Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

"LOL"!

Truly amazing. Her rights weren't violated. Yet the echo of those keypresses had yet to diminish when.....

The statements were excluded because........

Truly, if one does not see the ludicrousness of those two claims side by each, then there is no hope.

If she was in a US police station, her rights might not have been violated in the interrogation at least although I believe some of what happened afterwards would have violated her rights.

 

[Vixen]

You have a right to believe this.

Yet this is not what Bruno and Marasca say. The amazing part is that after 100 pages of Bruno/Marasca calling the previous 7 1/2 years of investigations and trials an anmesiac, incompetent judicial folly - is that ANYONE (aside from the seriously confirmation biased, almost exclusively English-language guilters) would describe the final pages of the report as you do.

Do you want proof? Actually I don't think you do.

But here it is anyway. Provide one link from an Italian language source which believes as you do. One. Hint: this has to be a reputable source - so although she perhaps can write in the Italian language, Andrea Vogt does not count.

Let's lay aside for a second that the ISC is not a court which is a finder of fact. Ok, let's not lay that aside because that's another reason why what you claim is true simply is not.

In setting up the concluding "even-if" parts, of course some of the historic prosecution claims will be chucked in to the "synopic" amalgam; but the conclusion the whole report is that neither Raffaele nor Amanda bear any responsibility for the crime. Innocent they came into the court process, innocent they left it. Definitively.

There is no truth to the fairy tale you want me to "deal with". I've dealt with it. It remains the province of a small group of English-language guilters who've also shown a propensity for slut-shaming....

... not to mention posting things (like pics showing bars on windows) that they claim proves their point, when it actually refutes it.

Consider #1 of your claims above. #1 is actually a synoptic amalgam of both prosecution and defence cases, which where even the defence says that Amanda was at the cottage - albeit at 10:30 am Nov 2nd, and Raffaele was there 2 hours later.

What your small, English language bunch never deals with is Sections 9.2/9.3 of the Marasca/Bruno report which says:

​

In what you say that Marasca/Bruno regards as factual (which they relate following 9.2/9.3) - it is plain that they regard those things as "even-ifs".

None of your English language guilters deal with this - at all.

But - in the interests of fairness, no one can require you to deal with 9.2/9.3. You won't anyway.

I have read the professionally translated reasonings and it is important to understand the convention.

It starts with a summary of the verdict.

The reasons for the verdict are then expanded briefly.

Then in the main body, they are dealt with in greater detail, giving a brief nod to both parties. For example, party X relies on this fact. However, we uphold party Y, on balance.

It is supposed to go through each ground of appeal in turn. However M&B in an extremely short Motivation Report, have skipped that, and instead, have cut and pasted Bongiorno's absurd submissions, which is why it reads like Edward Lear Jaberwocky.

It comes to its conclusions all the way through - this is a judgment not a thesis in dialectics - it is obliged to state the previously found legal determinations. They were not saying, "even if, however": they were saying legal fact found, as such facts are binding.

It is laughable, because despite confirming the presence of Amanda, and likely Raff, that the burglary was staged, Rudy did not act alone, Amanda covered for him and washed off Mez' blood, they judge that they cannot make a finding of murder, for cuckoo reasons put forth by Borngiorno about cardboard boxes.

 

[Vixen]

"LOL"!

Truly amazing. Her rights weren't violated. Yet the echo of those keypresses had yet to diminish when.....

The statements were excluded because........

Truly, if one does not see the ludicrousness of those two claims side by each, then there is no hope.

It's an example of how Massei bent over backwards for the kids.

 

[Vixen]

Your post makes no sense. . . .Not that most of your posts make much sense but this one less than the others.

The Norfolk Four reading it on Wiki, looks like one big cock up, without their having a proper defence at the start.

Amanda and Raff had the most expensive defense they could buy, together with a PR firm, who usually promote celebrities.

 

[Vixen]

If she was in a US police station, her rights might not have been violated in the interrogation at least although I believe some of what happened afterwards would have violated her rights.

If she was in the US, she would have been in an orange jumpsuit with a shackle around her ankle.

 

[Bill Williams]

But - in the interests of fairness, no one can require you to deal with 9.2/9.3. You won't anyway.

I have read the professionally translated reasonings and it is important to understand the convention.

It starts with a summary of the verdict.

The reasons for the verdict are then expanded briefly.

............. sinister deletia .................

It is laughable, because despite confirming the presence of Amanda, and likely Raff, that the burglary was staged, Rudy did not act alone, Amanda covered for him and washed off Mez' blood, they judge that they cannot make a finding of murder, for cuckoo reasons put forth by Borngiorno about cardboard boxes.

Ok, you refuse to deal with 9.2/9.3, and then simply restate your original premise.

You'll never in a million years do either of two things.

1) deal with 9.2/9.3.
2) admit you posted a photo that actually refuted a point you were making.​

There was a weak apology for giving the wrong age for the sister. Yet, you carried on regardless....

 

[Numbers]

Just a small reminder:

Amanda and Raffaele were not in a US police station, but in an Italian police station. Italian law, constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights applied. Their rights were violated under these laws.

Here is some of the ECHR case-law that applies to their situations during the questioning of Nov. 5/6 and subsequent custody (this does not include certain other issues, such as violations by the Italian authorities of Article 3, prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment):

Brusco v. France
14 October 2010
The applicant, who was suspected of having masterminded an aggression, was taken into police custody and questioned as a witness, after being made to swear to tell the truth.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself) of the Convention. According to the Court, the applicant was not a mere witness but a person “charged with a criminal offence”,
and as such should have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer until his 20th hour in police
custody. Had a lawyer been present, he would have been able to inform the applicant of his right to remain silent.

Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine
21 April 2011
The first applicant complained in particular about the unfairness of the proceedings against him, notably that his conviction for a number of offences, including premeditated murder for profit committed following a conspiracy with a group of persons, had been
based on statements made without the assistance of a lawyer.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. It was undisputed by the parties that the applicant had not become legally represented until having spent three days in detention. The applicant had confessed several times to murder at the early stage of his interrogation when he was not assisted by counsel, and had undoubtedly been affected by the restrictions on his access to a lawyer in that his confessions to the police were used for his conviction.

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf

 

[Desert Fox]

If she was in the US, she would have been in an orange jumpsuit with a shackle around her ankle.

Holding her as long as they did before being charged would be against US law, refusing her lawyer access to her would cause heads to roll, etc.

Otherwise, I agree with Numbers that he rights were violated under European law

 

[Desert Fox]

The Norfolk Four reading it on Wiki, looks like one big cock up, without their having a proper defence at the start.

Amanda and Raff had the most expensive defense they could buy, together with a PR firm, who usually promote celebrities.

While you are being dishonest about hiring a PR firm, I would have nothing against them doing. Martin Tankleff also involved a PR firm.

The lawyers defending Derek Tice and Eric C. Wilson were considered very good lawyers but juries are unwilling to accept the concept of false confessions.

 

[bagels]

The Norfolk Four reading it on Wiki, looks like one big cock up, without their having a proper defence at the start.

Amanda and Raff had the most expensive defense they could buy, together with a PR firm, who usually promote celebrities.

Their defense didn't seem the best to me but I don't know much about Italy. But overall the local first level Massei court seemed it probably would have convicted a ham sandwich, to borrow a phrase. When the case got in front of a real court that wasn't the Mignini and friends show, it was laughed out of the courtroom, literally. The court literally laughed at many points of the prosecution's case, witnesses, investigation, etc.

 

[Vixen]

While you are being dishonest about hiring a PR firm, I would have nothing against them doing. Martin Tankleff also involved a PR firm.

The lawyers defending Derek Tice and Eric C. Wilson were considered very good lawyers but juries are unwilling to accept the concept of false confessions.

In which way is it dishonest? Curt Knox did indeed hire a PR firm. Fact.

It's a pity he refused to pay child support when it mattered.

 

[Vixen]

Just a small reminder:

Amanda and Raffaele were not in a US police station, but in an Italian police station. Italian law, constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights applied. Their rights were violated under these laws.

Here is some of the ECHR case-law that applies to their situations during the questioning of Nov. 5/6 and subsequent custody (this does not include certain other issues, such as violations by the Italian authorities of Article 3, prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment):



Source: http://echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf

It is not so that if someone walks into a police station and makes a voluntary confession, as Amanda did, you are safe from prosecution because you haven't brought a lawyer with you.

 

[Vixen]

Ok, you refuse to deal with 9.2/9.3, and then simply restate your original premise.

You'll never in a million years do either of two things.

1) deal with 9.2/9.3.
2) admit you posted a photo that actually refuted a point you were making.​

There was a weak apology for giving the wrong age for the sister. Yet, you carried on regardless....

Your ability to twist facts to suit yourself is amazing. Section 9.2/9.3 is not Bruno and Marasca going through groundless hypotheses and refuting them (like strawmen). A judgment is a document that settles a matter.

They are not saying, "if" Amanda was there, they are decreeing (=making it a legal fact) she was.

It's really quite insidious for you to assume the report is so unreadable you can sneak in and pretend to others it says something you KNOW it doesn't. It's called dissembling, and you appear to be trying to make it an art.

 

[Vixen]

While you are being dishonest about hiring a PR firm, I would have nothing against them doing. Martin Tankleff also involved a PR firm.

The lawyers defending Derek Tice and Eric C. Wilson were considered very good lawyers but juries are unwilling to accept the concept of false confessions.

I know very little about the Norfolk Four case. However, there is another case here of so-called false confession and it was videotaped. So even if the cops had the foresight to tape Amanda's confession of introducing the rapist/murderer to Mez, how would it have made a difference?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...e-tactics-that-can-lead-to-false-confessions/

 

[Bill Williams]

Your ability to twist facts to suit yourself is amazing. Section 9.2/9.3 is not Bruno and Marasca going through groundless hypotheses and refuting them (like strawmen). A judgment is a document that settles a matter.

They are not saying, "if" Amanda was there, they are decreeing (=making it a legal fact) she was.

It's really quite insidious for you to assume the report is so unreadable you can sneak in and pretend to others it says something you KNOW it doesn't. It's called dissembling, and you appear to be trying to make it an art.

The two sections are reprinted (in translation) above. You continue to avoid dealing with them, choosing instead to ignore their meaning.

That's your right.

Read the first sentence of 9.2. What do you suppose it means?

 

[LondonJohn]

It is not so that if someone walks into a police station and makes a voluntary confession, as Amanda did, you are safe from prosecution because you haven't brought a lawyer with you.

Uh yes. Yes it is. This shows just how ignorant you are on relevant legal issues.

If someone walks into a police station and makes a confession to a crime, what must happen is the following: the person must be arrested and cautioned (including the right to silence and the right to a lawyer). The person will then be interviewed under caution, and invited to make another statement under caution. Only if the person repeats the confession under the correct conditions and safeguards (i.e. in the informed knowledge of the right to silence and the right to a lawyer) can the confession be used in a court of law as evidence against that person.

You really have no clue about criminal law, do you? And yet you continue to present a crock of nonsense as "fact". You should be ashamed.

 

[Grinder]

For me, it's pretty easy to understand how this could happen. I think many of us are underestimating the incredible power of authority figures vs the lone individual citizen, and I also think many of us are underestimating the sheer fallibility of human memory - especially when put under severe pressure.

He also told that to little ole Mansey in a non threatening cafe. So the rest of your points fall by the wayside.

 

[Grinder]

Dying for your country is not murder. It is an act of supreme valiance. How insulting to put Amanda and Raffaele up there with war heroes. That is one of the sickest suggestions I have heard.

Didn't saying about dying for country.

 

[LondonJohn]

The two sections are reprinted (in translation) above. You continue to avoid dealing with them, choosing instead to ignore their meaning.

That's your right.

Read the first sentence of 9.2. What do you suppose it means?

It's totally clear to me that what the Marasca panel is doing is desperately trying to avoid any flat-out contradictions with the findings of fact affirmed by other, previous SC panels. Because to do so would open massive constitutional cans of worms.

Take, for example, the issue of whether or not Guede had accomplices. The SC panel in Guede's trial process affirmed the finding of fact from the lower courts that Guede had accomplices. So if the Marasca SC panel concluded that actually all the evidence pointed to Guede acting alone - as it has actually carefully made clear in coded parts of its judgement - it has two options. Either it flat-out says "We (the Marasca panel) rule that Guede acted alone", or it fudges the issue and/or avoids it. If it goes down the former route, all sorts of problems ensue - including even the possibility of the Guede trial process being reopened. If it goes down the latter route, however, there's no constitutional crisis since there is no direct conflict between different SC panel rulings.

I have little doubt that this is the whole reason why the Marasca SC panel has tried hard to accommodate the previous SC rulings as much as possible. I also have very little doubt that if the Marasca panel was not constrained by this issue, it would have forcefully concluded that all the evidence (and lack of evidence) pointed unequivocally to Guede acting alone, and to Knox and Sollecito having absolutely nothing to do with the assault and murder.

 

[Grinder]

Oh pur-leese. The police ask someone whether their spouse was with them all night. Of course, they are going to unequivocally say, he/she was with me that night. Unless of course there's no trust. For example, they are married to a philanderer or a slimeball.

Well though the point may be a stretch to you and I don't think Raf actually has made it himself, I woke the other day and my SO wasn't in bed. I looked around the place and couldn't find her. She had gone out in the middle of the night because she couldn't sleep to another residence of ours. Had she come back before I awoke I wouldn't have known she had been out.