Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

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 ECHO precedents. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me with your logic and court citations as Numbers has done.

It's only here that ECHR "precedents" carry weight. I can't count the posts that have ensured beyond any doubt Italy committed civil rights offenses against AK.

I don't believe any of them. First, I doubt that non lawyers cherrypicking ECHR judgements truly understand the law or how it is applied. Second, I believe that the calunnia conviction is pretty airtight.

Hopes that AK was provoked into a wild false accusation seem silly to me, as do her claims of physical abuse since she never filed a suit. Given her repeated, voluntary statements confirming her false accusation, I doubt the ECHR will even give it a second look.

 

[griffinmill]

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.

Get over yourself. There's a reason why laywers and judges go to law school. It isn't because the law is complicated to read, it's because it's complicated to interpret and apply.

As I said, maybe you'll be proved right on a lot of your assertions.

Or, maybe you'll find out the law is a little more complex than what is readily available on the internet.

In any case, we'll see how you do.

 

[Numbers]

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

I have a feeling that the news item was a simple DM misunderstanding (or imaginative expansion) of the fact that Amanda's lawyer stated that there had been an application lodged with the ECHR for the simple calunnia conviction. Again, we'll see.

 

[griffinmill]

You are welcome to your opinion, baseless as it may be.

If you have citations to ECHR case-law to support your opinion, please present it on this forum. I am sure we would all be most interested in learning of such judgments.

Do you have citations of the number of article 6 complaints the ECHR has accepted versus the number they have rejected? Have you even looked at rejected Article 6 complaints? There must be thousands of them that you have neglected to mention.

 

[Kauffer]

Do you have citations of the number of article 6 complaints the ECHR has accepted versus the number they have rejected? Have you even looked at rejected Article 6 complaints? There must be thousands of them that you have neglected to mention.

Once they have passed admissibility the chances of them being found as violations increase exponentially.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

This is interesting from the Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-italy-knox-20150325-story.html

"'We are not throwing Knox overboard, but if the court wants to do that, Sollecito remains safe and dry,' said Giulia Bongiorno, a lawyer representing Sollecito."

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

I have a feeling that the news item was a simple DM misunderstanding (or imaginative expansion) of the fact that Amanda's lawyer stated that there had been an application lodged with the ECHR for the simple calunnia conviction. Again, we'll see.

If it wasn't for the quote from the Kercher lawyer, I might feel the same way. We shall soon find out.

Still no reference from any other source.

 

[griffinmill]

Once they have passed admissibility the chances of them being found as violations increase exponentially.

So? Aren't you interested to see what cases didn't pass the insurmountable article 6?

I'm sure Numbers will will present another list of those failed cases, cherrypicked to support his own internet educated opinion that AK's rights were violated.

I'm guessing the ECHR ignores Numbers analysis and rules the AK case was handled appropriately. Time will tell.

 

[griffinmill]

Once they have passed admissibility the chances of them being found as violations increase exponentially.

This assumption is based on what? You're own personal intuition, or something factual?

 

[Samzilla]

Long time lurker, first time poster (not even sure I posted back when this was JREF).

To touch on an older topic of discussion regarding luminol and whether or not confirmatory testing is needed:

-correct me if i'm wrong, but machiavelli was arguing luminol is better at determining blood because it's more sensitive than confirmatory tests (although much less specific)

-machiavelli was arguing luminol reactions in the knox case were proof of blood in instances where no confirmatory tests were done (or if they were done, results were not revealed). Maybe I misunderstood him but it seemed to me like he was arguing the luminol reaction alone was proof of blood, so again, correct me if I'm wrong.

-I was watching the updated episodes of The Staircase where duane deaver was discredited (Interesting sidenote: the State Human Resources Commission recently ordered him to be given backpay for the time from his firing until july 2013, saying he should have merely been demoted and had his salary cut by 10%. After july 2013, he receives no pay as the north carolina court of appeals upheld the original ruling that he would have rightly been fired for his actions in the michael peterson trial.)

-In these episodes, it's explicitly stated (if I recall, it's the FBI agent speaking who led the investigation on deaver) during court proceedings that one of the things deaver did wrong in other cases was not reveal negative confirmatory test results. Eg. luminol gives a positive reaction, the confirmatory test says it's not blood, and duane deaver kept that information to himself.

-I don't know what standards italian courts have, but in american courts it appears a luminol test has to be followed by a confirmatory test to prove presence of blood. A luminol reaction alone is not proof of blood.

 

[Machiavelli]

State can determine that Italy violated her rights without a ruling from the ECHR. There's basically no chance of an extradition with an ECHR ruling against Italy regarding this case.

But there can't be a status: "without an ECHR ruling", because Knox has applied asking for an ECHR judgement.

So there will be a ruling, at least about its manifest amissiblity vs. inadmissibility, and the ruling would either determine that there was a violation, or that there wasn't a violation.

In the hypothetical event that an ECHR ruling finds Italy at fault for a violation against Knox, we sould see in what the violation consists; in that event Italian courts would determine if, or how, such alleged violation may affect the merits of a trial (most violations don't cause a change in trial outcomes).

 

[Kauffer]

This assumption is based on what? You're own personal intuition, or something factual?

Why don't you do a bit of research for yourself - when we give you stuff, you have a habit of posting back with evidence absent denunciations in relatively rude fashion. I find it rather trying

The data is available at the court's websites. You find it and you report it to us. Let's get a different kind of conversation going.

 

[Kauffer]

But there can't be a status: "without an ECHR ruling", because Knox has applied asking for an ECHR judgement.

So there will be a ruling, at least about its manifest amissiblity vs. inadmissibility, and the ruling would either determine that there was a violation, or that there wasn't a violation.

In the hypothetical event that an ECHR ruling finds Italy at fault for a violation against Knox, we sould see in what the violation consists; in that event Italian courts would determine if, or how, such alleged violation may affect the merits of a trial (most violations don't cause a change in trial outcomes).

An article 6 violation changes the trial outcome. Have you finally learned this today?

 

[JREF2010]

-

This is interesting from the Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-italy-knox-20150325-story.html

"'We are not throwing Knox overboard, but if the court wants to do that, Sollecito remains safe and dry,' said Giulia Bongiorno, a lawyer representing Sollecito."

d

-

No offense but that sounds like a lame plan, and attitude.(over confident?)

If she can play the card and keep Raffaele out, Im all for it, because I believe when they look at just Amanda, or just Raffaele, the prosecution case looks even emptier. Raffaele needs help immediately. Amanda is never going back, imo, the charges are too fake.(in the real world anyway)

Once Raffalele is free he'd probably be extremely outspoken as a Pro- Amanda too.

If the ISC sends it back as separate trials, that would be interesting and better than a NencinniGoofball confirmation. I could see this fitting....kind of a "pass the buck" game continued. ..or better yet "pass the embarrassment case" by the Judges.

The Kerchers wont know the truth until Rudy talks the truth, so the extended trials of Amanda and Raffaele don't delay that.

yes, Im pro-send it back separate-trials, that might help clarify things and reduce the confusion for the Judges-who-dont understand-DNA, and the fake-judges-who dont-understand DNA.

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you have citations of the number of article 6 complaints the ECHR has accepted versus the number they have rejected? Have you even looked at rejected Article 6 complaints? There must be thousands of them that you have neglected to mention.

This case in one of those exceptional in that the Italian judiciary just screwed up so bad. It was for example, singled out in a lecture where it was specifically compared to the Norfolk Four case.

 

[Kaosium]

Long time lurker, first time poster (not even sure I posted back when this was JREF).

To touch on an older topic of discussion regarding luminol and whether or not confirmatory testing is needed:

-correct me if i'm wrong, but machiavelli was arguing luminol is better at determining blood because it's more sensitive than confirmatory tests (although much less specific)

-machiavelli was arguing luminol reactions in the knox case were proof of blood in instances where no confirmatory tests were done (or if they were done, results were not revealed). Maybe I misunderstood him but it seemed to me like he was arguing the luminol reaction alone was proof of blood, so again, correct me if I'm wrong.

-I was watching the updated episodes of The Staircase where duane deaver was discredited (Interesting sidenote: the State Human Resources Commission recently ordered him to be given backpay for the time from his firing until july 2013, saying he should have merely been demoted and had his salary cut by 10%. After july 2013, he receives no pay as the north carolina court of appeals upheld the original ruling that he would have rightly been fired for his actions in the michael peterson trial.)

-In these episodes, it's explicitly stated (if I recall, it's the FBI agent speaking who led the investigation on deaver) during court proceedings that one of the things deaver did wrong in other cases was not reveal negative confirmatory test results. Eg. luminol gives a positive reaction, the confirmatory test says it's not blood, and duane deaver kept that information to himself.

-I don't know what standards italian courts have, but in american courts it appears a luminol test has to be followed by a confirmatory test to prove presence of blood. A luminol reaction alone is not proof of blood.

Welcome, Samzilla.

The situation in the Knox-Sollecito trial regarding luminol is basically this:

1. Six weeks after the initial forensic investigation and after they closed the crime scene and left it like this (the photos at left are how it was when the murder was discovered, the ones at right how it looked when they laid the luminol) the police didn't have any real evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and went back to the scene looking for some. They laid luminol in the hallway, Filomena's room and Amanda's room and did TMB tests which were negative.

2. Writing up her forensic report, the RTIGF, Patrizia Stefanoni included the luminol positives but omitted the TMB negatives.

3. When in court and asked about a luminol hit and whether they did any more tests she replied something to the effect of 'we only laid luminol there.'

4. Late in the trial the prosecution was ordered to reveal documents they had not given the defense, in there were the results of the TMB tests on the luminol hits that were negative and they'd omitted from the RTIGF and lied about in court.

With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (pages 73 and 74)

TMB is not a confirmatory test, none of those were done on the luminol hits, or if they were they were never revealed. TMB is a very sensitive blood test and had it been blood, they would have gotten a positive reaction. The prosecution, when caught out, tried to pretend that the blood must have been diluted to between the sensitivity thresholds of luminol and TMB which is a lot stupider than it sounds as it would require a uniform dilution in three disparate locations and there's no reason to think diluted blood was related to the murder anyway.

 

[anglolawyer]

Do you have a link? I cannot quite understand what that excerpt means. Are they asking the ECHR to intervene, or the ISC to delay judgement until there's a judgement on that by the ECHR?

Would this be a positive sign for the likelihood of the acceptance of that case by the ECHR?

Sorry, I should have linked it before. Here it is.

I finished the quote too soon. It went on:

Knox claims that she was coerced by police into making false statements blaming the murder on bar owner Patrick Lumumba during interrogations of more than 40 hours in November 2007.
As the slander is considered circumstantial evidence in her murder trial, her legal team asked for the murder trial to be suspended, Knox defence lawyer Carlo Della Vedova confirmed.
But the move has left representatives of the Kercher family shocked.
The Kercher's lawyer Vieri Fabiani said: ‘If the Strasbourg court condemns the Italian Republic, what would it change? What could it usefully serve? Absolutely nothing.’

ETA ah, double Ninja'd. Apologies. I am three pages behind.

 

[Desert Fox]

i wanted to add a bit on the luminol. The luminol reacts to a lot of things including cleaners, rust, and even the very soil in that area which is high in umber.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think that's what he meant at all. I think he was saying that Amanda acting in a way some found weird and then her and Raffaele signing those statements made things worse. The real onus ought to be on the police and prosecutor for having them there signing statements in the middle of the night without lawyers but being a former prosecutor himself he likely would prefer to believe they must have had a good reason.

Oddly enough there were reasons to be suspicious of Amanda, they just weren't any of the stupid reasons they gave in court or the myths flying about early in the case. However being as they were things like Amanda forgetting about Patrick's text shortly before the murder, Patrick calling the Questura for Amanda the day of the discovery and then Patrick meeting with her on the fifth (before they went to the police station) the police and prosecution don't want to remind people that they had 'evidence' against Patrick too as they've been so successful convincing people that it was all Amanda's fault Patrick was arrested.

Add to your list the fact that she never mentioned Patrick (source: Mignini's cross exam at the Massei trial) but that she mentioned him by name and said she was thinking of quitting her job in a bugged telephone call (source: 52 pages of translated phone intercepts recently put up on FB by MichaelB) thus making him a person of interest who she had suspiciously omitted despite being asked over and over for names of guys.

 

[anglolawyer]

Another take on your highlighted clause. Hellmann is subtly referring to any violation of CPP Articles 188 and 64 para. 2. He's saying that even if the police violated these laws, Amanda Knox must be responsible for her speech under their interrogation (and immediately afterwards). These procedural laws prohibit altering the "moral freedom" of self-determination of a person. IMO, the highlighted statement by Hellmann is a clear reference to this alteration of a person's self-determination, in which the person is made to say something against his or her own wishes or intent. Also to be noted, in CPP Art. 64, para. 3, the warnings not given to Amanda during her questioning. In CPP Art. 64, para. 3-bis, it is disclosed that statements made under questioning may not be used if the witness is not warned. Thus, if the Italians obeyed their own laws, but acknowledged that they had failed to give these warnings, since Amanda was not warned, the statement she allegedly gave naming Lumumba could not itself be used against Lumumba!

CPP Article 188 Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering

1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

CPP Article 64 General rules for questioning

2. {Same text as Article 188}

3. Prior to the questioning, the person must be warned that:
a) his statements can always be used against him;
b) {except for identification information} he has the right to silence, but the proceedings will in any case continue their course;
c) if he makes any statement on facts concerning the liability of others, he will become a witness in relation to those facts {unless the other is a co-accused}.

3-bis. If the provisions of para. 3 (a) and (b) are not fulfilled, the statements made by the person questioned shall be excluded. If the person questioned is not warned according to para. 3 (c), the statements that he may have made on the facts regarding the liability of others shall not be used against them, and he shall not become a witness in relation to those specific facts.

Interesting, thanks.