Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

There are plenty of ECHR rulings we ignore. For example, most UK employees are given a piece of paper to sign "opting out" of the ECHR ordained 48-hour week. (Maximum hours an employer can make staff work.)

I've come across other examples in my profession.

You can ignore them all you want. It still makes no difference in an ECHR ruling against (or for) Italy.

 

[Stacyhs]

I stopped as soon as I realised Planigale was getting me to look up all sorts of things just for the fun of it. My pet peeve is time wasting.

I agree...which is why you should not expect us to research your claims because you so often fail to cite evidence properly.

 

[Stacyhs]

How would you know, if you ae not familiar with the content? As your President Barack Obama said today in London, in the USA, we had three main channels; the conservatives watched FOX and the liberals read NYP or WT. They became more entrenched in their views as they never heard any opposing ones. He urged young people to listen to people with opposite views and you might learn something.

As I stated, I read the quotes from DD on TJMK and provided them in my post. I can provide the ticketing officer's paperwork which proves those statements in DD are false. But I suspect you know that.

I actually assumed AK and RS were guilty until I started reading opposing views and the evidence. It changed my mind. Might I suggest you take your own advice as the ISC has ruled there is no evidence placing AK or RS in MK's bedroom?

I did not fail to notice that you still have not provided evidence that " Stefanoni established this was not menstrual blood" by scientific testing. Nor have you provided any quotes from your DD source. Why not?

 

[Samson]

In honesty, I think in both cases the family believes the defendants are guilty. When the police tell you that a person is guilty, it is hard to believe otherwise.

That may be so, but there is no excuse for stupidity. In the case of the execrable Kercher family their silence following acquittal informs that they are shameless persecutors of the innocent.
...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rule 11 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Stacyhs]

It says it is an "executive office", so does this mean he has been moved sideways out of the judiciary?

I can honestly say, I have rarely read a more poorly written MR than his. He doesn't show much legal prowess at all.

Try reading Nencini. It's hysterical.

 

[Mr Fied]

There are plenty of ECHR rulings we ignore. For example, most UK employees are given a piece of paper to sign "opting out" of the ECHR ordained 48-hour week. (Maximum hours an employer can make staff work.)

I've come across other examples in my profession.

UK companies would be breaking the law by ignoring the Work Time Directive and leave themselves open to prosecution.


Article 6 of the EU Work Time Directive sets out the maximum working hours.

Article 6

Maximum weekly working time

Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, in keeping with the need to protect the safety and health of workers:

(a) the period of weekly working time is limited by means of laws, regulations or administrative provisions or by collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry;

(b) the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours.

Article 22 contains the provision for legally opting out of Article 6.

Article 22

Miscellaneous provisions

1. A Member State shall have the option not to apply Article 6, while respecting the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers, and provided it takes the necessary measures to ensure that:

(a) no employer requires a worker to work more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, calculated as an average for the reference period referred to in Article 16(b), unless he has first obtained the worker's agreement to perform such work;

(b) no worker is subjected to any detriment by his employer because he is not willing to give his agreement to perform such work;

(c) the employer keeps up-to-date records of all workers who carry out such work;

(d) the records are placed at the disposal of the competent authorities, which may, for reasons connected with the safety and/or health of workers, prohibit or restrict the possibility of exceeding the maximum weekly working hours;

(e) the employer provides the competent authorities at their request with information on cases in which agreement has been given by workers to perform work exceeding 48 hours over a period of seven days, calculated as an average for the reference period referred to in Article 16(b).

Before 23 November 2003, the Council shall, on the basis of a Commission proposal accompanied by an appraisal report, re-examine the provisions of this paragraph and decide on what action to take.

Opting out is not ignoring the Directive, it is simply applying one of the Articles of the Directive.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am fine with you not wanting to extend the debate. To be honest that's why I said in my post that "there is no need to rehearse the arguments". Also, by the way, my post was directed at Vixen, but you were very welcome to jump in. I did find your lawyer's comments that the "paragraphs are the same in law" very interesting. When you added the point about being "perceived as different in the media" I found it faintly ironic that one example of the Italian media which I quoted had a perception that was quite favourable to Amanda. I was just the messenger of course in quoting the journalist! I think perception is a bit of a dodgy concept, if there really is no difference in law.

The reports I found on google.it (then the dreaded Google translate) were initially all favourable to exoneration. Machiavelli then found one that was not and Grinder found another that wasn't. RAI3 now perhaps leads the league with "perception" virtually acquitting Rudy Guede!

So M/B left that in the shadows when that motivations report shed light and inflicted thunder on other issues bot peripheral and directly associated with the case. What it left in the shadows was no clear, unequivocal statement of innocence - although there's enough in that shadow to go there too, by reading the M/B report.

 

[Planigale]

There are plenty of ECHR rulings we ignore. For example, most UK employees are given a piece of paper to sign "opting out" of the ECHR ordained 48-hour week. (Maximum hours an employer can make staff work.)

I've come across other examples in my profession.

Vixen states something; immediate assumption is this is false.

The truth is the working hours directive is an EU regulation, The ECHR is NOT an EU institution but a council of europe institution that predates the EU. That is why countries such as Turkey or Russia that are not part of the EU are subject to ECHR judgements. The appropriate court for the working time directive is the European court of Justice (ECJ).

Vixen if you are thinking about Brexit - to be clear the UK will remain subject to the ECHR whether it is part of the EU or not. ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, nothing to do with working hours directive.

Do you see a pattern why people question you? You state a fact e.g. food is VAT exempt or working hours are to do with ECHR and it is false. These are easily verifiable facts. you state the Steffanoni tested for menstrual blood but fail to provide evidence that this is true. When you are so often wrong why should we believe you?

 

[Vixen]

I urge you not to resort to partial quotes that misrepresent what was actually said.

"Another expert, Professor Giovanni Arcudi from Tor Vergata University in Rome, said the footprint "does not possess clear and definite characteristics" that link it to Sollecito's Nike shoe. (Telegraph 24 Nov 2007)

"All the bloody shoeprints in the room where Kercher was found were compatible with the size 11 Nike Outbreak 2 shoes believed to be Guede’s, Rinaldi said, except for one smaller, unattributed shoeprint found on the pillow that was under Kercher’s body." (Andrea Vogt)

There were no size 42 prints as Guede wears a 44-45 (Giobbi). the print found on the pillow was not a woman's print nor was it claimed to be a size 42.


"Presiding Judge Giancarlo Massei asked Rinaldi what size that shoe print was, he responded “37 or 38.” He then asked what size Knox wears, and Rinaldi said according to other shoes sequestered from the crime scene, she wears a 37. A second print expert later testified that he believed the shoeprint to be that of a woman’s size 37.5 Asics tennis shoe. No Asics tennis shoes were among the 22 pairs sequestered by police from the three’s apartments."

Nor was there any evidence that Amanda had ever owned a pair of Asics.
Vinci, using crimescope unlike any of the prosecution experts, found that print to match Guede's Nike.

"“With the use of Crimescope which helps to select prints, treated chemically with fluorescing products, he found on the pillow case five good prints (3 superimposed) of a left shoe that delineates a sole that corresponds and measures exactly to a Nike Outbreak 2, size 45. Thus the foot of Guede. The disconcerting thing is that on that pillowcase the forensic police found only 2 traces: one of Guede and the other of a woman size 37.” (Oggi)


"A left shoe print was found on Meredith’s pillow, estimated to be between size 36 and 38. Knox wears a size 37. A defence expert (Professor Vinci) made a comparison of the sole pattern with Guede’s right shoe, and argued that the print could have been made by him. The Massei Court noted the conflicting theories without expressing a specific opinion but commented that it could not be excluded that “…Guede alone tr[od] on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox…” (http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-–-Part-3)

Vinci was torn part under cross examination. The court preferred Rinaldi & Boemia. Massei let Papa Raff have his crumb of comfort that the shoeprint in the room was Rudy's, even though, like the size 37 ladies ASCIS, that actual shoe was never recovered, either. However, he accepted the bathmat fooprint was highly compatible with Raff's foot and not at all compatible with Amanda's or Rudy's.

Vinci the fraud photoshopped her images to make them look compatible. Hardly scientific. Paid handsomely by the defense to blag it.

 

[Vixen]

I agree...which is why you should not expect us to research your claims because you so often fail to cite evidence properly.

That's a knowingly untrue claim, given I gave the relevant quotes.

 

[Vixen]

As I stated, I read the quotes from DD on TJMK and provided them in my post. I can provide the ticketing officer's paperwork which proves those statements in DD are false. But I suspect you know that.

I actually assumed AK and RS were guilty until I started reading opposing views and the evidence. It changed my mind. Might I suggest you take your own advice as the ISC has ruled there is no evidence placing AK or RS in MK's bedroom?

I did not fail to notice that you still have not provided evidence that " Stefanoni established this was not menstrual blood" by scientific testing. Nor have you provided any quotes from your DD source. Why not?

No, you have the same access to resources as me. If I have the knowledge Stefanoni specifically stated it was not menstrual blood in the bathroom, how come you do not?

 

[Vixen]

That may be so, but there is no excuse for stupidity. In the case of the execrable Kercher family their silence following acquittal informs that they are shameless persecutors of the innocent.
...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content redacted.

Your comments about the dignified long-suffering Kercher family are deeply offensive.

Whilst their beloved daughter had her life snuffed out and her "broken body" (=quote: Amanda) subject to the intense hacking apart of pathologist Lalli's circular saw and scalpel, the poor Kerchers have to witness Raff's smirking face in the media every day of the week and Amanda twerking away at Innocence Conference pretending to be an "exoneree".

She makes constant references to the grim murder, including writing a horror story script as entertainment for a pop video, which included her doing a prison dance in the background with a screw staring at the monitor of her twerking about, whilst the characters in the scene include bondage, butchers, zombies, maggots, occult symbology and three sinister figures chasing her down the stairs.

if anyone is execrable, it is the murderers and all of those who support them in their evil degenerate behaviour.

 

[Samson]

Your comments about the dignified long-suffering Kercher family are deeply offensive.

Whilst their beloved daughter had her life snuffed out and her "broken body" (=quote: Amanda) subject to the intense hacking apart of pathologist Lalli's circular saw and scalpel, the poor Kerchers have to witness Raff's smirking face in the media every day of the week and Amanda twerking away at Innocence Conference pretending to be an "exoneree".

She makes constant references to the grim murder, including writing a horror story script as entertainment for a pop video, which included her doing a prison dance in the background with a screw staring at the monitor of her twerking about, whilst the characters in the scene include bondage, butchers, zombies, maggots, occult symbology and three sinister figures chasing her down the stairs.

if anyone is execrable, it is the murderers and all of those who support them in their evil degenerate behaviour.

Vixen:
I have not the remotest doubt you know upper class Sollecito and faux hippy Knox are innocent of this offence. I also understand that the idiot south african who wrote the book has dissapared. Nick >??
You are an intelligent woman, and inevitably it will emerge why you are MOTIVATED to pretend this way.

I will never resile from the belief that the Kercher family are criminal in their behaviour.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen states something; immediate assumption is this is false.

The truth is the working hours directive is an EU regulation, The ECHR is NOT an EU institution but a council of europe institution that predates the EU. That is why countries such as Turkey or Russia that are not part of the EU are subject to ECHR judgements. The appropriate court for the working time directive is the European court of Justice (ECJ).

Vixen if you are thinking about Brexit - to be clear the UK will remain subject to the ECHR whether it is part of the EU or not. ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, nothing to do with working hours directive.

Do you see a pattern why people question you? You state a fact e.g. food is VAT exempt or working hours are to do with ECHR and it is false. These are easily verifiable facts. you state the Steffanoni tested for menstrual blood but fail to provide evidence that this is true. When you are so often wrong why should we believe you?

................ or when she posts a pic of the window below Filomena's at the cottage and claims there are no bars on it - bars that can boast a moderately athletic climber. Trouble is when one looks at it, the bars are clearly there.

Then she says that the climber for the Channel 5 recreation is 6'7".

All these are reasons to put her on ignore. But it is good to hear that Nick cut-and-paste is gone. He got ignored via no one buying his book.

 

[Desert Fox]

Vixen:
I have not the remotest doubt you know upper class Sollecito and faux hippy Knox are innocent of this offence. I also understand that the idiot south african who wrote the book has dissapared. Nick >??
You are an intelligent woman, and inevitably it will emerge why you are MOTIVATED to pretend this way.

I will never resile from the belief that the Kercher family are criminal in their behaviour.

I tried to PM you on some issues with regards to this case but your private message mailbox is full.

 

[Numbers]

I was asked to provide news articles that mentioned 530,2 specifically. I produced a couple three of those.

Unlike you I have contacted real Italian lawyers and reported the only response which indicated there is no difference in law but often in perception.

In the cut and paste of yours this did stand out - nor does it explain the lower value with reference to civil lawsuits which seems to be saying that the different verdicts DO have a legal impact even if it shouldn't by the writer's reckoning.

LOL

Don't be mislead by the quirks of Google translate.

The CPP Articles 654 and 652 are the law. The CSC is merely explaining that law. Google translate sometimes mangles the Italian.

 

[Anode]

The lawyer that responded to my question said the paragraphs are the same in law but perceived as different in the media. Perhaps others could find other Italian legal people to comment. I've seen mention of paragraph two in a number of stories.

The wording of not committing the act or crime seem merely to be pro forma but believe what you like.

Be that as it may, how does one reconcile that if they really meant the perception to be different, they could have easily changed the "boiler plate" language to make it clear?

This has been bugging me as I've been lurking for the last 3 years.

530.2 could have been easily worded "because it was shown that beyond a reasonable doubt, the applicants did not commit the act."

While 530.1 says: "because the applicants did not commit the act"

My point is if the intent was to cause a difference in perception then they should have worded it accordingly. They are lawyers, that's what they do.

I must accept that when they write "because the applicants did not commit the act", then they darn well mean they did not commit the act. Those are extremely powerful words. My perception, after spending a lot of time with my lawyer friends, is that they make it clear and unambiguous in their documents.

I know, I'm free to believe anything I want Grinder, and I accept your statement that a lawyer told you that, in Italy, there is a perception difference between the two rulings, but my perception differs.

 

[Mike1711]

To carry on your analogy with pregnancy, well the latest Bonsegnia (_sp?) MR is certainly misconceived, actually defective and is a miscarriage of the law as it directly contradicts higher court judges MR's which outrank his legal analysis.

What do you mean, "A fog mainly to preserve the appearance of ISC Panel continuity."?

Apart from mixing metaphors, the law is applied as per statute. The personal opinion of a judge doesn't come into it, any more than say you were an architectural draughtsman measuring the length of a wall. If Bruno-Marasca of the lofty supreme court have established as legal fact Amanda was not coerced to incriminate Patrick, then some upstart from a lower court in a relatively minor trial does not have the remit to trump them.

It is not in their professional ambit to establish judicial facts. This is the function of the lower court (court a quo). The ISC merely considers the appeal based on judicial facts already established.

In this case BM established that the facts are contradictory...in effect they are BS.

 

[Mike1711]

Nonsense. Bill you are talking out of your <sfx March of the Valkyries theme>. Only the government/state has the power to exonerate.

A judge is limited to verdicts written within the statutes, and 'exoneration' is not a verdict open to him or her.

When Amanda claims she is "exonerated" she is once again lying.

Wrong again. Heads of government pardon and judiciaries exonerate.

 

[Numbers]

LOL

Don't be mislead by the quirks of Google translate.

The CPP Articles 654 and 652 are the law. The CSC is merely explaining that law. Google translate sometimes mangles the Italian.

CPP Article 654 Effects of the criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal in other civil or administrative trials:

"The final criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect in the civil or administrative trial on the accused person, the civil party and the person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings...."

CPP Article 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal for civil or administrative damages:

"The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to the either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or the accused did not commit it ... in the civil or administrative trial for restitution and compensation of damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings, unless the injured has already brought the action in civil court, under Article 75, paragraph 2.

Source: Gialuz*, Luparia** and Scarpa***, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation.

* Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste
** Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Milan
*** Professor of English, Department of Legal, Language, Interpreting and Translation Studies, University of Trieste