Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

Yes. And how great would that be. They didn't get to steal, and now they mope.

Appealing the verdict is no longer an abstract idea. It's here. It's real. The Kerchers and Kercher lawyers can see the handwriting on the wall and prepare to say goodbye to the damages awarded earlier and (for the lawyers) to the windfall legal fees.

 

[Kauffer]

You're dreaming. I'll agree that if the ECHR raises a big fuss over the case that it will substantially help AK's efforts to avoid extradition. But I'll disagree the ECHR will ultimately save her.

The ECHR won't find merit in her case for calunnia to be sure. And even if they have quibbles with the murder case much later (which I doubt), they won't be significant enough that it will deter extradition (if she hasn't already been extradited.)

"to be sure"? Really? What do you know about it?

 

[RWVBWL]

The ECHR does have jurisdiction. I've explained that already. The ECHR in these circumstances would not be asked to issue an opinion on the matter of the application in respect of the calunnia conviction. It would be asked to instruct Italy to halt the murder trial pending the ECHR's decision on whether to admit the application.

Hi Kauffer,
And when is this going to happen, do you think?
In the next 24 hours or so?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
Nice tweeting today, thanks!

From what I recall, Amanda's parents were sued for libel.
Here's a quick link to an old article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/amanda-knox-parents-italian-police

Was not Mignini a part of this lawsuit
or was it only the cops who interrogated Amanda Knox that night?
RW

The charge is called defamation. Mignini was not a part in the lawsuit.

 

[Kauffer]

Hi Kauffer,
And when is this going to happen, do you think?
In the next 24 hours or so?

If he's asked the ECHR to halt the trial, then yes, tomorrow, I would have thought we will have a decision one way or another - maybe Friday early. But they're due to rule Friday evening I think at cassation, so there's a clear deadline.

edit - Hi

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

-

Yes, three virtual strangers psychologically agree to kill a fourth and keep it secret for years. What's not to believe? Happens all the time,

d

 

[Numbers]

The ECHR has no jurisdiction over Italy. If Italy decided to reverse their decision in the case you mention, it was their own decision borne out of a legal process that was already playing out.

Your statement here is quite contrary to reality. Italy is one of the charter signers of the Council of Europe treaty that created the ECHR. It is bound by that treaty to follow the final judgments of the ECHR. If it violated the treaty, the other States that are members of CoE would no doubt be troubled, and there would be diplomatic or other consequences.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, more hopeful assumptions. It will be interesting to hear your take on the ECHR when they dismiss the calunnia on the merits.

What do you mean "dismiss on the merits". You mean to rule against her after admitting the case? Won't happen. Take a look at how many opinions are coming out as "no violation" these days--very, very few.

 

[griffinmill]

Hi Kauffer,
And when is this going to happen, do you think?
In the next 24 hours or so?

The better question is whether the ECHR has ever halted any murder trial, or any ongoing trial for that matter.

 

[Numbers]

It is a guess.

Interesting - a strategic move designed not to be adjudicated on the merits but to shift the court towards sending the case back to 2nd instance. Is that right?

The suggested scenario is my guess as to how CSC would approach achieving a suspension. Why would they want to finalize the case, btw? Why would Raffaele need to be incarcerated? He's obviously not a danger to society.

(He's obviously not a murderer, at all. But the Italians must have their "judicial truths".)

I don't know if there is a mechanism for suspending a case, although if ECHR demanded it, by treaty the Italian State must do it.

The CSC could simply acquit both defendants now, also.

I think more information is required, and less speculation. The DM ECHR terminology is not accurate, and before spending too much time on this, I would really like some confirmation and clear information from a truly reliable source.

 

[griffinmill]

What do you mean "dismiss on the merits". You mean to rule against her after admitting the case? Won't happen. Take a look at how many opinions are coming out as "no violation" these days--very, very few.

On this site, we only see the cases that have been admitted. We don't see the tens of thousands of cases that get dismissed (and I faintly hoped some of the faithful here would look into those). You make it sound like the ECHR finds faults in most cases. They don't.

I don't think they will even admit the case for calunnia. Even if they do, they will find trifling problems associated with it that won't dismiss the calunnia conviction, nor have any larger effect on the murder conviction (presuming it happens on Friday.)

 

[codyjuneau]

My guess

.
Since everyone is speculating I will too:

The ECHR has already accepted to review the Calunnia verdict and has communicated this to the representatives of both sides. Since this trial partially hinges on the ECHR ruling on the Calunnia verdict, the defence lawyers are making a reasonable request to delay the current trial until the review is completed.

FWIW

Cody
.

 

[griffinmill]

Your statement here is quite contrary to reality. Italy is one of the charter signers of the Council of Europe treaty that created the ECHR. It is bound by that treaty to follow the final judgments of the ECHR. If it violated the treaty, the other States that are members of CoE would no doubt be troubled, and there would be diplomatic or other consequences.

I also have a feeling your legal opinions, while well researched, don't necessarily jibe with how the laws are interpreted or enforced.

We'll wait and see if you are right.

 

[Kauffer]

The suggested scenario is my guess as to how CSC would approach achieving a suspension. Why would they want to finalize the case, btw? Why would Raffaele need to be incarcerated? He's obviously not a danger to society.

(He's obviously not a murderer, at all. But the Italians must have their "judicial truths".)

I don't know if there is a mechanism for suspending a case, although if ECHR demanded it, by treaty the Italian State must do it.

The CSC could simply acquit both defendants now, also.

I think more information is required, and less speculation. The DM ECHR terminology is not accurate, and before spending too much time on this, I would really like some confirmation and clear information from a truly reliable source.

So would I! Let's see what we can find out.

 

[Numbers]

I also have a feeling your legal opinions, while well researched, don't necessarily jibe with how the laws are interpreted or enforced.

We'll wait and see if you are right.

Yes, I see we have reached some agreement. I agree with you that the Italian police, prosecutors, and judiciary do not follow the laws and constitution of Italy as written. They interpret and enforce them according to their own whims or perceived benefit.

 

[acbytesla]

You're dreaming. I'll agree that if the ECHR raises a big fuss over the case that it will substantially help AK's efforts to avoid extradition. But I'll disagree the ECHR will ultimately save her.

The ECHR won't find merit in her case for calunnia to be sure. And even if they have quibbles with the murder case much later (which I doubt), they won't be significant enough that it will deter extradition (if she hasn't already been extradited.)

I really admired you for admission that you made a mistake earlier. Many people are too immature to so graciously owning up to their mistakes even though we all make them

I do have to ask you what do you base your opinion about the merit of Amanda's callunia petition. It seems as if this is based on nothing but intuition and not logic or ECHR precedents. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me with your logic and court citations as Numbers has done.

 

[griffinmill]

Yes, I see we have reached some agreement. I agree with you that the Italian police, prosecutors, and judiciary do not follow the laws and constitution of Italy as written. They interpret and enforce them according to their own whims or perceived benefit.

Snark aside, you might be surprised to find that actual lawyers and judges, even those at the hallowed ECHR, disagree with your interpretation of the law.

We'll see.

 

[Strozzi]

You're dreaming. I'll agree that if the ECHR raises a big fuss over the case that it will substantially help AK's efforts to avoid extradition. But I'll disagree the ECHR will ultimately save her.

The ECHR won't find merit in her case for calunnia to be sure. And even if they have quibbles with the murder case much later (which I doubt), they won't be significant enough that it will deter extradition (if she hasn't already been extradited.)

Griffinmill, you are dreaming. You don't want to recognize the police, prosecutor and court violations that occurred in the calunia case and murder cases because you don't want to recognize the defendants' innocence. You look at things and see nothing wrong, whereas others recognize the stench.

 

[Kauffer]

Snark aside, you might be surprised to find that actual lawyers and judges, even those at the hallowed ECHR, disagree with your interpretation of the law.

We'll see.

It's possible, but what it would require is for the ECHR to reverse ten years of jurisprudence. It's that stark.

Put it another way, you'll see water flowing uphill before you see that happen.

 

[Numbers]

Snark aside, you might be surprised to find that actual lawyers and judges, even those at the hallowed ECHR, disagree with your interpretation of the law.

We'll see.

Citations, please.

When you say that lawyers and judges disagree with my interpretation of the law, I feel the need for some questions:

1. Please name the lawyers and judges. Are they people you have spoken or otherwise communicated with?

2. I am concerned that you believe I have "interpreted" the law. First, I have presented the ECHR case-law, and also Italian law (CPP, CP, or Constitution). Second, I have attempted to apply those laws to this case.

3. So I would be interested in someone sincerely giving a presentation of the law and then showing how the law applied to the case in a way different from how I applied it. If you are in communication with ECHR lawyers and judges, you can work with them to accomplish this and help me learn how the law is really applied.

I thank you in advance for fulfilling my education, and that of others on the forum, by your efforts with the lawyers and judges. I look forward to your future concrete statements of law, rather than your former crude and inaccurate generalities.