Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Welshman]

PGP are not on trial for murder. Trials are in the public domain and as such, we are free to discuss them.

Vixen still refuses to answer my question how can the PGP be in a position to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when they lie themselves and condone and ignore the lies of others.

 

[Matthew Best]

You don't do yourself any favours by calling the public "haters". It's not a Justin Bieber fanclub full of 11-year olds where anyone who doesn't like him is a "hater". It's grown adults here.

Evidence required, I feel.

 

[Grinder]

I repeat, not one of the MRs in this case escapes nutty aspects. It appears M&B decided to end the case and basically stated the investigation was botched. They don't make it seem no case existed or they would have found them not guilty by paragraph 1.

There is something in it for everyone. It may be in Italy no one is surprised by any MR as they are used to and accept what we think of wacky rulings.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks Tesla,

I was actually looking for a court case involving evolution to drive the point home more succinctly.

You provided it.

Try this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
"Intelligent Design" is the 21st Century version of creationism, and in this case the local (Delaware) schoolboard was taken over by adherents to it. They started to require that Intelligent Design be taught alongside evolution in biology classes.

Was was notable about the courtcase was that Intelligent Design as a corpus of work, actually does no science - not peer-reviewed science anyway. It is chiefly the project of a Colorado evangelical lobby group called The Discovery Institute which tries to show how I.D. concepts are contained in mainline research - a claim very few reputable scientists support.

Indeed, when the case went to trial, the lone peer-reviewed scientist who would testify on behalf of the school-board (taken over by I.D. advocates) had to admit on cross-examination that the methods he had to concede to view I.D. as a "science" would also qualify Astrology to be seen as a science, and therefore taught in schools.

He also had to concede that he himself had not used I.D. in any of his own peer-reviewed work, and he was at a loss to cite a single example where it appeared in anyone else's peer reviewed work.

All this reminds me of guilters, actually.....

 

[Bill Williams]

I repeat, not one of the MRs in this case escapes nutty aspects. It appears M&B decided to end the case and basically stated the investigation was botched. They don't make it seem no case existed or they would have found them not guilty by paragraph 1.
There is something in it for everyone. It may be in Italy no one is surprised by any MR as they are used to and accept what we think of wacky rulings.

To the lay-mind, I'd argue that all reasons for judgement seem nutty to some degree. Some times they are forced to deal with idiomatic legal concepts the importance of which escapes everyone else except similarly trained people.

As for the highlighted part, there have been many well-considered posts to this very thread which would disagree. Some claim that the difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 is simply a legislative remnant which has not real practical implication - certainly not one claimed by lay-commentators. But then, what do I know.

 

[Vixen]

I repeat, not one of the MRs in this case escapes nutty aspects. It appears M&B decided to end the case and basically stated the investigation was botched. They don't make it seem no case existed or they would have found them not guilty by paragraph 1.

There is something in it for everyone. It may be in Italy no one is surprised by any MR as they are used to and accept what we think of wacky rulings.

The Bruno-Marasca verdict is nutty and unconstitutional even by Italy's standards.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen still refuses to answer my question how can the PGP be in a position to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when they lie themselves and condone and ignore the lies of others.

Perhaps if you provide two or three questions at a time, instead of a string of two or three dozen, then perhaps I can help you.

 

[Vixen]

No, the PGP are 9n trial for an unrelenting hate campaign where the Italian courts have said that they probably should never have been on trial.

Nowhere did Bruno-Marasca say they should not have been on trial. On the contrary, they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure.

Note the undermining of the police. A mafia hallmark.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nowhere did Bruno-Marasca say they should not have been on trial. On the contrary, they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure.

Note the undermining of the police. A mafia hallmark.

You have no idea how silly this remark is, do you.

As always, not a single citation for what "they say".

 

[Vixen]

You and Mach have lost the dictionary game again.

exoneration n (finding [sb] not guilty) assoluzione, discolpa nf
*
* proscioglimento nm

Source: http://www.wordreference.com/enit/exoneration

Synonyms of proscioglimento (noun}

assoluzione

Translations of proscioglimento (noun)

acquittal

assoluzione, proscioglimento

Source: https://translate.google.com/#it/en/proscioglimento

(And with thanks to Grinder)

The problem may be that certain posters are unaware of the definition of acquittal in English; here are some:

Full Definition of acquittal

: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process

{In other words, an acquittal = dropping charges}

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquittal

What is misleading is the idea that the word "proscioglimento" implies something about the type of acquittal a CSC panel gives.

Any acquittal without referral (as well as any affirmation of a lower court acquittal) by a CSC panel of judges is final and definitive and cannot be appealed or reversed; see CPP Articles 648, and 620.1 (l) with 621, case for letter (l). The last two articles referenced state that when the CSC decides on an annulment without referral, the CSC shall give the necessary decisions and instructions. If the decision is that there is an acquittal, Article 648 provides that it is a final judgment.

There is no appeal from a final decision of the CSC. There can be a revision trial, but only in case of a final conviction and certain additional conditions such as new evidence or an ECHR ruling of an unfair trial; see CPP Articles 629 and 630 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011.

And herein lies the conundrum. As Article 530 para II is exclusively used in the lower courts to "drop charges" due to insufficient evidence, and, as in the UK and USA, it means the prosecutor may, within time limits, still press charges should better evidence come up.

So, when Bruno-Marascaa use it - for only the second time in history and the first in a case where a unanimous "guilty" charge was found in both lower courts, trial and appeal - it must therefore convey the same legal meaning as applied by the lower courts, being a lower court rule.

Therefore, it does mean "dropped charges" as we know it and not "exonerated" in the usual meaning of the word. Q.E.D::

 

[Numbers]

I'm curious. Do you know if the Italians use terms like "with or without prejudice"?

I don't know if Italian law includes that terminology.

In US courts, a case dismissed "with prejudice" cannot be retried; one dismissed "without prejudice" can be retried. The judgment of "with prejudice" is based on the judge's evaluation of a case.

See: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dismissed-with-prejudice/

 

[Bill Williams]

And herein lies the conundrum. As Article 530 para II is exclusively used in the lower courts to "drop charges" due to insufficient evidence, and, as in the UK and USA, it means the prosecutor may, within time limits, still press charges should better evidence come up.

So, when Bruno-Marascaa use it - for only the second time in history and the first in a case where a unanimous "guilty" charge was found in both lower courts, trial and appeal - it must therefore convey the same legal meaning as applied by the lower courts, being a lower court rule.

Therefore, it does mean "dropped charges" as we know it and not "exonerated" in the usual meaning of the word. Q.E.D::

You need to stop getting your Italian legal advice from Machiavelli. There is no Italian legal expert who will put their real name to an interpretation like this. How do I know? It would have happened by now. So far it is only the writing of anonymous arm-chair detectives.

 

[Vixen]

You have no idea how silly this remark is, do you.

As always, not a single citation for what "they say".

In their Motivation Report, Bruno-Marasca begin to discuss the points of appeal from Section 4 onwards (Section 1 being the summary of the case and Sections 2 and 3 the points of appeal).

The main reasons given - by virtue they are listed first - are (1) investigator incompetence and (2) media attention. Even Reuters and Assiociated Press were able to glean that much.

Herewith is the text for your ease of reference:

4. Meanwhile, it can’t be ignored, on a first summary overview, that the history of these
proceedings is characterized by a troubled and intrinsically contradictory path, with the only fact
of irrefutable certainty being the guilt of Amanda Knox regarding the slanderous accusations
against Patrick Lumumba. On the concern of the murder of Kercher, the declaration of guilt of
Knox and Sollecito, in first instance, was followed by a ruling of acquittal from the appeal Court
of Assizes of Perugia, consequent to an articulated evidential integration [the Conti-Vecchiotti
report, ed.]; the annulment by this Supreme Court, First Criminal Section; and finally the
judgment, on appeal, of the Court of assizes of Florence, today considered under a new Cassation
appeal.
An objectively wavering process, the oscillations of which are the result of glaring failures or
investigative “amnesias” and of culpable omissions in [24] investigating activities, which, had
they been carried out, would have, probably, allowed from the start the outline a framework, if
not of certainty, at least of reassuring reliability, in direction of either the guilt or the
non-involvement of the current appellants. Such scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes
a first, eloquent, representation of an evidential set of anything but “beyond reasonable doubt”.
4.1. Surely, an unusual media fuss about the crime, caused not just by the dramatic modalities of
the death of a 22-year old woman, so absurd and incomprehensible in its genesis, but also by the
nationality of the persons involved (a USA citizen, Knox, accused of participating in the murder
of her housemate who was sharing a foreign study experience with her; an English citizen,
Meredith Kercher, killed in mysterious circumstances in the place where she likely used to feel
most safe, her home, and additionally the international implications of the case itself, prompted
the investigation to suffer from a sudden acceleration, which, in the spasmodic search for one or
more culprits to be delivered to international public opinion, surely didn’t help the search for
substantial truth, which, in complex murder cases like the one examined here, has an ineluctible
requirement both for accurate timing, and also the completeness and accuracy of the investigation
activity. Not only that, but also, when – as in this case – the result of the search is greatly based
on the results of scientific examinations, the antiseptic sampling of all the elements useful to the
investigation – in an environment provided of the appropriate sterilization, so to shield it from
possible contaminations – constitutes, normally, the first cautionary strategy, itself the vital
prelude to a correct analysis and “reading” of the retrieved samples. And if the key part of the
activity of technical-scientific research consists in specific genetic investigations, whose
contribution in the investigative activity emerges as more and more relevant, the reliable
parameter of correctness can only be the respect of standards imposed by the international
protocols which outline the fundamental rules of procedure of the scientific community, on the
basis of statistic and epistemological observation.
The rigorous respect for such methodological standards provides a reliability, conventionally
acceptable, in the assembled results, firstly related to their repeatability – that is the possibility
that those findings, and those alone, would be reproduced by an identical investigative procedure
0in identical conditions, according to the fundamental laws of the empiric method and, more
generally, of experimental science, that since Galileo has been based on the application of a
“scientific method” (typical procedure meant to obtain knowledge of “objective” reality, reliable,
verifiable and sharable; by common knowledge this consists, on one hand, in the collection of
empiric data in relation to the hypothesis and theories to be confirmed; on the other hand, in the
mathematical and rigorous analysis of such data, that is associating – as stated for the first time
by aforementioned Galileo – “sensible experiences” with “necessary demonstrations” that is the
experimentation with mathematics.
4.2. As we will see, all of this is basically missing

 

[Bill Williams]

Nowhere did Bruno-Marasca say they should not have been on trial. On the contrary, they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure.
Note the undermining of the police. A mafia hallmark.

You have no idea how silly this remark is, do you.

As always, not a single citation for what "they say".

In their Motivation Report, Bruno-Marasca begin to discuss the points of appeal from Section 4 onwards (Section 1 being the summary of the case and Sections 2 and 3 the points of appeal).

The main reasons given - by virtue they are listed first - are (1) investigator incompetence and (2) media attention. Even Reuters and Assiociated Press were able to glean that much.

Herewith is the text for your ease of reference:

4. Meanwhile, it can’t be ignored, on a first summary overview, that the history of these
proceedings is characterized by a troubled and intrinsically contradictory path, with the only fact
of irrefutable certainty being the guilt of Amanda Knox regarding the slanderous accusations
against Patrick Lumumba. On the concern of the murder of Kercher, the declaration of guilt of
Knox and Sollecito, in first instance, was followed by a ruling of acquittal from the appeal Court
of Assizes of Perugia, consequent to an articulated evidential integration [the Conti-Vecchiotti
report, ed.]; the annulment by this Supreme Court, First Criminal Section; and finally the
judgment, on appeal, of the Court of assizes of Florence, today considered under a new Cassation
appeal.
An objectively wavering process, the oscillations of which are the result of glaring failures or
investigative “amnesias” and of culpable omissions in [24] investigating activities, which, had
they been carried out, would have, probably, allowed from the start the outline a framework, if
not of certainty, at least of reassuring reliability, in direction of either the guilt or the
non-involvement of the current appellants. Such scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes
a first, eloquent, representation of an evidential set of anything but “beyond reasonable doubt”.
4.1. Surely, an unusual media fuss about the crime, caused not just by the dramatic modalities of
the death of a 22-year old woman, so absurd and incomprehensible in its genesis, but also by the
nationality of the persons involved (a USA citizen, Knox, accused of participating in the murder
of her housemate who was sharing a foreign study experience with her; an English citizen,
Meredith Kercher, killed in mysterious circumstances in the place where she likely used to feel
most safe, her home, and additionally the international implications of the case itself, prompted
the investigation to suffer from a sudden acceleration, which, in the spasmodic search for one or
more culprits to be delivered to international public opinion, surely didn’t help the search for
substantial truth, which, in complex murder cases like the one examined here, has an ineluctible
requirement both for accurate timing, and also the completeness and accuracy of the investigation
activity. Not only that, but also, when – as in this case – the result of the search is greatly based
on the results of scientific examinations, the antiseptic sampling of all the elements useful to the
investigation – in an environment provided of the appropriate sterilization, so to shield it from
possible contaminations – constitutes, normally, the first cautionary strategy, itself the vital
prelude to a correct analysis and “reading” of the retrieved samples. And if the key part of the
activity of technical-scientific research consists in specific genetic investigations, whose
contribution in the investigative activity emerges as more and more relevant, the reliable
parameter of correctness can only be the respect of standards imposed by the international
protocols which outline the fundamental rules of procedure of the scientific community, on the
basis of statistic and epistemological observation.
The rigorous respect for such methodological standards provides a reliability, conventionally
acceptable, in the assembled results, firstly related to their repeatability – that is the possibility
that those findings, and those alone, would be reproduced by an identical investigative procedure
0in identical conditions, according to the fundamental laws of the empiric method and, more
generally, of experimental science, that since Galileo has been based on the application of a
“scientific method” (typical procedure meant to obtain knowledge of “objective” reality, reliable,
verifiable and sharable; by common knowledge this consists, on one hand, in the collection of
empiric data in relation to the hypothesis and theories to be confirmed; on the other hand, in the
mathematical and rigorous analysis of such data, that is associating – as stated for the first time
by aforementioned Galileo – “sensible experiences” with “necessary demonstrations” that is the
experimentation with mathematics.
4.2. As we will see, all of this is basically missing

The silliness and evasion continues.

Nowhere does this sustain your (apparently random) remark, "they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure."

 

[Vixen]

You need to stop getting your Italian legal advice from Machiavelli. There is no Italian legal expert who will put their real name to an interpretation like this. How do I know? It would have happened by now. So far it is only the writing of anonymous arm-chair detectives.

They are not Machiavelli's views, they are mine. I will let Mach express his own views which may or may not differ.

Your barbs about Andrea Vogt's quote about "armchair detective" indicates you do not understand Vogt's misgivings as a journalist, which are based on things unseen to the public eye.

Hold your horses!

 

[Bill Williams]

They are not Machiavelli's views, they are mine. I will let Mach express his own views which may or may not differ.

Your barbs about Andrea Vogt's quote about "armchair detective" indicates you do not understand Vogt's misgivings as a journalist, which are based on things unseen to the public eye.

Hold your horses!

This is worse than I thought. I apologize to Machiavelli. It's also good to have confirmed that there is no Italian language legal opinion confirming your views.

 

[Vixen]

The silliness and evasion continues.

Nowhere does this sustain your (apparently random) remark, "they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure."

"Bill", this comes in Bruno-Marasca's determinations in Section 9, which I thought you were familiar with, as we discussed this yesterdy.

Herewith again:

9. The noted errors in judgment and the logical inconsistencies conflict fundamentally with the
appealed sentence which therefore deserves to be annulled.
The aforementioned invalidating reasons mount up in the absence of a possible framework of
proof that could really be accepted as able to support a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
as required by article 533 of the code of criminal procedure, in the recent text of article 5 of law
n. 46 of 2006.
Regarding the discussion of the range of meaning of that rule and its possible reflection on the
evaluation of the evidence, this Court of Cassation has more than once had occasion to restate
that "the normative prevision of the judgmental rule of beyond reasonable doubt which is based
on the constitutional principle of presumed innocence, has not led to a different and more
restrictive criteria of evaluation of the proof, but has coded the jurisprudential principle
according to which the declaration of the sentence has to be based on certainty with regard to the
accused ( Section 2, n. 7035 of 09 November 2012, dep. 2013, De Bartolomei, Rv. 254025;
Section 2, n. 16357 of 2 April 2008, Crisiglione¸ Rv. 239795).
It is not in essence an innovative or “revolutionary” principle, but the mere formal recognition of
a judgment rule already existing in the judiciary experience of our Country and therefore already
in firm force regarding the conditions for a sentence, given the preexistent rule of article 530,
second chapter, of the code of criminal procedure, according to which, in case of insufficiency or
contradiction of the evidence, the accused has to be acquitted. (Section 1, n. 30402 of 28/062006,
Volpon, Rv.234374).
On the basis of such premises the principle was enhanced according to which "the judgmental
rule contained in the formula for beyond any reasonable doubt requires the pronouncing of a
guilty sentence only when the acquired proofs excludes all but the remotest eventualities, even if
supposable in theory and considered possible in the nature of things, but it is obvious that in this
concrete case, the investigation results lacked any verification during the trial, unless outside the
natural order of things and normal human rationality" (Section 2, n. 2548 of 19/12/2014, dep.
2015, Segura, Rv. 262280); together with the enunciation that alternative reconstructions of the
crime have to be based on reliable probative elements, because the doubt which inspires them
cannot be founded on merely conjectural hypothesis, even if plausible, but has to be
characterized by rationality (cfr Section 4, n. 22257 of the 25/03/2014, Guernelli, Rv. 259204;
Section 1, n. 17921 of the 03/03/2010, Giampà, Rv. 247449; Section 1, n. 23813 of 08/05/2009,
Manikam, Rv. 243801).
9.1 The intrinsically contradictory quality of the body of proof, the objective uncertainty of which
is emphasized by the highlighted irregular progression of the proceeding, doesn’t allow us to
consider it as having passed the standard of no reasonable doubt, the consecration of which is a
milestone in juridical civilization which has to be protected for always as an expression of
fundamental constitutional values clustered around the central role of the person in the legal
system, whose protection is effected at trial by the principle of presumption of innocence until
there is definitive verification, according to article 27, chapter 2, of the Constitution.
9.2. The terms of objective contradictions in the proof here can be illustrated for each appellant,
in a synoptic examination of the elements favorable to the hypothesis of guilt and the elements to
the contrary in the text of the appeal and the defense declarations.
9.3. It is useful to the side by side examination of these profiles to consider that, given the
committing of the homicide in via della Pergola, the supposed presence in the house of the
current appellants cannot, in itself be considered as a demonstrative element of guilt. In the
evaluative approach to the problematic compendium of proof offered by the appellate judge, we
cannot ignore the juridical categories of “non-punishable connivance” and “participation of
persons in the crime committed by others” and the distinction between them as accepted by
indisputables decision of the Court of Cassation.
In this regard, it is well understood that the distinction

It is worth familiarising yourself with how a Motivation Report is set out.

 

[Vixen]

This certainly does not describe guilters. Guilters are not skeptical about their innocence, they are sure of their guilt. So much so that they will flood threads with post after post of simple declarations, devoid of any citation or link to any sort of proof.

My contention is that ordinary member of the public do not post pictures of windows with bars across them, then claim there are not bars across them, and then refuse to admit that they had done so. Ordinary members of the public, in my view, are very sympathetic with evidence-based reasoning.

Logical fallacy = disproportionate points of argument. (Ambiguous and irrelevant blurred pic = lack of evidence based reasoning.)
Logical fallacy = false premise ('Guilters flood threads' implying 'innoscenti do not'.)

Please sort out your jumble of illogical assertions.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Bill", this comes in Bruno-Marasca's determinations in Section 9, which I thought you were familiar with, as we discussed this yesterdy.

Herewith again:

9. The noted errors in judgment and the logical inconsistencies conflict fundamentally with the
appealed sentence which therefore deserves to be annulled.
The aforementioned invalidating reasons mount up in the absence of a possible framework of
proof that could really be accepted as able to support a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
as required by article 533 of the code of criminal procedure, in the recent text of article 5 of law
n. 46 of 2006.
Regarding the discussion of the range of meaning of that rule and its possible reflection on the
evaluation of the evidence, this Court of Cassation has more than once had occasion to restate
that "the normative prevision of the judgmental rule of beyond reasonable doubt which is based
on the constitutional principle of presumed innocence, has not led to a different and more
restrictive criteria of evaluation of the proof, but has coded the jurisprudential principle
according to which the declaration of the sentence has to be based on certainty with regard to the
accused ( Section 2, n. 7035 of 09 November 2012, dep. 2013, De Bartolomei, Rv. 254025;
Section 2, n. 16357 of 2 April 2008, Crisiglione¸ Rv. 239795).
It is not in essence an innovative or “revolutionary” principle, but the mere formal recognition of
a judgment rule already existing in the judiciary experience of our Country and therefore already
in firm force regarding the conditions for a sentence, given the preexistent rule of article 530,
second chapter, of the code of criminal procedure, according to which, in case of insufficiency or
contradiction of the evidence, the accused has to be acquitted. (Section 1, n. 30402 of 28/062006,
Volpon, Rv.234374).
On the basis of such premises the principle was enhanced according to which "the judgmental
rule contained in the formula for beyond any reasonable doubt requires the pronouncing of a
guilty sentence only when the acquired proofs excludes all but the remotest eventualities, even if
supposable in theory and considered possible in the nature of things, but it is obvious that in this
concrete case, the investigation results lacked any verification during the trial, unless outside the
natural order of things and normal human rationality" (Section 2, n. 2548 of 19/12/2014, dep.
2015, Segura, Rv. 262280); together with the enunciation that alternative reconstructions of the
crime have to be based on reliable probative elements, because the doubt which inspires them
cannot be founded on merely conjectural hypothesis, even if plausible, but has to be
characterized by rationality (cfr Section 4, n. 22257 of the 25/03/2014, Guernelli, Rv. 259204;
Section 1, n. 17921 of the 03/03/2010, Giampà, Rv. 247449; Section 1, n. 23813 of 08/05/2009,
Manikam, Rv. 243801).
9.1 The intrinsically contradictory quality of the body of proof, the objective uncertainty of which
is emphasized by the highlighted irregular progression of the proceeding, doesn’t allow us to
consider it as having passed the standard of no reasonable doubt, the consecration of which is a
milestone in juridical civilization which has to be protected for always as an expression of
fundamental constitutional values clustered around the central role of the person in the legal
system, whose protection is effected at trial by the principle of presumption of innocence until
there is definitive verification, according to article 27, chapter 2, of the Constitution.
9.2. The terms of objective contradictions in the proof here can be illustrated for each appellant,
in a synoptic examination of the elements favorable to the hypothesis of guilt and the elements to
the contrary in the text of the appeal and the defense declarations.
9.3. It is useful to the side by side examination of these profiles to consider that, given the
committing of the homicide in via della Pergola, the supposed presence in the house of the
current appellants cannot, in itself be considered as a demonstrative element of guilt. In the
evaluative approach to the problematic compendium of proof offered by the appellate judge, we
cannot ignore the juridical categories of “non-punishable connivance” and “participation of
persons in the crime committed by others” and the distinction between them as accepted by
indisputables decision of the Court of Cassation.
In this regard, it is well understood that the distinction

It is worth familiarising yourself with how a Motivation Report is set out.

Once again, you have not shown where M/B said that they were guilty, it's just that the lower courts blew it by not providing proof.

Hoots!

 

[Numbers]

BTW, I have found the Italian procedural law which defines when an individual becomes a suspect in the formal (legalistic) sense.

According to CPP Article 335, the Public Prosecutor must maintain in his office a dedicated register all notifications of crimes committed. CPP Article 335.1 states that the Public Prosecutor must (shall) enter immediately, simultaneously or as of the moment it is known, the name of the alleged perpetrator of the offence.

The ECHR in its judgments does not rely on the legalistic definition of suspect, but rather a de facto evaluation. The ECHR states that the rights guaranteed in the Convention must be "practical and effective", rather than "merely theoretical", and therefore, in its judgments, it looks at the actual practices of the authorities in a case.

Of interest, the Italian legal scholar Mitja Gialuz, Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste, in an essay "The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A reading guide" that is in the book The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, writes (page 27-28):

"...the right to defence corresponds to the right of silence of the accused. This is a cornerstone principle of the Italian criminal process system. It is expressly recognized by Article 64, par. 2, let. b, which obliges the authority to inform the accused of his right to remain silent before commencing the interview." Furthermore, Article 63 regulates what happens when a person who is not suspect or accused makes a statement before an authority that arouses suspicion against him: the interview is interrupted, the interviewee is warned that following such a statement investigations may be carried out against him, and advise him to appoint a lawyer. Such statements may not be used against the interviewee. "Moreover, if the person should have been heard from the beginning as the accused or suspected person, his statements shall not be used, even against third persons."(CPP Article 63)

"In addition, it must be highlighted that the Italian Code {of Criminal Procedure} has erected a barrier against the police using the pretext of 'informational interviews' to circumvent the necessity of advising a suspect of the right to counsel and the right to remain silent: Article 350, par. 7, of Italian CPP makes even spontaneous statements to the police in the absence of counsel inadmissible in court."

All of the above is applicable to the Amanda Knox case, and in particular to the abuse of the CPP even by the Italian courts in convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. That an Italian professor analyzes Italian procedural law exactly as an objective outsider would suggests that the ECHR will have no problem seeing Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba as unfair and a violation of Convention Article 6.