extradition entirely moot).

An interesting spin-off from this is that pro-guilt commentators would automatically jump on this - if it happened - as a flat-out denial of "justice for Meredith". However, I'd suggest that a better reading of it would be that Italy realises that the US would hold that Knox had been wrongfully convicted.

I don't think that anyone should be in doubt that if an ordinary citizen (such as Knox) had been correctly convicted in Italian courts of a serious crime such as murder on the basis of proper evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the US would have no hesitation in extraditing that person back to Italy to serve a prison sentence (and of course Italy would have no hesitation in making an extradition request). The very suggestion that Italy wouldn't even seek extradition should serve as a huge red flag (to any reasonable, rational person) that there is something very wrong with the situation here.
Click to expand...

While Raf sits in jail waiting for the ECHR to actually do something?

I can't imagine Italy not seeking extradition, unless it also files a case against itself in ECHR on behalf of Raf.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Am I nuts to interpret the raising of Guede's sentence at this time, as one more indication that cassation plans to cancel the convictions?

This is so that people will have more of a feeling that at least someone has been punished for the murder, and Guede's sentence reduction to 16 years and failing, is a bit galling to the victim's families?
Click to expand...

Yes you are nuts. Just saying. .....
 
Machiavelli said:
I can spot two things.
First, the highligted words make me smile: the definition of "voluntarily and clearly" is of a subjetive nature, it means it implies an assessment, like by a judge, that a statement was voluntary. Or maybe some declaration to that effect.
It happens that "voluntary" is the term used by Amanda Knox herself, in 2009, to describe her own hand written statement. Which happens to be considered by judges a malicious false testimony, and it is certainly a calunnia as for criminal jurisprudence.

Second thing, apart from the willfulness question, your response is a reiteration of the same fallacy: your limiting the immunity to situations of custody or of quetionings, is simply a pointless argument, it only confirms the problem: your interpretation creates an immunity. A legal shield which is obviously undue and not provided by any Convention.
A person under custody, a prisoner, must respect the law just like any other citizen.The fact that someone does not enjoy full freedon or has special duties does not exempt him from the obligation to respect the law and cannot grant him a license or an immunity for his/her unlawful actions. It's obvious.
Click to expand...

We've been through this. If Ms Knox had taken one of the police officer's guns and shot Ficcara, she would have no immunity from prosecution for the crime of murder, notwithstanding any other consideration, because her procedural rights do not protect her in this regard.

But her procedural rights, which were violated, do protect her from the calunnia nonsense.

Try a thought experiment; if I, a police officer, held you down and beat you into incriminating an innocent man - it does not matter that Ms Knox was not held down and beaten - according to your argument, you would still be guilty of and legitimately prosecutable for calunnia. If I can can make you say the name, even by acting illegally, you have no protection whatsoever - you are guilty of the crime.

Indeed, we can go further. If the police, in this case came forward and admitted they compelled Ms Knox to name Lumumba - even stated that it was their intention from the outset to get her to do so, then according to your argument, it would have no bearing on the situation. Ms Knox would still be guilty of calunnia.
 
Machiavelli said:
In this circumstance, it's because Diocletus mentioned it.
Click to expand...

Bull! You have been peddling this story for years. You never pass up an opportunity to spread your trash. If you stuck to the case, you might be believable...but you don't and won't .
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
No, that was Lumumba's lawyer, Pacelli, wasn't it?

But the disgraceful invention by Mignini of words put into Knox's mouth saying "You were such a little saint… now we are going to force you to have sex" is bad enough in and of itself, frankly. Disgusting, immoral and highly unethical.
Click to expand...

No I am fairly sure that Mig used that word,
 
LondonJohn said:
The font is called "Comic Sans". Comic being the operative word.

As the Wikipedia article on the font explains: "It is classified as a casual, non-connecting script for use in informal documents inspired by comic book lettering."

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

And yes, it appears that the Italian State Police actually do use this font on their official documents. But that says it all really, doesn't it............
Click to expand...

It is not only Italian State Police who use comic sans but other country governments also use it for official and informal documents.

I thought the document presented here in comic sans was a more informal type of document such as police notes typed up but I could be wrong on that theory.

Is it possible an official copy was given to someone and that person typed it in comic sans including black outs? I don't know why that would be, just a thought. I can see why the phone numbers would be blacked out when placing this into the public realm.
 
LondonJohn said:
The font is called "Comic Sans". Comic being the operative word.

As the Wikipedia article on the font explains: "It is classified as a casual, non-connecting script for use in informal documents inspired by comic book lettering."

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

And yes, it appears that the Italian State Police actually do use this font on their official documents. But that says it all really, doesn't it............
Click to expand...

Do they? Or are you making a circular argument?
 
lonepinealex said:
You're very optimistic carbonjam!
Click to expand...

carbonjam said:
Am I nuts to interpret the raising of Guede's sentence at this time, as one more indication that cassation plans to cancel the convictions?

This is so that people will have more of a feeling that at least someone has been punished for the murder, and Guede's sentence reduction to 16 years and failing, is a bit galling to the victim's families?
Click to expand...

Your theory is nuts. In practise, I'm not sure that any one ruling of any one court binds any other court to anything.

I ran across this, when looking for Cassazione's authority to simply rule any which way it wants (under article 620 section 10 CPP (the ISC) can do practically everything).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_(Italy)

Wikipedia said:
As the Italian judicial system is based on Civil law within the framework of late Roman law, and not Common Law its core principles are entirely codified into a normative system which serves as the primary source of law, this means judicial decisions of the supreme court, as well as those of lower courts, are binding within the frame of reference of each individual case submitted but do not constitute the base for judicial precedent for other future cases. It is worth noting that while in civil law jurisdictions the doctrine of stare decisis (precedent) does not apply, however, in practice the decisions of the supreme court usually provide a very robust reference point of jurisprudence constante. The two essential aims of the Court of Cassation are to ensure that lower courts correctly follow legal procedure and to harmonize the interpretation of laws throughout the judicial system.​
Click to expand...
 
Deborah Orr call it. She says that Winterbottom's film, "The Face of an Angel," although self-serving to Winterbottom, actually portrays reality better than the Italian judicial charade of the past 7 1/2 years.

This is yet-another UK-based piece which is saying, in effect: "If the Supreme Court convicts next week, an injustice will have taken place."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/amanda-knox-face-of-an-angel

Orr said:
It doesn’t seem at all comfortable, this juxtaposition of an ongoing process of justice against a cinematic confection. What’s really uncomfortable, however, is that Winterbottom’s fictionalised film, which includes a number of fantasy sequences, offers a much more truthful account of the case than the speculative contentions of investigators, both criminal and journalistic.​
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
By the way, I think it's very interesting indeed that both Burleigh's Newsweek article and this Guardian article quote well-informed sources as predicting that in the event of confirmation of the convictions, the Italian state will not even request Knox's extradition (thus making the issue of whether or not the USA would grant extradition entirely moot).

An interesting spin-off from this is that pro-guilt commentators would automatically jump on this - if it happened - as a flat-out denial of "justice for Meredith". However, I'd suggest that a better reading of it would be that Italy realises that the US would hold that Knox had been wrongfully convicted.

I don't think that anyone should be in doubt that if an ordinary citizen (such as Knox) had been correctly convicted in Italian courts of a serious crime such as murder on the basis of proper evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the US would have no hesitation in extraditing that person back to Italy to serve a prison sentence (and of course Italy would have no hesitation in making an extradition request). The very suggestion that Italy wouldn't even seek extradition should serve as a huge red flag (to any reasonable, rational person) that there is something very wrong with the situation here.
Click to expand...
I have often wondered if there is even a remotely similar case, where extradition has proceeded when the named, as opposed to anonymous experts and officials by a very wide margin are publicly stating Amanda Knox is innocent.
The sensible and reasonable person who does no research on the case should conclude there is grave doubt, and thus a wrongful conviction.
Extradition is not remotely conceivable.

This is an open invitation to PMF to list the named experts and public officials who believe in her guilt. Allan Dershowitz, for example has never said she is guilty.
 
Bill Williams said:
Your theory is nuts. In practise, I'm not sure that any one ruling of any one court binds any other court to anything.

I ran across this, when looking for Cassazione's authority to simply rule any which way it wants (under article 620 section 10 CPP (the ISC) can do practically everything).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_(Italy)

​
Click to expand...

First off, I think you're missing my conception of dietrologia here. The idea is that there actually are responsible adults in Italy who are in control of things, and they try to avoid doing embarrassing stupid stiff whenever they can.

What's unsettling to me, is that I seem to be inching closer to mach's conception of Mason elites secretly running the country.

Who do i call Reasonable? Judge Hellman. What does Mach say? Mason.

What are you gonna do?

btw, its fascinating that a "frame of reference" only relates to the case before a court. So how on earth can a "judicial fact" in one case, be considered binding on parties in any other case? Makes no sense, per the quote you've shown.

Also, more on my nutty theory: Girlanda's boss I think just resigned over the same investigation, more fuel to my nutty dietrological fire, thank you very much. They let the king Burlesconi go, but they're cleaning out the courtiers to avoid any trouble when the cancelled convictions are announced. (Its the price Renzi is willing to pay, to avoid being put in an awkward position with extradition).
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
I can spot two things.
First, the highligted words make me smile: the definition of "voluntarily and clearly" is of a subjetive nature, it means it implies an assessment, like by a judge, that a statement was voluntary. Or maybe some declaration to that effect.
It happens that "voluntary" is the term used by Amanda Knox herself, in 2009, to describe her own hand written statement. Which happens to be considered by judges a malicious false testimony, and it is certainly a calunnia as for criminal jurisprudence.

Second thing, apart from the willfulness question, your response is a reiteration of the same fallacy: your limiting the immunity to situations of custody or of quetionings, is simply a pointless argument, it only confirms the problem: your interpretation creates an immunity. A legal shield which is obviously undue and not provided by any Convention.
A person under custody, a prisoner, must respect the law just like any other citizen. The fact that someone does not enjoy full freedon or has special duties does not exempt him from the obligation to respect the law and cannot grant him a license or an immunity for his/her unlawful actions. It's obvious.
Click to expand...

{highlighting added to quote.}

Mach,

You are obviously continuing in your opinion. You have a right to your wrongful opinion.

A "speech crime" - which sounds like something George Orwell would have written about in his dystopian novel 1984 - committed while under custody without benefit of counsel, or while under interrogation without benefit of counsel, or while under torture - of incriminating one's self or someone else, is indeed subject to a kind of immunity. One cannot be convicted, according to ECHR case-law, of such a crime, based on Ibrahim et al. v the UK (and citations therein) and Dayanan v Turkey. So get over it (as we say, an English language idiom, at least in the US).

If this were not so, police would have immunity to torture or otherwise coerce persons to commit such "speech crimes" as calunnia and autocalunnia, which are both crimes in Italy. It is a shame that the Italian judiciary, or some sadly large part of them, are so grossly incompetent, or grossly in disregard of human rights, that they are not aware of this issue. They should be, however, because of the Salduz v Turkey and subsequent judgments by ECHR are well-known otherwise in the CoE countries.

The Italian judiciary may be an exception among the Western countries in its use of methods and neglect or abuse of rights, including those in Italian law and the Italian Constitution, violations otherwise found primarily among the former communist dictatorships. Perhaps Italy's unfortunate history as a fascist state has resulted in this regrettable current situation of the arbitrary and unjust application of law.
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
First off, I think you're missing my conception of dietrologia here. The idea is that there actually are responsible adults in Italy who are in control of things, and they try to avoid doing embarrassing stupid stiff whenever they can.

What's unsettling to me, is that I seem to be inching closer to mach's conception of Mason elites secretly running the country.

Who do i call Reasonable? Judge Hellman. What does Mach say? Mason.

What are you gonna do?

btw, its fascinating that a "frame of reference" only relates to the case before a court. So how on earth can a "judicial fact" in one case, be considered binding on parties in any other case? Makes no sense, per the quote you've shown.
Also, more on my nutty theory: Girlanda's boss I think just resigned over the same investigation, more fuel to my nutty dietrological fire, thank you very much. They let the king Burlesconi go, but they're cleaning out the courtiers to avoid any trouble when the cancelled convictions are announced. (Its the price Renzi is willing to pay, to avoid being put in an awkward position with extradition).
Click to expand...

I think the Italian judiciary regards the whole case to be the case against Lumumba (which was dropped) as well as Rudy and AK and RS. That is, apparently, one case. This is something Machiavelli can help us with.

Besides, it'll give another opportunity for M. to slip into the conversation that he thinks Knox has loose sexual morals, as per NancyS's observation:

NancyS said:
So why has Machiavelli been continually posting about this nonsense, if not to slut shame and sling mud at AK? It has no relevance to the trial or to whether someone would have a propensity to murder. If anything, AK was less worldly than Meredith Kercher, but both sounded pretty average to me. Students commonly take drugs and have sex, it really has no relevance​
Click to expand...

ETA - I am not missing your version of dietrology here. But the dietrology surrounding this case, singular or otherwise, has been through a blender.
 
Last edited:
christianahannah said:
No, no. I can google, however, Time isn't an official document or transcript (even though that article wasn't written in comic sans).

Maybe Machiavelli can help here. It's good to have an additional source(s) to help back up what a journalist writes.
Click to expand...


You don't think Mignini would have instigated legal proceedings against Burleigh and Time magazine (a major multinational media outlet) if he hadn't actually said those words (i.e. their Italian equivalent) in his closing?!

(You're aware of the battery of individuals and media outlets that Mignini has sued or threatened to sue for far less throughout this whole sorry saga....?)
 
Once again, apologies for no link.

Bongiorno is on Quarto grado.

Ok..... I concede, there is a PR supertanker, and it is almost totally positive for RS and AK as Cassazione looms. But this PR supertanker is in Italy!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom