Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[komponisto]

While you are here, kompo, first it's nice to see you again and second a huge thanks (to you and your collaborators) for the high quality translations of C-V and H-Z. Those were indispensable to our understanding and discussion here.

Thanks! And of course, we'll be back at it for one more go when the Cassazione motivation is released.

(By the way, has anyone seen the dispositivo document they presumably emitted yesterday? It would be nice to see the official decision in the court's own words, as opposed to second-hand reports by journalists...)

 

[kwill]

Adding my thanks

To all of you for being here. Just imagining a world where there was no counterbalance to the hate sites gives me chills. You've been smart, knowledgeable, determined, snarky, hilarious, warm, and brilliant.

The hometown paper has a giant headline

So grateful

And a photograph of Amanda with smiling Edda on one side and somber fiance on the other. She's safe.

I'm taking so much pleasure in the knowledge that Peggy Ganong will never again be able to say in public that Amanda and Raffaele are killers. I hope sincerely she takes some time to think about what she's done and finds it in herself to make a public apology.

And like the rest of you I am stunned by Raffaele Sollecito's courage and forbearance. All goodness to him, forever. I want sequel books from the both of them that detail the second four years.

 

[komponisto]

Like I lot of PIPs, I spent the early part of my fascination with this case thinking Knox and Sollecito were probably implicated in some way. The first two books I read were Follain's then Nadeau's, which obviously didn't help. Komponisto's posts at Lesswrong had quite a bit to do with me coming down hard in favour of innocence.

This is always gratifying to hear; thank you! I would probably write those posts differently now in terms of style, but the essential content would be the same.

 

[toto]

I was just thinking that too - would really like to see those books available here.

To the general public in bookshops you mean? I got mine delivered to the UK from Amazon.com!

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Here's the Seattle Times front page to which Kwill refers:

http://old.seattletimes.com/PDF/frontpage.pdf

 

[toto]

I can't quite believe it either, it seems like its too good to be true. If thats how outsiders like us feel, I bet Amanda and Raffaele are totally in shock, (but in a good way).

No, Yummi has written this:

I'd like to add that while it's true that Sollecito's family acted as if the outcome was expected in advance, also the the Knox family is reported of doing so by some newspapers. Those reports about "smiling faces" and people bringing drinks waiting for the verdict didn't go unnoticed.

(if you believe him)

 

[carbonjam72]

There are a number of issues here for Amanda:

1) compensation for 1 years imprisonment
2) Article 6 violation at ECHR for calunnia - just satisfaction award
3) vacation of calunnia conviction and sentence - compensation for 3 years imprisonment
4) New ECHR application - length of trial etc - just satisfaction award.

Not sure if 2 removes the compensation element of 3

Not sure what you mean by 'concessions for a friendly settlement'. All this stuff won't go into one big pot. The judiciary isn't going to get involved with the ECHR. That's the business of the government.

She stands convicted for calunnia - Cassation's acquittal hasn't and will not change that. Only the ECHR can change that. Looking at the issue a little more closely, it may well be that a friendly settlement will not work at all, because in order to trigger a vacation of conviction/retrial, you need an adjudicated Article 6 violation. Assuming that erasure of criminal record is the most important thing here for Amanda, she may need the ECHR to rule. It could get quite complex.

Good point. I didn't think about this, that it might be necessary to obtain a final result from ECHR, in order to vacate the calunnia conviction in Italy.

But my understanding was that ECHR deals with the Italian government, not the judiciary. Italy could make an friendly offer to settle without fighting, and my understanding is ECHR encourages that result to avoid drawn out legal battles and the expense of legal costs and court time. I'm not sure what the exact mechanism is for a friendly settlement, but it doesn't mean much if they can't annul the convictions of a flawed trial.

Also, IIUC, ECHR cannot change the calunnia conviction, only find against Italy in violating Knox's rights in achieving the conviction. The result of 'restituto integrum'(?), I thought meant re-opening the process for a new trial. However, since the statement itself is the crime, if the statement gets tossed, its an obvious non-case.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know the specifics on this. I think Numbers is our best chance of sorting it out.

 

[Samson]

Barbie Latza Nadeau says

"The case, now closed forever, has been divisive from the start, pitting those who believe in Knox’s innocence against those who are certain of her guilt. "

Spot the deliberate deception. Winterbottom ended his film with the acquittal, from 3 and a half years ago. Despite everything he probably deserves kudos for that. Coming to a cinema near me? Somehow I doubt it, but who knows?

 

[Sergei Walankov]

When could we expect to see the motivations report translated into English? Am I right in thinking the guilt lobby, whatever their failings, came in handy for this kind of thing? I'm wondering if they might lose their enthusiasm now.

 

[Kauffer]

My impression is that sometimes ECHR does not allow a friendly settlement because it wishes to make statements about rights in its judgment. However, every friendly settlement entails a statement from the State that it had violated certain rights of the applicant.

Yes, I hope they rule for wider reasons of justice anyway, and that will probably be sufficient to ensure restitutio in integrum takes place. But for setting aside conviction and sentence, it's all about finding a mechanism for accomplishing it.

A mere statement of violations by Italy doesn't do it - the crime is still on the books. The question is - how to get it off?

In the Dorigo case, this matter took many years, but the courts were eventually able to rely on an ECHR adjudicated violation.

I'm unaware of any bridge between a friendly settlement at the ECHR and a vacation of conviction. But, there might be a way.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, I hope they rule for wider reasons of justice anyway, and that will probably be sufficient to ensure restitutio in integrum takes place. But for setting aside conviction and sentence, it's all about finding a mechanism for accomplishing it.

A mere statement of violations by Italy doesn't do it - the crime is still on the books. The question is - how to get it off?

In the Dorigo case, this matter took many years, but the courts were eventually able to rely on an ECHR adjudicated violation.

I'm unaware of any bridge between a friendly settlement at the ECHR and a vacation of conviction. But, there might be a way.

The bridge would be Italian CPP 630 Cases of revision, and Constitutional Court judgment No. 113/2011, which gives the possibility of requesting a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen the proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR.

 

[Kauffer]

Good point. I didn't think about this, that it might be necessary to obtain a final result from ECHR, in order to vacate the calunnia conviction in Italy.

But my understanding was that ECHR deals with the Italian government, not the judiciary. Italy could make an friendly offer to settle without fighting, and my understanding is ECHR encourages that result to avoid drawn out legal battles and the expense of legal costs and court time. I'm not sure what the exact mechanism is for a friendly settlement, but it doesn't mean much if they can't annul the convictions of a flawed trial.

Also, IIUC, ECHR cannot change the calunnia conviction, only find against Italy in violating Knox's rights in achieving the conviction. The result of 'restituto integrum'(?), I thought meant re-opening the process for a new trial. However, since the statement itself is the crime, if the statement gets tossed, its an obvious non-case.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know the specifics on this. I think Numbers is our best chance of sorting it out.

Yes the government deals with the ECHR. But the government can't just promise to deliver an outcome. The laws of Italy need to provide a mechanism for removal of conviction. It's really not that straightforward. They could use Art 630 to open a new trial and immediately dismiss for lack of evidence etc Maybe. Or maybe some other method will need to be crafted.

If the government could promise to do anything it wanted it would be a tyranny - this is all about separation of powers. They have to rely on law. The only thing Italy can promise is a Pardon, but that's not really an option here.

So it's important that everyone understands the process they enter into.

 

[Kauffer]

The bridge would be Italian CPP 630 Cases of revision, and Constitutional Court judgment No. 113/2011, which gives the possibility of requesting a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen the proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR.

But that's the point - 'judgement of the ECHR'. A friendly settlement isn't a judgement of the ECHR. It's a way of avoiding a judgement. Isn't it?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know whether this has been pointed out here yet, but there's now an interesting connection between the two cases: Amanda recently interviewed Annie Lareau, who was the best friend of Theodora Cohen.

Quite the coincidence.

Theodora's parents are very prominent Lockerbie guilters. Extremely outspoken go-to people whenever a sound-bite is needed to attack the "disgraceful conspiracy theorists". I dread to think how they'll be if we do get the conviction overturned. Make the Kerchers look like angels of reason, I imagine.

 

[Numbers]

But that's the point - 'judgement of the ECHR'. A friendly settlement isn't a judgement of the ECHR. It's a way of avoiding a judgement. Isn't it?

I see your point. This may be a reason for ECHR to not allow a friendly settlement in the interests of justice (and just compensation). But there may be ways for ECHR to compel States to follow their own compensation rules, there is a Convention Protocol relating to compensation for wrongful conviction.

 

[Poppy1016]

I wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate Amanda and Raf on this victory. Their perseverance and grace in the face of this ordeal, has been an inspiration.
I would also like to thank each and every member here. Your diligence and hard work definitely made a difference.
I am not as knowledgeable as the vast majority here, but I have learned many critical thinking skills from all of you. I knew very little about DNA and forensics,and now I have a much improved understanding. I have learned so much from each and every one of you.
Again thanks to all here for the education I have received , and for all of your hard work an diligence.
Rich ( Poppy1016)

 

[Numbers]

I see your point. This may be a reason for ECHR to not allow a friendly settlement in the interests of justice (and just compensation). But there may be ways for ECHR to compel States to follow their own compensation rules, there is a Convention Protocol relating to compensation for wrongful conviction.

Here's Article 3 of Protocol 7. It may still beg the question of the effect of a friendly settlement. The terms of the friendly settlement would have to include a vacating of the conviction, for example, IMO.

Compensation for wrongful conviction

When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a
criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been
reversed, or he has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or
newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a
miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as
a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to the
law or the practice of the State concerned, unless it is proved that
the nondisclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly
attributable to him.

 

[lonepinealex]

I'm not trying to blow my own horn (Ahh-ooo-gaa). But you did suggest even yesterday I think, that I was a bit over the top optimistic. And I did kind of guess right as to full acquittal with no retrial.

Now I am fully aware that a stopped clock is right twice a day, and a roll of the dice can be expected to be correctly ascertained 1 in 6 times by carefully reading the entrails of a pigeon, and I could have gotten lucky for the same reasons.

But.

Does anyone give any credence to my haribrained dietrologia theory today? I feel I've earned the right to ask.

Hey, I've already forgiven you for being right. Don't milk it.

 

[LondonJohn]

The digestion point was in Raffaele's appeal to the SC!

Yes. It will be very interesting when reading the SC's motivations whether this point carried much weight in their deliberations. It would be quietly excellent to think that one of their reasons for concluding that Knox and Sollecito didn't participate in the murder was that the murder had to have happened well before 10pm, and almost certainly before 9.30pm - as evidenced by the stomach/duodenum evidence, alongside other evidence such as Kercher's failure to call her mother back, the evidence of tampering with the phones at 10pm, the laundry in the washing machine, the state of dress of Kercher and her apparent failure to have unpacked her bag, etc......)

 

[LondonJohn]

Patrick Lumumba's cash register apparently was "off line" for a good part of the evening of Nov 1 2007. No wonder he couldn't instantly prove with receipts that he was working minute-by-minute at his bar that night. I believe the police and prosecutor had evidence of possible sales tax evasion on him, and perhaps other leverage to get him to eventually keep quiet and publicly deny that he was abused physically and emotionally upon arrest. (Welcome to young Amanda's world, Patrick.). She was younger and more vulnerable. You are older, speak Italian, wiser in the ways of the strong-arm police, and got much more punching than the girl.

My advice, Lumumba, is sue the police for assault and other rough treatment. What's that, you say? Oh, you've publicly exhonerated the police of any maltreatment of you? What, did they serve you tea and cookies the way they claim to have treated Amanda? Well then, I guess you don't have a case against the police.

Your case against the girl will disappear when the ECHR orders Italy to take corrective action to cure the calunia conviction.

I remember reading many years ago (and I remember it clearly because I did business in Italy after having read it, and it stuck clearly in my mind) that there's a general feeling that the police actually like the fact that this sort of law-breaking is endemic among small and large businesses alike, and indeed that a significant proportion of Italian individuals also do things such as dodge taxes or fail to declare earnings at a personal level.

And the reason why the police like this situation is that it gives them automatic leverage over a huge proportion of Italian businesses and individuals. In other words, if the police "need" businesses or individuals to act/behave in a certain manner for any reason, it's more likely than not that they will be able to use the threat of prosecution (with significant potential penalties) as a tool to "persuade" those businesses/individuals to do what they want them to do.

It's another interesting example of how Italy operates under a form of totalitarian police-state system, as a regrettable hangover from its fascist past. The police and courts have huge (and disproportionate) powers over the people - powers which they can, and do, wield as a tool of control.