Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[moije2]

But you are not in a position of judging Italy, Annella And that's not even interesting, actually (except maybe for certain racists)

Italy is the land of Machiavelli, other countries are lands of genocides or racial laws, and that doesn't change the fact Amanda Knox is a murderer

What about Raffaele?

 

[Machiavelli]

i doubt there's anything clarified in Italian law, which permits the interrogation of unrepresentated suspects other than for real emergencies such as terrorist threats etc.

On what basis?
Apart from the fact that we are not talking about interogation: we are talking about spontaneous declarations. We are talking about the 05.45 statement. Anna Donnino testified there was no interrogation on that, the defence did not claim there was an interrogation on that.

Otherwise, nobody would get a lawyer. But why was she given a document to sign without a lawyer to advise her?

And why not? Is there any law against that?
No.
But on a humane point of view what I wonder is, what would drive a person to defend a murderer, even in the event - which I don't believe - that a procedure was not followed correctly.
Do you really think Amanda Knox wrote an infinite series of lies and deception, a series of false accusations, just as a... consequence of some insufficient procedure? You know, I am really appalled by your minds. There is something very sick in these kinds of ideas. A somehow moral person, a normal person, someone who is not a monster or completely insane, as I would consider him or her, would be a person who just does not accuse an innocent of rape and murder unless someone tortures him or her of threatens him of death or threatens his family. Writing that you remember blood on the hands of someone is horrendous; tell that maybe your acquaintance is a rapist murder is horrendous. Placing evidence of this kind is an action similare to killing. Human nature rebels to this. Inocent people, in general, don't accuse other innocents; they resist forcibily. To tell the kind of lies both Knox and Sollecito told, just doesn't cross normal minds - and by the way, their "stories" (mop, shower etc.) were nonsensical and contradictory on any level from day 1.
And if someone is forced to make a horrible action such a coerced false accusation, the person retracts by offering a solid and consistent version as soon coercion ends. Knox refused to answer question on Nov. 8. She refused on Dec. 17. Sollecito did not support Knox's alibi on Nov. 8., he wrote a series of disgusting written notes and refused to answer questions ever since.

The ECHR will cut through this nonsense by relying on its well established case law on the subject.

There isn't any well established case law on this subject at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

What about Raffaele?

In my opinion there is evidence BARD he is guilty of the murder as much as her.
I acknowledge however that some people have arguments that he could have played a minor role (they are not convincing, imho). The number of pieces of evidence directly pointing at Sollecito's full involvement is smaller than the one that points to Knox, but sufficient, in my opinion. There are, overall, more uncertainties about the exact role he could have had, because there are objective larger areas of uncertainity in information when it cmes to draw details of a scenario, but still information is sifficient for drawing a conclusion on his responsability.
Not forget to mention, I also think there is overwhelming Sollecito is a liar also elsewhere, for example in his book, for which he is currently under trial.

 

[bagels]

The number of pieces of evidence directly pointing at Sollecito's full involvement is smaller than the one that points to Knox.

lol

More like if the so-called evidence implicated either of the two it's Raffaele:

His alleged bloody footprint
His knife

The crime scenario works better too with just him. He drugs Amanda for an alibi and slips out, then gives her up to the police knowing she can't implicate him.

 

[acbytesla]

lol

More like if the so-called evidence implicated either of the two it's Raffaele:

His alleged bloody footprint
His knife

The crime scenario works better too with just him. He drugs Amanda for an alibi and slips out, then gives her up to the police knowing she can't implicate him.

Also Stefanoni supposedly found Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.

The case doesn't work without the two of them. It doesn't work then either. I guess that is why they were acquitted.

 

[acbytesla]

In my opinion there is evidence BARD he is guilty of the murder as much as her.
I acknowledge however that some people have arguments that he could have played a minor role (they are not convincing, imho). The number of pieces of evidence directly pointing at Sollecito's full involvement is smaller than the one that points to Knox, but sufficient, in my opinion. There are, overall, more uncertainties about the exact role he could have had, because there are objective larger areas of uncertainity in information when it cmes to draw details of a scenario, but still information is sifficient for drawing a conclusion on his responsability.
Not forget to mention, I also think there is overwhelming Sollecito is a liar also elsewhere, for example in his book, for which he is currently under trial.

Your opinion along with 5 dollars might buy you a cup of espresso.

 

[Numbers]

(ANSA) - Strasbourg, May 17 - The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday accepted an appeal against Italy presented by Amanda Knox, the American woman acquitted by the Cassation Court of having a part in the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. In the appeal, Knox says she was subjected to an unfair trial and was maltreated during questioning. The court judged Knox's dossier to be valid and told the Italian government of its decision so that it can defend itself.
In March 2015 the supreme Cassation Court of appeals acquitted Knox and Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in Kercher's 2007 murder, saying that evidence didn't physically link the pair to the scene of the crime. It was the end of an eight-year judicial ordeal for Knox who was first found guilty, then acquitted and finally cleared after a retrial.
Knox's appeal to Strasbourg regards the run-up to her first trial.
In it, she claims she was not given access to a lawyer who spoke English and was rapped on the head during questioning on November 6, 2007, four days after Kercher's murder - allegedly constituting inhumane and degrading treatment.

Source: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/gen...l-3_7db61304-0648-4cee-a006-c5a85bcbf39d.html

Comments: The article is good. Of course, an application to ECHR should not be called an "appeal", as this article does, because that implies a relationship between ECHR and the domestic court that does not exist, and the ECHR is not considering issues of guilt or innocence of the applicant, but rather whether or not the Respondent State (Italy, in this case) violated the Convention rights of the applicant. Thus, a person who has been found guilty by a domestic (State) court remains guilty, but under certain findings - such as unfair trial - by the ECHR, must be retried by the State court with full observance of his or her rights. In Italy, this is called a revision trial. In Amanda's case, the revision trial would necessarily exclude as evidence of guilt all of Amanda's statements obtained under duress or without a lawyer; this would lead to the conviction being vacated (dismissal or acquittal) due to a total lack of evidence of calunnia.

 

[acbytesla]

(ANSA) - Strasbourg, May 17 - The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday accepted an appeal against Italy presented by Amanda Knox, the American woman acquitted by the Cassation Court of having a part in the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. In the appeal, Knox says she was subjected to an unfair trial and was maltreated during questioning. The court judged Knox's dossier to be valid and told the Italian government of its decision so that it can defend itself.
In March 2015 the supreme Cassation Court of appeals acquitted Knox and Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in Kercher's 2007 murder, saying that evidence didn't physically link the pair to the scene of the crime. It was the end of an eight-year judicial ordeal for Knox who was first found guilty, then acquitted and finally cleared after a retrial.
Knox's appeal to Strasbourg regards the run-up to her first trial.
In it, she claims she was not given access to a lawyer who spoke English and was rapped on the head during questioning on November 6, 2007, four days after Kercher's murder - allegedly constituting inhumane and degrading treatment.

Source: http://www.ansa.it/english/news/gen...l-3_7db61304-0648-4cee-a006-c5a85bcbf39d.html

Comments: The article is good. Of course, an application to ECHR should not be called an "appeal", as this article does, because that implies a relationship between ECHR and the domestic court that does not exist, and the ECHR is not considering issues of guilt or innocence of the applicant, but rather whether or not the Respondent State (Italy, in this case) violated the Convention rights of the applicant. Thus, a person who has been found guilty by a domestic (State) court remains guilty, but under certain findings - such as unfair trial - by the ECHR, must be retried by the State court with full observance of his or her rights. In Italy, this is called a revision trial. In Amanda's case, the revision trial would necessarily exclude as evidence of guilt all of Amanda's statements obtained under duress or without a lawyer; this would lead to the conviction being vacated (dismissal or acquittal) due to a total lack of evidence of calunnia.

Any idea the time involved from this point forward?

 

[Numbers]

Any idea the time involved from this point forward?

Possibly one or two years before the ECHR gives a judgment.

And then there must be some time for the Italian court system to provide the revision trial, followed by compensation for wrongful detention/conviction.

 

[Numbers]

Again, a clarification - but now with some quantification - on "Importance level":

The importance is whether or not the ECHR expects that the case will generate new case law, or rather will it merely require the application of existing case law. An importance of 3 means that the ECHR believes at this point that only existing case law will be required to formulate a judgment in this case. That does not mean that the case is not important to the persons who are the victims of violations of the Convention.

In the ECHR's case-law database, it is possible to determine how many cases have been assigned to Case Reports [the most important "new case-law" level] or to importance levels 1, 2, or 3.

I did this exercise, restricting the count to only English language judgments (to avoid overcounts since some judgments are also given in or translated to other languages by ECHR) given by the Grand Chamber, Chamber, and Committee judicial formations. Here are the quantitative results:

Case Reports [highest level]: 825 cases
Importance level 1...........: 1066
Importance level 2...........: 4022
Importance level 3.........: 13029

Total............................: 18922 cases

Conclusion: Most cases by far fall into Importance level 3, meaning that they are judged on the basis of previous case-law and generate no new or modified case-law.

 

[Bill Williams]

You're very angry, aren't you?!

No.
Certainly not with you. Would say I am fairly disgusted by people like you, not angry. To me it's like talking to a Holocaust denier or to a fascist propaganda-guy. It's quite disgusting to see the horror of things in people's minds. But I note they are like that. I'm not shocked by single things that you say or do, I am a bit shocked by the thing you are.

About others on this thread Machiavelli says.....

But on a humane point of view what I wonder is, what would drive a person to defend a murderer, even in the event - which I don't believe - that a procedure was not followed correctly.

Aside from the fact that the pair were acquitted of the crime - so there is no one on this thread "defending a murderer"......

I just note that there are several legal idiocies in the above paragraph.

<........sinister deletia........>

Do you see how ignorant you are?
It's unbelievable.
After all thse years, your grasp of the law is so miserable... I'm speechless

I take note that you have no argument. You don't bring any argument, don't point any fact, you only present void rhetoric, this is a fact.

Does Machiavelli really think that correcting people on this thread will make one whit of difference?

In a backhanded sort of way, we should feel complimented. Why even bother with the idiocies and ignorant posts here.....?

My challenge to Machiavelli is that if ECHR eventually rules in Knox's behaviour, that he not cite Masonic conspiracy for it.

 

[moije2]

///
///
///


Btw, do you know Maori is under investigation and cautionarily disbarred from courts for tampering with DNA evidence? And do you know it's because what his expert witness Onofri (also investigated) confessed? Onofri happens to belong to Tagliabracci's institute at the Marche Univrsity.
Pascali was charged with false expert report too -and he was caught by Stefanoni.
Vecchiotti was found guilty of gross negligence in a civil trial on a famous murder case.
Brizioli (another lawyer of Sollecito) as a young man was the member of a mob related to secret services in the sixties.
Have you counted how many supporters belonging to pro-Knox and pro-Sollecito mob have either records or currently problems with justice?
Ann Bremner... Frank Sfarzo... Mario Spezi... Doug Preston who was caught lying about Spezi by Mignini? Raffaele Sollecito himself?
Even judge Bruno was investigated for mafia, while Marasca was a politician who was investigated and "saved" from a scandal because of the bankruptcy of the city of which he was the minister of finance...
Who, yout think, obfuscates and cheats?

Mach, weren't there a number of legal charges against the various prosecution players as well? Mignini? Napoleani? and? From my standpoint it does appear that the system we are observing in this case has its fare share of shady participants - from all sides of the MK trial. Do you think both sides were equally corrupt? Or one side more than another? All of this does not make me want to argue so much about the details of the law - albeit interesting - but rather sit back and watch when the whole system seems tainted with corruption. At least evolving out of this case.

As an advocate for guilt in this case, and with your knowledge of the system, it must be frustrating to know that every step has the extra challenge of ulterior motives and political and even Masonic implications that are difficult to grasp for some of us. To me.

I never thought in my life it would be necessary to learn to differentiate between Satanism and other forms of worship or traditions such as Samhain/Halloween. Whatever Mignini associated the events of the murder with. Some people are perhaps steeped in that thinking. For me even the knowledge of various cult and spiritual beliefs is a challenge. AK is apparently an atheist, from what I gather. RS has made recent statements about having faith. I presume it is a belief in a traditional god, not a rather niche god or outlier friend in the sky. Yet AK is viewed by many on the guilter side as the embodiment of evil. The she devil. Luciferina. To the point that Raffaele is irrelevant. These religious threads along with the corruption every step of the way make this so interesting! It is all very educational. Into a way of thinking. My Italian experience is limited - although much more than others for personal reasons - and I express thanks to you and others for this (extra) exposure.

What a trip.

 

[Annella]

Mach, weren't there a number of legal charges against the various prosecution players as well? Mignini? Napoleani? and?

You can add Zugarini and Pacelli to that mix. Oh...and Guittari since Mach deviates from just Prosecution peeps. I am sure if we had the inclination, we would find some of his case hero's with a shady past that none of us ever knew about.
Wonder how long until Machiavelli himself finds himself in deep water for continuously calling Raffaele is a ' murderer'. People WERE warned.

 

[bagels]

Also Stefanoni supposedly found Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.

The case doesn't work without the two of them. It doesn't work then either. I guess that is why they were acquitted.

I totally blanked on that. Compared to AK there's a mountain (in comparison to a single atom or perhaps quark). Mach is hilarious.

 

[LondonJohn]

I totally blanked on that. Compared to AK there's a mountain (in comparison to a single atom or perhaps quark). Mach is hilarious.

And what makes it even funnier is that he doesn't realise it

What I see is someone who has invested an inordinate amount of time and effort following this case, in an effort to bolster and defend an (incorrect) a priori conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are "killers". And even as it becomes clearer and clearer, year by year, that the scientific "evidence" in this case truly was/is utterly worthless, and was/is the product of incompetence and lies; and that the police and PM behaved reprehensibly in the way they investigated and prosecuted Knox and Sollecito; and that every single one of the so-called witnesses in this case must have been either honestly mistaken, knowingly lying, or mentally/emotionally deluded; and that the broken and unfit-for-purpose court system in Italy royally screwed up the trial process; none of this was even really acknowledged, let alone factored into any analysis, by someone who was by now irrevocably attached to a position at all costs.

Machiavelli is wrong on the big issues in this case. Pure and simple. He has been since day one. And don't make the mistake of thinking that he's some sort of oracle on the Italian judicial system in general or this trial in particular. An obsessive onlooker with an agenda does not make for a balanced, neutral, intellectually-robust commentator. The very fact that he popped up in the wake of the ECHR news yesterday to loftily tell us how he was right, and how all of this was in fact of no importance and so on, is a vivid indicator of just how divorced from reality and from objective analysis some commentators on this case can be, and how "being right on the interwebs" is so hugely important. But, as I said before, it's very amusing (if rather tragic) to observe

 

[Kauffer]

On what basis?
Apart from the fact that we are not talking about interogation: we are talking about spontaneous declarations. We are talking about the 05.45 statement. Anna Donnino testified there was no interrogation on that, the defence did not claim there was an interrogation on that.



And why not? Is there any law against that?
No.
But on a humane point of view what I wonder is, what would drive a person to defend a murderer, even in the event - which I don't believe - that a procedure was not followed correctly.
Do you really think Amanda Knox wrote an infinite series of lies and deception, a series of false accusations, just as a... consequence of some insufficient procedure? You know, I am really appalled by your minds. There is something very sick in these kinds of ideas. A somehow moral person, a normal person, someone who is not a monster or completely insane, as I would consider him or her, would be a person who just does not accuse an innocent of rape and murder unless someone tortures him or her of threatens him of death or threatens his family. Writing that you remember blood on the hands of someone is horrendous; tell that maybe your acquaintance is a rapist murder is horrendous. Placing evidence of this kind is an action similare to killing. Human nature rebels to this. Inocent people, in general, don't accuse other innocents; they resist forcibily. To tell the kind of lies both Knox and Sollecito told, just doesn't cross normal minds - and by the way, their "stories" (mop, shower etc.) were nonsensical and contradictory on any level from day 1.
And if someone is forced to make a horrible action such a coerced false accusation, the person retracts by offering a solid and consistent version as soon coercion ends. Knox refused to answer question on Nov. 8. She refused on Dec. 17. Sollecito did not support Knox's alibi on Nov. 8., he wrote a series of disgusting written notes and refused to answer questions ever since.



There isn't any well established case law on this subject at all.

It was an interrogation. The ECHR has described it as an interrogation in its communication! That's a real problem for your analysis. Did you seriously think that there was some kind of category defence to the conduct of the police and Mignini such that an argument could be made along the lines that in a questura interrogation room, late at night, in the company of the authorities who requested her attendance in the room, a young woman's experience could be passed off as a camomile tea party during which, all of her human rights are unenforceable?

In such a room, in these circumstances whatever she says can be used as the exclusive basis for an arrest and later charges, apparently, yet still her rights are held in abeyance. And so, the denial of her rights is no denial at all, since, again apparently, she has no rights to deny. Even after her arrest, she is given no access to a lawyer. In fact, the first occasion she sees a lawyer is immediately before she comes before a judge. So tell me, why is she entitled to a lawyer at this point? Why does she have any entitlement at all in connection with these matters? And what is it that determines an entitlement then but legitimately precludes it at any time before?

ECHR case law, for your information requires the provision of counsel at the earliest possible opportunity. When, according to you, was the earliest possible opportunity? When she is taken into the interrogation room? At 1:45? At 5:45? On the occasion of her arrest? In the prison to which she is taken? Or, actually, moments before she stood in front of a judge when there was no time or opportunity for a consultation?

 

[LondonJohn]

Mach, weren't there a number of legal charges against the various prosecution players as well? Mignini? Napoleani? and? From my standpoint it does appear that the system we are observing in this case has its fare share of shady participants - from all sides of the MK trial. Do you think both sides were equally corrupt? Or one side more than another? All of this does not make me want to argue so much about the details of the law - albeit interesting - but rather sit back and watch when the whole system seems tainted with corruption. At least evolving out of this case.

As an advocate for guilt in this case, and with your knowledge of the system, it must be frustrating to know that every step has the extra challenge of ulterior motives and political and even Masonic implications that are difficult to grasp for some of us. To me.

I never thought in my life it would be necessary to learn to differentiate between Satanism and other forms of worship or traditions such as Samhain/Halloween. Whatever Mignini associated the events of the murder with. Some people are perhaps steeped in that thinking. For me even the knowledge of various cult and spiritual beliefs is a challenge. AK is apparently an atheist, from what I gather. RS has made recent statements about having faith. I presume it is a belief in a traditional god, not a rather niche god or outlier friend in the sky. Yet AK is viewed by many on the guilter side as the embodiment of evil. The she devil. Luciferina. To the point that Raffaele is irrelevant. These religious threads along with the corruption every step of the way make this so interesting! It is all very educational. Into a way of thinking. My Italian experience is limited - although much more than others for personal reasons - and I express thanks to you and others for this (extra) exposure.

What a trip.

Let's not also forget that officers of the state are (and should be) held to a far, far higher standard of propriety, honesty and fairness than any other player in this game. Police and prosecutors must be utterly, scrupulously honest, and seen to be as such, if a judicial system is going to be seen as fair and just. And unfortunately in the semi-tinpot state that is Italy, where corruption, patronage and malpractice are seemingly institutionally embedded, there's currently very little hope of anyone feeling that they've had a truly fair investigation and trial.

I go back again to a very illuminating comment made by a very eminent aviation journalist in respect of the investigation into the Ustica incident (the crash of Itavia 870). The Italian courts found that the aircraft had been shot down by a French missile, while internationally-renowned air accident investigators had discovered clear evidence that in fact the cause of the crash was the explosion of a bomb inside the aircraft in the rear toilet area. The journalist (who'd also had other previous exposure to Italian "justice") made the stark comment that:

"I'm sorry, but Italy is a dreadful place to have an aviation accident. If you want the truth, you're less likely to find it there than just about anywhere else in the World"

And that, I think, sums it up rather well. Italy's justice system is broken. Just like much of the Italian institutional infrastructure.

 

[LondonJohn]

No.
Certainly not with you. Would say I am fairly disgusted by people like you, not angry. To me it's like talking to a Holocaust denier or to a fascist propaganda-guy. It's quite disgusting to see the horror of things in people's minds. But I note they are like that. I'm not shocked by single things that you say or do, I am a bit shocked by the thing you are.

What I "am"? That's sounding a lot like crossing the line into a personal attack, Machiavelli. But I'll let it slide because it's so amusing reading your inputs right now. Don't do it again though. But a point to ponder in the meantime: what I "am" is right

And if you truly believe that an analysis concluding that Knox and Sollecito should never have been convicted of the Kercher murder, that they almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and that Knox was unlawfully coerced into accusing Lumumba, is on a par with "a Holocaust denier or a fascist propaganda-guy", then you're even more wrong and misguided than any of us could have thought. But at the same time it's further revealing evidence of your abject inability to analyse this case with anything remotely approaching objectivity or critical thinking.

 

[Desert Fox]

Let's not also forget that officers of the state are (and should be) held to a far, far higher standard of propriety, honesty and fairness than any other player in this game. Police and prosecutors must be utterly, scrupulously honest, and seen to be as such, if a judicial system is going to be seen as fair and just. And unfortunately in the semi-tinpot state that is Italy, where corruption, patronage and malpractice are seemingly institutionally embedded, there's currently very little hope of anyone feeling that they've had a truly fair investigation and trial.

I go back again to a very illuminating comment made by a very eminent aviation journalist in respect of the investigation into the Ustica incident (the crash of Itavia 870). The Italian courts found that the aircraft had been shot down by a French missile, while internationally-renowned air accident investigators had discovered clear evidence that in fact the cause of the crash was the explosion of a bomb inside the aircraft in the rear toilet area. The journalist (who'd also had other previous exposure to Italian "justice") made the stark comment that:

"I'm sorry, but Italy is a dreadful place to have an aviation accident. If you want the truth, you're less likely to find it there than just about anywhere else in the World"

And that, I think, sums it up rather well. Italy's justice system is broken. Just like much of the Italian institutional infrastructure.

If there is an air crash in Italy, I suspect other groups involved with the aircraft will do their own quiet investigation.

 

[Kauffer]

I see the story has now made the mainstream press in the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...man-rights-grants-amanda-knox-appeal-over-cl/

Nevertheless, Squires hasn't quite got it right and the headline refers to the 'appeal' being about Knox getting slapped.

The point is, she stands convicted for callunia - it's a taint that sticks. The purpose of the application to the ECHR was entirely about this conviction and not anything to do with murder trial, which was on-going at that time.

So, when Squires states that this case is properly described as one where Knox claims she was 'slapped by police and subjected to an unfair trial on charges of murdering Meredith Kercher', he is being woefully inaccurate.