Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Hiya ACbyTesla!
I was doin' some diggin' awhile back, as Grinder kept harpin' on the Nina angle. Finally gave up, as I don't speak nor read Italian, Google and the other translatin' sites kinda suck. And bein' as I'm over 50 nowadays, still young in mind, but gettin' older in body, well that silly request did take up a lil' bit of the last 50 years of my life, if I live to be reaaally old, ya know? Hahaha.


Besides,
it's all a waste of time,
Amanda Knox + [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE] are FREE!
Right?


Anyways, check this out.
Reading in some of the Italian Forums about this case you all still discuss daily, found by using Google.IT and digging thru many newspapers, etc. I found a lil gem that I'd never read of before. I might even have saved a link to it somewhere.

The Italian poster wrote that the backpack Rudy Guede had with him, when busted in The Nursery School on Oct. 27th (with a huuuge kitchen knife inside, I seem to recall) well it was the same 1, I guess same name brand, color, style, etc, as 1 backpack that was stolen from Mrs. Diaz flat just a coupla days earlier, on Oct. 23rd. If true, well that's kinda odd.
What,
did "poor" Rudy purchase the backpack too when he bought the stolen laptop from The Lawyers Office at the train station in Milan?
Hmmmm.

See ya,
RW

Yes what a gem. And how would this poster know either the brand alleged stolen from the alleged old lady or the brand that the police found him with?

Perhaps you should first find the police report of the items found with Rudi. second find the police report from the Diaz caper listing out the stolen items.

Anyway this would just show what a poor job Nina did on this as she would have missed this direct connection and it would have been easy.

 

[Grinder]

It was mentioned even before this. It is discussed in the Massei Motivations on pages 17 and 18;



And so on. I only excerpted the first part.

Great. It surely makes sense that this illegal behavior was called out early on. It would be great if it was readable. Can you shed some light on what that quote means exactly.

 

[acbytesla]

Hiya ACbyTesla!
I was doin' some diggin' awhile back, as Grinder kept harpin' on the Nina angle. Finally gave up, as I don't speak nor read Italian, Google and the other translatin' sites kinda suck. And bein' as I'm over 50 nowadays, still young in mind, but gettin' older in body, well that silly request did take up a lil' bit of the last 50 years of my life, if I live to be reaaally old, ya know? Hahaha.


Besides,
it's all a waste of time,
Amanda Knox + [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE] are FREE!
Right?


Anyways, check this out.
Reading in some of the Italian Forums about this case you all still discuss daily, found by using Google.IT and digging thru many newspapers, etc. I found a lil gem that I'd never read of before. I might even have saved a link to it somewhere.

The Italian poster wrote that the backpack Rudy Guede had with him,
when busted in The Nursery School on Oct. 27th (with a huuuge kitchen knife inside, I seem to recall) well it was the same 1, I guess same name brand, color, style, etc, as 1 backpack that was stolen from Mrs. Diaz flat just a coupla days earlier, on Oct. 23rd.

If true,
well that's kinda odd.

What,
did "poor" Rudy purchase the backpack too when he bought the stolen laptop from The Lawyers Office at the train station in Milan?
Hmmmm.

See ya,
RW

Really? WOW!! But of course, people on these forums often get things wrong...see Vixen. I have been tempted to track down Nina again for the info on the burglary but I don't want to appear as a crazed lunatic ...if you get my drift.

 

[christianahannah]

Great. It surely makes sense that this illegal behavior was called out early on. It would be great if it was readable. Can you shed some light on what that quote means exactly.

I don't know that it can be called illegal, however, I guess that could be a matter of interpretation.

You have to read all of the discussion on pages 17 and 18. Then it will become clear (or not).

 

[Grinder]

Really? WOW!! But of course, people on these forums often get things wrong...see Vixen. I have been tempted to track down Nina again for the info on the burglary but I don't want to appear as a crazed lunatic ...if you get my drift.

Well hello you actually recognize that an alleged anonymous post provided here by a super advocate for Nina saying things that are difficult to believe could be known by just anybody or we would long ago have seen the same sources the alleged poster had isn't solid or the least bit credible.

In order to remain a sane lunatic why not ask her if she can provide the list of items stolen from Diaz. Or ask Bill to ask Cheli to dig out the police reports or Frank or ?

Tesla do you really believe that if the whole Diaz story was genuine that no more information has come forward in 8 years. You really think the defense that made such an issue over Rudi's crimes wouldn't have presented the lists of items stolen from her and found with Rudi?

Was Diaz a backpacker or did she stay at youth hostels?

 

[Grinder]

I don't know that it can be called illegal, however, I guess that could be a matter of interpretation.

You have to read all of the discussion on pages 17 and 18. Then it will become clear (or not).

Thanks again. I'll read it. I would think an act violating the constitution would be illegal but maybe not.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks again. I'll read it. I would think an act violating the constitution would be illegal but maybe not.

It depends on what the remedy is for violating the constitution. Maybe it just invalidates the action and nothing else.

 

[acbytesla]

Well hello you actually recognize that an alleged anonymous post provided here by a super advocate for Nina saying things that are difficult to believe could be known by just anybody or we would long ago have seen the same sources the alleged poster had isn't solid or the least bit credible.

In order to remain a sane lunatic why not ask her if she can provide the list of items stolen from Diaz. Or ask Bill to ask Cheli to dig out the police reports or Frank or ?

Tesla do you really believe that if the whole Diaz story was genuine that no more information has come forward in 8 years. You really think the defense that made such an issue over Rudi's crimes wouldn't have presented the lists of items stolen from her and found with Rudi?

Was Diaz a backpacker or did she stay at youth hostels?

First I think the very aspect of continuing to ask Nina about the case makes me look like a stalker. I asked her a couple of times via email and it was pretty clear that she didn't trust my motives. So approaching her again a few years later does not seem likely to produce results.

While I am extremely skeptical about the backpack. If there was 2 police reports from 2 different burglaries that described in detail matching items, I'm confident it would have made it into the trial.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks again. I'll read it. I would think an act violating the constitution would be illegal but maybe not.

In Italy, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 104, legal counsel must be provided immediately to someone who has been arrested or detained, unless there are "specific and exceptional reasons of caution" which must be detailed in writing (a "reasoned decree") by a judge or the prosecutor.

This provision is invoked, I believe, not for "ordinary" crimes but for those where organized-crime or terrorist conspiracies are alleged. However, the wording of CPP Article 104 does not specify the type of crime, but mandates the reasoned decree.

The failure to provide a lawyer to a person being interrogated or in custody from the very beginning of questioning or custody, and use of any statement obtained from that person during that period to obtain a conviction, is a violation the rights of that person under the European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 6.1 with 6.3c. That would apply to Amanda's conviction for calunnia, while Raffaele and Amanda were definitively acquitted on the main charges.

The failure of the Italian authorities to have provided Raffaele with a lawyer from the first interrogation, and during the period of days he was in custody before his arrest hearing, without a "reasoned decree", may mean that his precautionary detention was not legally executed, according to Italian procedural law and the ECHR (that is, a violation of Convention Article 5), and was thus a violation of his rights, and thus may entitle him to additional compensation from Italy.

It may be that the censure of Mignini by the CSM (Supreme Council of the Judiciary) was initiated by the Italian Minister of Justice, because that reflects the wording in the Italian Constitution, Article 107:

Article 107 [Disciplinary Action]
(1) Members of the judiciary may not be removed from office. They may not be dismissed, suspended, or moved to other jurisdictions or functions except either by decision of the superior council of the judiciary for reasons and with opportunity of defense as defined by the organizational law, or by their own consent.
(2) The Minister of Justice may {or, has the power to} initiate disciplinary action.(3) Judges may only be distinguished by function.
(4) The public prosecutor enjoys the guarantees {of the judiciary} defined by the organizational law.

 

[Grinder]

In Italy, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 104, legal counsel must be provided immediately to someone who has been arrested or detained immediately, unless there are "specific and exceptional reasons of caution" which must be detailed in writing (a "reasoned decree") by a judge or the prosecutor.

This provision is invoked, I believe, not for "ordinary" crimes but for those where organized-crime or terrorist conspiracies are alleged. However, the wording of CPP Article 104 does not specify the type of crime, but mandates the reasoned decree.

The failure to provide a lawyer to an interrogated or person in custody from the very beginning of questioning or custody, and use of any statement obtained from that person during that period to obtain a conviction, is a violation the rights of that person under the European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 6.1 with 6.3c. That would apply to Amanda's conviction for calunnia, while Raffaele and Amanda were definitively acquitted on the main charges.

The failure of the Italian authorities to have provided Raffaele with a lawyer from the first interrogation, and during the period of days he was in custody before his arrest hearing, without a "reasoned decree", may mean that his precautionary detention was not legally executed, according to Italian procedural law and the ECHR (that is, a violation of Convention Article 5), and was thus a violation of his rights, and thus may entitle him to additional compensation from Italy.

It may be that the censure of Mignini by the CSM (Supreme Council of the Judiciary) was initiated by the Italian Minister of Justice, because that reflects the wording in the Italian Constitution, Article 107:

Article 107 [Disciplinary Action]
(1) Members of the judiciary may not be removed from office. They may not be dismissed, suspended, or moved to other jurisdictions or functions except either by decision of the superior council of the judiciary for reasons and with opportunity of defense as defined by the organizational law, or by their own consent.
(2) The Minister of Justice may {or, has the power to} initiate disciplinary action.(3) Judges may only be distinguished by function.
(4) The public prosecutor enjoys the guarantees {of the judiciary} defined by the organizational law.

Good stuff. I had speculated that this censure might have been initiated internally by the system as opposed to Raf. Do you think it is possible that this came from complaints back in 2008 or 9?

 

[Numbers]

Duplicate deleted.

 

[Numbers]

Good stuff. I had speculated that this censure might have been initiated internally by the system as opposed to Raf. Do you think it is possible that this came from complaints back in 2008 or 9?

Any answer would be only speculation on my part. I do not know if Raffaele and his lawyers would have filed a complaint with the Minister of Justice, or whether the Ministry of Justice independently monitors the judiciary including the prosecutors for apparent cases of official misconduct.

I also cannot predict whether or not there will be additional cases of censure from the CSM against Mignini or the judges who may have committed official misconduct in the Knox - Sollecito case. I hope that such censures are sought by the Minister of Justice.

 

[RWVBWL]

Well hello you actually recognize that an alleged anonymous post provided here by a super advocate for Nina saying things that are difficult to believe could be known by just anybody or we would long ago have seen the same sources the alleged poster had isn't solid or the least bit credible.
<snip>

Is it my opinion only,
or has been Grinder calling Burleigh a liar with regards to the Diaz Incident?

Kinda insinuating that Nina Burleigh might have totally fabricated and lied about this particular incident? Whoa!

That seems to be a pretty gnarly accusation against a well respected journalist.
My humble opinion only.
Hmmmm.

Gotta run,
got some drinkin' + editin' surfix to do as I listen to The Best of The Best of Patsy.
Enjoy...

That said,
Good evenin',
or day, to ya'all!
RW

 

[acbytesla]

Is it my opinion only,
or has been Grinder calling Burleigh a liar with regards to the Diaz Incident?

Kinda insinuating that Nina Burleigh might have totally fabricated and lied about this particular incident? Whoa!

That seems to be a pretty gnarly accusation against a well respected journalist.
My humble opinion only.
Hmmmm.

Gotta run,
got some drinkin' + editin' surfix to do as I listen to The Best of The Best of Patsy.
Enjoy...

That said,
Good evenin',
or day, to ya'all!
RW

I believe Nina, but it's irrelevant now. Amanda and Raffaele are free and have been exonerated. That's another reason not to go back and ask Nina.

 

[Mike1711]

A defendant appears in court. Any previous convictions? No, m'Lud.


Clear now?

Aahhhh. I see. Now you speak of "conviction" whereas before you spoke off burglar. In your bubble there are only convicted fellons and innocent people. Serial killers are not serial killers until they're convicted?

Interesting. Does accountancy "work" this way as well?

Picture the scene....

Husband driving as 200km per hour
Wife:- "You're speeding!"
Husband:- "No I'm not. Where's the conviction?".

I can think of examples involving theft. Can you?

 

[Mike1711]

Do keep up. bagels said police should have known Rudy would go on to kill Meredith, as he was a burglar. I merely challenged what is a false premise. To you, it might be given "Rudy was a burglar who went onto kill, when interrupted burgling", as you are an ardent pro-Knox advocate. A more neutral person such as a judge, will not "just take bagels' word for it".

Bagel never said anything of the sort.

 

[Methos]

It was an error in that Mignini's administrators omitted to give Raff written notice he could consult a lawyer now he was arrested. We can infer it was an error, rather than obstruction of justice, as Raff was told this verbally and a police transcipt proves it. In addition, Raff did consult with his counsel, so no actual rights denied

Not exactly, the complaint and censure were about PM Mignini actively preventing Raffaele Sollecito to meet and consult with his lawyer.
IIUC, his defense is that there was a misunderstanding, despite the order in the prison assignment being quite clear:

Il P.M. ha disposto regime di isolamento e di divieto di colloquio tra gli stessi ed i loro legali.

I guess Profazio is the one to blame.

 

[Mr Fied]

In Italy, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 104, legal counsel must be provided immediately to someone who has been arrested or detained, unless there are "specific and exceptional reasons of caution" which must be detailed in writing (a "reasoned decree") by a judge or the prosecutor.

This provision is invoked, I believe, not for "ordinary" crimes but for those where organized-crime or terrorist conspiracies are alleged. However, the wording of CPP Article 104 does not specify the type of crime, but mandates the reasoned decree.

The failure to provide a lawyer to a person being interrogated or in custody from the very beginning of questioning or custody, and use of any statement obtained from that person during that period to obtain a conviction, is a violation the rights of that person under the European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 6.1 with 6.3c. That would apply to Amanda's conviction for calunnia, while Raffaele and Amanda were definitively acquitted on the main charges.

The failure of the Italian authorities to have provided Raffaele with a lawyer from the first interrogation, and during the period of days he was in custody before his arrest hearing, without a "reasoned decree", may mean that his precautionary detention was not legally executed, according to Italian procedural law and the ECHR (that is, a violation of Convention Article 5), and was thus a violation of his rights, and thus may entitle him to additional compensation from Italy.

It may be that the censure of Mignini by the CSM (Supreme Council of the Judiciary) was initiated by the Italian Minister of Justice, because that reflects the wording in the Italian Constitution, Article 107:

Article 107 [Disciplinary Action]
(1) Members of the judiciary may not be removed from office. They may not be dismissed, suspended, or moved to other jurisdictions or functions except either by decision of the superior council of the judiciary for reasons and with opportunity of defense as defined by the organizational law, or by their own consent.
(2) The Minister of Justice may {or, has the power to} initiate disciplinary action.
(3) Judges may only be distinguished by function.
(4) The public prosecutor enjoys the guarantees {of the judiciary} defined by the organizational law.

Does the highlighted part put an end to the need of the argument as to whether the pair were suspects or not on the night of 5/6 November?

Unless the police can provide proof, written or recorded, that the pair were free to leave at anytime then surely they were "detained" .

 

[analemma]

Huh? You're the one suggesting that it is illegal or not correct to describe Rudy as a burglar simply because he has not been convicted of burglary. BTW, The Hellman court said he was a burglar.

You're suggestion is ridiculous. Rudy is a burglar. PERIOD.

Nencini described Rudy as an "expert burglar".
Nencini wrote tone poems about the fact that an "Expert burglar" like Rudy would not have used the window to enter.
Every judge says that Rudy is a burglar.
This Vixen BS is becoming preposterous
Vixen should get a grip

 

[Vixen]

It's such a farce to hear Vixen say this was a minor error. Ooooops, you spent 4 years in prison.

"You spent three years in jail" for committing a serious crime, as reflected in the sentencing.