Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Mez' text was circa 19:00. You have got the sequence wrong. At 20:00-ish:-


“What are you doing this evening? Want to meet up? Got a costume?”[ 1] The staccato questions came on the heels of repeated texts which reflected the urgency Amanda felt to be part of Meredith’s party. With no immediate response, Amanda texted again a few minutes later, “I’m going to Le Chic and after who knows? Maybe we’ll meet up? Call me.”Now the doubt had really started to set in—”who knows”and “maybe we’ll meet up.”Amanda was pleading.

From Andrew Hodges As Done Unto You
Click to expand...

Oh dear! He's wrong and you're wrong. There is no "circa 19:00" text. And the sequence provided to you is correct. MichaelB and I have both cited the primary source for the timing of these messages. Michael has given you the original language of the texts. There are no repeated texts or urgency. There are three simple messages infused with pleasantry, happiness and politeness.

Ananda's reply to Meredith - her second text of two - answers the question Meredith asked her. Meredith would have been expecting a reply - an answer to her question about what she was doing.

Try to learn something.
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
You just don't understand the European Convention or the court's jurisprudence. Being struck by a police officer in an interrogation is an Article 3 violation.

Article 6 concerns - right to a fair trial - extend to the period before the trial takes place and includes the circumstances of interrogations.

Amanda had a right to a lawyer, a right to silence , an independent interpreter. There is prolific case law on these points. The narrow basis for limitation of these rights, for example when national security concerns might prevail, do not apply here.

Moreover, Amanda's compelled statements were the sole basis of her calunnia conviction. This is a further violation of Article 6.

Go and do some reading.
Click to expand...

But did she lodge a complaint about it? Did she inform the American ambassador when he came to visit in private? Did she get a medical report?

This might prove to be an obstacle re Art 6 and Art 3, if not.
 
Vixen said:
Mez' text was circa 19:00. You have got the sequence wrong. At 20:00-ish:-


“What are you doing this evening? Want to meet up? Got a costume?”[ 1] The staccato questions came on the heels of repeated texts which reflected the urgency Amanda felt to be part of Meredith’s party. With no immediate response, Amanda texted again a few minutes later, “I’m going to Le Chic and after who knows? Maybe we’ll meet up? Call me.”Now the doubt had really started to set in—”who knows”and “maybe we’ll meet up.”Amanda was pleading.

From Andrew Hodges As Done Unto You
Click to expand...

Who cares what's in Andrew Hodges book? The guy is a quack.

I posted the court doc showing the text messages and the times they were sent.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Amanda-Knox-Text-Messages.pdf

You'd see the first message was 7.59pm if you bothered reading the primary sources.
 
Kauffer said:
Oh dear! He's wrong and you're wrong. There is no "circa 19:00" text. And the sequence provided to you is correct. MichaelB and I have both cited the primary source for the timing of these messages. Michael has given you the original language of the texts. There are no repeated texts or urgency. There are three simple messages infused with pleasantry, happiness and politeness.

Ananda's reply to Meredith - her second text of two - answers the question Meredith asked her. Meredith would have been expecting a reply - an answer to her question about what she was doing.

Try to learn something.
Click to expand...


The full sequence is as follows:

[excerpt]

For her part, Amanda decided to dress up like a black cat for Halloween—sweater and pants and face paint. Raffaele had come over to Via della Pergola and painted whiskers on Amanda’s face. Amanda had repeatedly texted Meredith trying hard to meet up with her. Already an empty feeling gnawed at Amanda. She grew more frantic by the moment as Meredith ignored her texts—one after another. But finally a little after 7 p.m. Meredith responded, “I’m going to a friend’s house for dinner. What are your plans?”—signing off with “xx love you.”That baker’s dozen words had given Amanda hope. She finished dressing up and then headed out into the night. She now hoped that Meredith would continue to reply and invite her to go to a nightclub with them.
[ends]

Andrew Hodges As Unto You
 
Vixen said:
As usual, you and the site have been very selective, taking great care to leave out anything that is not pro-Amanda. and Raff.
Click to expand...

Really? Taking great care? How so? It's a link to a PDF showing all the text messages. No one has been selective or left anything out.
 
Vixen said:
That is not the finding of the pathologist nor the courts.

The courts are fact and evidence based, and are nothing to do with abstract concepts of good and evil. Amanda's own defense did not argue psychopathology: mental illness or personality disorder.

As the forensic psychiatrist stated in the Sweat and Matt case, it is pointless trying to ascribe motive as their brains are wired differently.
Click to expand...

This maybe why the court found them not guilty.

Why would Amanda's defence have to argue mental illness or personality disorder?

They were arguing that she was innocent, as has been proved.
 
Vixen said:
But did she lodge a complaint about it? Did she inform the American ambassador when he came to visit in private? Did she get a medical report?

This might prove to be an obstacle re Art 6 and Art 3, if not.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary to raise a querela as far as the ECHR is concerned. The event is recorded in her memoriale. Remember, Amanda was sued as a result of her testimony on the subject.

What sort of a criminal justice system is it in the modern age, which permits violations of suspects' human rights and follows them up with lawsuits filed against them when they describe their treatment?

According to the facts of this case with regard to the events in the questura, subsequent legal rulings and further cases launched by the authorities, once you enter an interrogation room, you are entirely at the mercy of the intent of police officers. The ECHR will disabuse the Italians of these notions.

The Article 6 violations are unaffected by the Article 3 violation although, an upheld Article 3 violation in these circumstances is also an Article 6 violation.

There are multiple violations of Article 6.
 
Vixen said:
The full sequence is as follows:

[excerpt]

For her part, Amanda decided to dress up like a black cat for Halloween—sweater and pants and face paint. Raffaele had come over to Via della Pergola and painted whiskers on Amanda’s face. Amanda had repeatedly texted Meredith trying hard to meet up with her. Already an empty feeling gnawed at Amanda. She grew more frantic by the moment as Meredith ignored her texts—one after another. But finally a little after 7 p.m. Meredith responded, “I’m going to a friend’s house for dinner. What are your plans?”—signing off with “xx love you.”That baker’s dozen words had given Amanda hope. She finished dressing up and then headed out into the night. She now hoped that Meredith would continue to reply and invite her to go to a nightclub with them.
[ends]

Andrew Hodges As Unto You
Click to expand...

Why are you using Hodges as a source when we have the primary source documents??

Look at the records and see if you can identify, on page 11 all of the text messages between Amanda and Meredith on 31st October together with the times.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Tables-of-Telephone-Activity.pdf

You seem, wilfully, to want to ignore the real evidence in favour of an error strewn misrepresentation of it. Why?

This is not difficult.
 
Vixen said:
Are you sure this is a parallel case? In which way? Facts here are as follows:

The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Kharkiv.

On 17 November 2004 I. and D.K. were arrested on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V., a businessman working in Kharkiv. Both suspects were questioned. D.K. admitted his involvement in the crime and said that the applicant had initiated the plot and agreed to pay for the crime.

On 19 November 2004 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, I. and D.K. on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V.

The investigative authorities submitted the following account of events. The applicant’s father and V. were business partners. The applicant was well acquainted with V. and persuaded him to enter into a deal with R. R. then swindled V., causing him serious financial damage. V. suspected the applicant of collusion with R., and their relationship seriously deteriorated. The applicant then decided to arrange the murder of V. For this purpose, the applicant met D.K., who lived in Kyiv and offered to assist him in arranging the murder of V. The applicant wired money to D.K. to buy a gun. D.K. started to look for a gun and an assassin to hire. He met I., who suggested that he speak to Yu.K. as a possible assassin. When they met, Yu.K. asked D.K. for information about V. and gave him a list of questions. The applicant provided some of the answers to D.K. He also gave D.K. some money to be transferred to Yu.K. After Yu.K. had received the information and the money, he refused to commit the murder and approached the law-enforcement authorities.

At about 11 p.m. on 20 November 2004 the police arrested the applicant at his apartment in Kharkiv, took him to the police station in Kharkiv and then escorted him to Kyiv (about 450 kilometres away).

During that night and the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant was allegedly beaten by police officers to make him confess to the crime. According to the applicant, the police officers placed a gas mask over his head and blocked the access to air; they also hung him up by handcuffs fixed to his wrists. He had no access to a doctor in that period.

In the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant’s father hired a lawyer from Kharkiv, N.B., to represent the applicant.

Between 8.10 a.m. and 11.05 a.m. on that date a police officer questioned the applicant as a witness in the case. The questioning was carried out without a lawyer. Before being questioned the applicant had been warned that refusing to give evidence and giving false evidence were criminal offences. At the same time he was apprised of Article 63 of the Constitution, which provides that a person is not liable for refusal to give evidence regarding himself or herself and his or her relatives.

During questioning the applicant admitted that he had asked D.K. to find someone who could murder V. in exchange for money. D.K. had answered in the affirmative and they had agreed a price and the terms. They later met in Kharkiv to inspect the locality. D.K. had taken part of the payment from the applicant. Subsequently, D.K. had been arrested and the plan to murder V. had fallen through.

After questioning, the applicant wrote a confession and submitted it to the police officer who had questioned him. According to the applicant, he wrote a confession, as dictated by a police officer, to avoid any further ill-treatment.


http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1939.html
Click to expand...

The parallels are based upon the claims to the ECHR and its judgment in the case, which is based on the Convention, precedent, and itself sets precedent.

The violation of Convention Article 3 in Grinenko was for the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation of Grinenko's credible claims, and not at all for the alleged torture. Grinenko had not gone for a forensic medical exam quickly enough after his alleged mistreatment, and there were apparently no clear indications of the mistreatment. Nor was there sufficient other evidence for the ECHR to conclude by its standard, BARD, that the mistreatment had occurred. However, when someone is in custody and credibly alleges mistreatment, it is actually a requirement of the authorities to investigate such claims according to ECHR case-law. In such cases, the ECHR will find a violation of Article 3 under the procedural branch. That is what the ECHR judged in the Grinenko case.

Furthermore, Article 3 of the Convention states that no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Being hit or threatened or otherwise inhumanely treated by police, especially while in their custody and the police action such as hitting is not justified in the ECHR's opinion as self-defense or proper restraint, is considered inhuman and degrading treatment.

The details of Grinenko's life, alleged crime, or even of his alleged mistreatment, need not parallel those of someone else for the case to be considered precedent. It is the general principles set forth by the ECHR in the judgment which set the precedent. These were identified in my post by citing the paragraph numbers of the ECHR judgment in the case.
 
Vixen said:
Lots of people in England adopt HM Queen's usage, "my husband and I". The film 'Withnail and I" is another example.
Click to expand...

"My husband and I" is correct if they are the subject of the sentence, which they usually are. Same with "Withnail and I".

If they are the ojbect of the sentence it would be "my husband and me".

Any fule kno that.
 
Kauffer said:
It's not necessary to raise a querela as far as the ECHR is concerned. The event is recorded in her memoriale. Remember, Amanda was sued as a result of her testimony on the subject.

What sort of a criminal justice system is it in the modern age, which permits violations of suspects' human rights and follows them up with lawsuits filed against them when they describe their treatment?

According to the facts of this case with regard to the events in the questura, subsequent legal rulings and further cases launched by the authorities, once you enter an interrogation room, you are entirely at the mercy of the intent of police officers. The ECHR will disabuse the Italians of these notions.

The Article 6 violations are unaffected by the Article 3 violation although, an upheld Article 3 violation in these circumstances is also an Article 6 violation.

There are multiple violations of Article 6.
Click to expand...

Amanda was sued by some of the police officers involved in the interrogation for defamation, but also criminally charged and prosecuted by Mignini. The criminal charge is continuing aggravated calunnia against the police. It is "continuing" because she has brought up this allegation in each of her appeals, which is her right and is proper in accordance with ECHR case-law. It is "aggravated" because the prosecutor's allegation is that this calunnia against the police is intended to cover-up the calunnia against Patrick Lumumba (for which Amanda was already finally convicted).

Thus, there is the irony that in Italy, one can be charged with a crime for claiming to be mistreated by the police, yet the authorities may claim they cannot investigate the alleged police mistreatment because no official formal complaint has been made.

The ECHR does not accept this kind of double-talk by the authorities. The Grinenko case shows that it does not, that a complaint to a court is indeed sufficient to require an effective investigation of mistreatment. That is one of the important precedents in Grinenko.
 
acbytesla said:
Amanda and most of the cops are not in position to say what Giobbi oredered and to whom. Your declaring that Giobbi is not telling the truth does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Why don't you write him and ask to whom he gave the order. When the only source for something is someone that benefits from it (in his mind) is the source and the thing didn't happen I don't believe it. Other cops made the point they weren't both ordered and when she arrived the cops were upset.

So when they ask for Raf they meant both and when Amanda said don't tell the press in her email she meant tell them. Dietrology? :p
 
katy_did said:
I don't think for a second anyone would take Giobbi seriously if he weren't saying something which seemed to support their existing theory. We have proof that he lied on another occasion for the exact reason he lied here; there's testimony which contradicts him from everyone else involved in the interrogations, the police and Amanda and Raffaele and the police. Why believe this bloviating liar over everybody else?

Personally I think the cops were getting a bit desperate after Hicham Khiri's alibi came through. They had Raffaele saying he brought a knife to the police station and that the cops were stupid, and thought they had a lead, so called him in (that's why Raffaele himself thinks he was called in). Then they found Amanda text message and it confluence their hunch... Tired, inexperienced cops under a lot of pressure. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

These "tired, inexperienced cops" were all agents of the Republic of Italy, a State member of the Council of Europe. Italy has a Constitution and procedural laws which are contrary to what the police did on Nov. 5/6 in the interrogations. The police blew their case by not providing the suspects with lawyers and then by coercing false statements. And Giobbi and Profazio, the "generals" commanding the interrogation, are certainly not to be considered inexperienced. How can someone become an Assistant Deputy Chief (VQA) in the police in Italy, unless they have the requisite experience? And Mignini, who directed the investigation, cannot be considered inexperienced. He had considerable experience from the Monster of Florence - Narducci trail cases. He was so experienced that he was charged with criminal abuse of office related to those cases.
 
Grinder said:
Why don't you write him and ask to whom he gave the order. When the only source for something is someone that benefits from it (in his mind) is the source and the thing didn't happen I don't believe it. Other cops made the point they weren't both ordered and when she arrived the cops were upset.

So when they ask for Raf they meant both and when Amanda said don't tell the press in her email she meant tell them. Dietrology? :p
Click to expand...

One can just as readily interpret this as the other, lower ranking cops lying to protect themselves against allegations of intentional misconduct.
 
Grinder said:
Why don't you write him and ask to whom he gave the order. When the only source for something is someone that benefits from it (in his mind) is the source and the thing didn't happen I don't believe it. Other cops made the point they weren't both ordered and when she arrived the cops were upset.

So when they ask for Raf they meant both and when Amanda said don't tell the press in her email she meant tell them. Dietrology? :p
Click to expand...

What is missing from this case is a true believer cop, someone who is willing to write up his/her own account of what went on. Heck, even the JonBenét Ramsey case had detective Steve Thomas willing to go public with his theories....

Where are all these people? Where is Napoleoni writing out that she got it right and here's why? Where's Mignini giving a **detailed** reason why he got it right? Oh wait, he had TWO trials to do that and failed miserably.

Where is de Felice clearing up the record as to what he'd said? Cannot Marco Chiacchiera give an accounting of why his opinion (acc. to Follain) was ignored and led to disaster?

All we have is cut-and-paste authors like Andrew Hodges.....
 
katy_did said:
I don't think for a second anyone would take Giobbi seriously if he weren't saying something which seemed to support their existing theory. We have proof that he lied on another occasion for the exact reason he lied here; there's testimony which contradicts him from everyone else involved in the interrogations, the police and Amanda and Raffaele and the police. Why believe this bloviating liar over everybody else?

Personally I think the cops were getting a bit desperate after Hicham Khiri's alibi came through. They had Raffaele saying he brought a knife to the police station and that the cops were stupid, and thought they had a lead, so called him in (that's why Raffaele himself thinks he was called in). Then they found Amanda text message and it confluence their hunch... Tired, inexperienced cops under a lot of pressure. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to convey much of this. People on both sides of this case will take one piece out of an article or a person's statement even if most everything else is obviously false or goes against their POV in which case they call those thiongs lies.

I noticed the work they did on Hicham Khiri (has that been translated?) even to the extent of checking his alibi. I think he was a key suspect until the 4th.

I see nothing unusual in the cops being at the station late at night trying to solve the case. The guys from Rome had no place to go anyway.

Strange that people here say that calling in Amanda later would still be early but at the same time say it was unusual for the cops to be there.

I didn't and wouldn't argue that 10 is late because I looked at other interview times.
 
Numbers said:
One can just as readily interpret this as the other, lower ranking cops lying to protect themselves against allegations of intentional misconduct.
Click to expand...

Did he accuse them of misconduct? Why would they not say they called them both in since you contend it was ordered and they both showed up?

The only reasonable analysis is that Giobbi is full of himself and wanted to take credit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom