Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

When the ECHR discover Amanda stepped into the police station of her own insistence and refused to go home when asked to by the police, they will realise that far from being coerced into naming Patrick, she was chomping at the bit to do so, as soon she heard Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her.

It was cold-blooded and calculated, to the extent she went away to a quiet private place to spell it out in a privately written memo by her own hand and PRESSED it onto the police.

It would have been remiss of the police to ignore a complaint filed.

It's always enlightening when Vixen lets us in on what someone was thinking. Not only does she let us know what Amanda was thinking but now we get the added information on what the ECHR judges will think. Being psychic certainly has his benefits. Only.....according to Vixen, wasn't Amanda destined for years and years in prison, along with Raffaele, when the ISC confirmed her conviction for murder?

 

[Stacyhs]

She claims she was falsely told she had HIV. A lie. She claims she was slapped around the head, but then failed to report it to the police complaints procedures, her lawyers, the priest or even the US ambassador who regularly visited her.

She claims she was coerced into naming Patrick, when truth is, she named Patrick because she discovered Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her.

She horridly accuses Mez and her housemates of being druggies and Raff being a depressant who took acid and cocaine.

She disgracefully accuses medical professionals of medical misconduct and police of brutality, when SHE was the one who confessed to being at the scene and taking Patrick there.

She led the police a merry dance, pretending to suffer from Amnesia caused by smoking dope, and therefore, couldn't remember what she did on the murder night.

So, not the wilting violet she paints herself to the ECHR.

Wow. Have you ever considered writing fiction for a living?

 

[Numbers]

So where are the pictures of the (nude) cat with the bleeding ear? The one that left the blood stain by the light switch by jumping, according to VQA Giobbi?

Here are some excerpts from the witness statements of the downstairs boys:

"Moreover, Meredith's room especially is easily accessible through the balcony, and because there is the window grate of the downstairs apartment below, by which a wrongdoer could easily gain access to it." - Stefano Bonassi, 2 Nov 2007

"A. Before leaving, we washed the linens from our beds; mine were blue; we spread them in the hall where we prepared three strings. I don't know what to say regarding the blue pillowcase stained with blood because it was hanging and clean when I left.

"A. We have two cats. We keep the black one in the house; the other is more of a stray one and stays outside. The black cat fell ill on Tuesday, October 26, I think; its right ear was injured. However I remember that it was eating; under the small sink in the small bathroom it lost a lot of blood because it was shaking its head. Those days, Meredith had the keys from from my place.

"A. I don't know how to explain the traces of blood on my duvet given that my door was locked with a key as well as the window. Ricardo had also closed (locked) everything.

"A. In the hall, on the plate of the light switch, I do not remember having noticed stains of blood." - Stefano Bonassi, 3 Nov 2007

"A. The cats in our care in our apartment are: one striped and one black cat.

"A. I am not aware of any of us having an injury to a hand.

"A. The blood that you have found in the apartment could be from the cat with an injured ear; however, from what I could see, there was no copious loss of blood. Lately the cat has preferred to stay on the furniture in the living room.

"A. At times, the cat would also go into Stefano's room.
A. In these days of absence, I heard from the other boys that Giacomo left a set of house keys to Meredith so she would take care of the cat, particularly to treat it with Frontline.
A. Frontline is an anti-parasitic treatment; however, as for the ear injury, that was being treated with a disinfectant and in any case with water and salt.
A. I have never noticed spots of blood on the switch in the living hall.
A. I do not recall any of us bleeding and drying oneself with a pillowcase.
A. I have not heard Stefano complain of finding blood on the beige duvet on his bed.
A. I have never noticed traces of blood on the casing of the window in the small bathroom.
A. I repeat, everything you have told me about the spots of blood, it wasn't there when I was leaving on Saturday morning.
A. I do not believe that the area under the sofa has ever been stained with blood." - Riccardo Luciani, 3 Nov 2007

"A. The "living" hall was mostly used by Riccardo, but also by all of us; Stefano and Riccardo have told me they have stretched a rope in the hall to hang laundry.

"A. When I was leaving, there was no blood on the floor in the house; on the walls, perhaps there were small spots caused by insects.

"A. The black cat actually has an injured ear but I am not aware that it has dripped blood.

"A. As a rule, the cat likes to sleep on the bed, mostly Stefano's, so I reckon it was the cat that pulled the cover and slept there on the floor.
A. I am astonished by the fact you have told me, that there is a lot of blood on Stefano's bed.
A. I have never seen any stain of blood on the light switch in the hall.
A. The stone you have found in the house is perhaps the same as [or like] those near the shed [lit. pigsty].
A. I have never seen blood in the sink in the kitchen" - Marco Marzan, 3 Nov 2007

Note: VQA Giobbi was listed as one of the police interviewers for the above statement. He later testified the the blood above the light switch (approximately 4 to 5 feet above the floor) was due to the cat jumping and hitting the wall.

Note: In a previous post, I should have referred to a pillowcase that had been hung on a laundry rope that the police found on the floor, bloodstained.

Note: The bloodstains from the downstairs apartment were subjected to PCR replication for DNA quantification, as by Stefanoni. The fact that they could be replicated at all indicates that the blood stains (or an underlying substance sampled with them) contained human DNA. No DNA profiles of those blood stains were disclosed by Stefanoni. No substrate control sampling (to obtain DNA profiles, if any, from bare surfaces adjacent to the stains) was reported.

Conclusion: The police and prosecutor were not honest about the downstairs blood stains.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/witness-depositions/

 

[Bill Williams]

Let me guess, who you are talking about... do a little research... and steal (with permission) from this post on IA the post is dated; "Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:17 pm", so a long long time ago, on a forum far away

...

What that whole thing proves is that the denizens of that closed, contrary-posts-not-allowed .NUT website allow speculation to build upon surmise, until:

.... someone like Vixen repeats it 3 1/4 years later. As mentioned in that thread on IA in Dec 2012, the "it is reported that" photo is yet another factoid like the bleach receipts then-moderator Michael said he had on file and was prepared to post. Were the bleach receipts ever posted? No. Why? Because there weren't any.

As mentioned back in Dec 2012, the wonderful thing about phrasing something in the "it is reported that" format, is that it renders the claim completely immune from verification. Given that .NUT did not allow any contrary point of view (except on FOAKer Tuesdays!!) who was there to insist that evidence be verified to begin with?

Michael of .NUT is beginning to look good, though. After March 2015 he acknowledged that the legal climate had been changed with the acquittals, and he requested that people on his forum moderate their speech - while not giving up their passion for what they believed was protecting Meredith's legacy. (Take out the hatred spewed at Knox and Sollecito, that is not a bad thing!)

Then Michael retired from the field. Perhaps that makes him the sanest of anyone on either side of this!!!!

But factoids endure. Naked photos. Soon someone is going to claim to have seen the bleach receipt. Someone is going to say that they've seen the striations on the kitchen knife; even though Stefanoni herself said they could not be photographed - why interrupt a good story.

And what's this about a nude cat? Three years from now, someone is going to be reporting THAT is fact.

 

[Stacyhs]

Filomena and Sophie were both given a hard time by the police. They understood. At no time did they lie or accuse an innocent person, or even moan.

Exactly how were they given a "hard time"? What statements did either give indicating this? Where are the quotes and citations supporting this?

Filomena did lie..on the stand in court when she was asked about pot smoking in the house. She answered “To tell you the truth, I sinned once. I sinned.” Once? But Laura, when asked about who smoked pot at the cottage, answered "Everyone."

 

[bagels]

The PGP are obsessed with Amanda but they must by default think it's impossible for the police to coerce a confession out of anyone and that safeguards like warnings, lawyers, and interview transcripts, could never actually help an innocent person avoid unwittingly implicating themselves by coercive misguided police.

If Amanda's treatment wasn't procedurally flawed what is? Pulling toenails out and above? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Numbers]

....

And what's this about a nude cat? Three years from now, someone is going to be reporting THAT is fact.

According to the witness statements, there were TWO (nude) cats!

And one had an injured ear...but wasn't bleeding. The other one didn't have any injuries and wasn't bleeding.

And the one that had an injured ear and wasn't bleeding left a lot of blood in the downstairs flat and jumped 4 or 5 feet high to leave a blood stain above the light switch!

It's all that simple according to the Italian authorities, as recorded in witness statements and testimony.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think I found the true murderer

 

[acbytesla]

When the ECHR discover Amanda stepped into the police station of her own insistence and refused to go home when asked to by the police, they will realise that far from being coerced into naming Patrick, she was chomping at the bit to do so, as soon she heard Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her.

It was cold-blooded and calculated, to the extent she went away to a quiet private place to spell it out in a privately written memo by her own hand and PRESSED it onto the police.

It would have been remiss of the police to ignore a complaint filed.

Do you really believe the **** you are shoveling? The Italian courts themselves said that Amanda's statements made wthout a lawyer during the investigation were NOT to be used during the criminal procedures and then backdoored them into the trial by way of the simultaneous civil proceeding. Or did you forget this?

Everyone including the Italian authorities knows how this will turn out. Time to wake up and use a bit of logic.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow. Have you ever considered writing fiction for a living?

No, she gives her stories away for free.

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you really believe the **** you are shoveling? The Italian courts themselves said that Amanda's statements made wthout a lawyer during the investigation were NOT to be used during the criminal procedures and then backdoored them into the trial by way of the simultaneous civil proceeding. Or did you forget this?

Everyone including the Italian authorities knows how this will turn out. Time to wake up and use a bit of logic.

Even when confessions ate not suppose to be admitted, such as in the case of two of the defendants with the West Memphis Three, they can pollute the trial.

When jurors hear confessions, no matter if they are officially not suppose to use them, that will taint their position. These lay judges cannot be considered anything but basically jurors.

 

[acbytesla]

Even when confessions ate not suppose to be admitted, such as in the case of two of the defendants with the West Memphis Three, they can pollute the trial.

When jurors hear confessions, no matter if they are officially not suppose to use them, that will taint their position. These lay judges cannot be considered anything but basically jurors.

Of course. I just wanted to wake Vixen up to the legal facts in this case. The Italians could only hope that the ECHR wasn't going to hear this case. That was their only chance. But given the pub on this case that was hoping against all odds. This is an opportunity to slap Italy down for these types of abuses in a very public way.

Maybe Numbers knows just who in Italy is responsible for dealing with the ECHR and how they go about responding.

 

[Numbers]

Of course. I just wanted to wake Vixen up to the legal facts in this case. The Italians could only hope that the ECHR wasn't going to hear this case. That was their only chance. But given the pub on this case that was hoping against all odds. This is an opportunity to slap Italy down for these types of abuses in a very public way.

Maybe Numbers knows just who in Italy is responsible for dealing with the ECHR and how they go about responding.

The ECHR cannot, by the rules of the Convention, pick and choose cases to review. It's not like the US Supreme Court, which can pick only cases it considers of Constitutional significance or other possibly great importance, or where the US Appeals Courts in different Circuits have given different rulings on similar cases or issues.

The ECHR must review every case that meets the admissibility requirements.

I actually don't know much about how Italy goes about responding to ECHR cases, but the responsibility lies with the executive, rather than the judicial, branch.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 12

https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/

 

[acbytesla]

The ECHR cannot, by the rules of the Convention, pick and choose cases to review. It's not like the US Supreme Court, which can pick only cases it considers of Constitutional significance or other possibly great importance, or where the US Appeals Courts in different Circuits have given different rulings on similar cases or issues.

The ECHR must review every case that meets the admissibility requirements.

I actually don't know much about how Italy goes about responding to ECHR cases, but the responsibility lies with the executive, rather than the judicial, branch.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 12

https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/

Can the Executive Branch in Italy negotiate a settlement dismissing the case now or does it need the Italian judiciary involvement?

 

[Numbers]

Can the Executive Branch in Italy negotiate a settlement dismissing the case now or does it need the Italian judiciary involvement?

I assume your question is whether the Executive in Italy can negotiate a "friendly settlement" with Amanda Knox in the ECHR case without the involvement of the Judiciary.

I don't know such practical details. It is really the executive cabinet, which in Italy - a parliamentary democracy - are voted into office by the parliament, which represents the people of Italy, that exercises sovereignty internationally. And the ECHR is an international court that is part of an international treaty organization, the Council of Europe.

So formally, the Italian executive alone may be the deciding body. The judiciary perhaps has an informal role. But the Italian Constitution states in Article 10: The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law. This has been interpreted by the Italian Constitutional Court (which is not the Court of Cassation) that Italy must abide by the final judgments of the ECHR, including offering on request the possibility of a revision trial when the ECHR judgment indicates the need to reopen proceedings (Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011).

Even in a friendly settlement, the ECHR may issue a judgment of the violations of the Convention that have occurred.

 

[Numbers]

Those interested in the judgments of the ECHR against Italy might find the following site useful:

https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_20.wp?frame10_item=1&previsiousPage=mg_14_7

Sentenze della Corte europea dei diritti dell'Uomo (CEDU)

Alcune significative pronunce dalle Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo, adottate a seguito di ricorsi individuali proposti avverso lo Stato italiano per presunte violazioni di diritti garantiti dalla Convenzione europea di salvaguardia dei diritti umani.

Google translated:

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

A few significant judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, adopted as a result of individual actions against the Italian State for alleged violations of rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

This site offers 25 pages listing the judgments of the ECHR against Italy, translated into Italian.
The list of translated judgments only goes back to 2002, from a program sponsored by the Italian government for translating into Italian the significant judgments against it. However, HUDOC has cases against Italy from as early as 1980.

However, each Council of Europe State is bound not merely by the judgments against it, but by the case-law principles developed by the ECHR in all cases.

 

[Kauffer]

Of course. I just wanted to wake Vixen up to the legal facts in this case. The Italians could only hope that the ECHR wasn't going to hear this case. That was their only chance. But given the pub on this case that was hoping against all odds. This is an opportunity to slap Italy down for these types of abuses in a very public way.

Maybe Numbers knows just who in Italy is responsible for dealing with the ECHR and how they go about responding.

The state of Italy responds through its agent ('Government Agent') at the ECHR. You might find this useful with regard to the functions of the agent:


-to accomplish the contacts between the Court and a member state of the Convention, which means that the cases as well as all the correspondence and statements are made through the Government Agent;
– to represent a state before the Court, which means that a Government Agent prepares and signs all written observations of the respondent State (observations) and presents oral observations in one of the official languages of the Court, whether they are prepared by the Agent himself/herself or not (there are member states that engage large law offices in various fields of law to prepare the submissions to the Court, whereas the Government Agent only presents or signs them);
– to accomplish co-operation with the competent authorities in the country (the ministries, the courts, the police, the prison institutions, etc.) in order to collect necessary elements for the preparation of a reply to the Court;
to establish and maintain the co-operation with the Court registry, providing certain information, documents, etc. at its request;
– to have the right to intervene in certain cases before the Court (in the interest of proper administration of justice or if the applicant is a citizen of the state the Government Agent represents before the Court);
– to negotiate friendly settlements, conclusion of friendly settlements and issuance of unilateral declarations;
– to monitor the execution of judgements adopted by the Court and submit information to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the measures undertaken by the government of the Respondent State regarding the execution of judgements;
- to monitor harmonisation of domestic legal regulations with the provisions of the Convention and the Court case-law, and the right of legislative initiative in some individual cases as well.

http://www.ius.bg.ac.rs/informacije/Conference abstracts/Caric abstract.pdf

 

[Kauffer]

On the question of suspect status and right to counsel

Several people had their phones tapped/wired. (For example, Purton, Khiri, Kokomani.)

Police have to be able to carry out investigations without alerting potential perpetrators. In the UK the police can get a magistrates warrant to intercept your calls (or at least, they used to).

It seems in Italy, it is very common to wire tap people. It doesn't mean any obligation to warn you or make you a 'formal suspect'.

Are you claiming that no-one in the Kercher case should have been covertly surveilled, and if so, how do you propose police go about solving serious crime?

'In cases concerning a “criminal charge” the protection of Article 6 starts with an official notification of suspicion against the person (Eckle v. Germany, §§73-75), or practical measures, such as a search, when the person is first substantially affected by the “charge” (Foti v. Italy, §§52-53). Where a person is ques- tioned by the police in circumstances which imply that the police consider him as a potential suspect, and his answers are later used against him at the trial, Article 6 is applicable to this questioning as well, even though the person has not the formal status of suspect or accused (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, §§41-60).'

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/capacitybuilding/Source/documentation/hb12_fairtrial_en.pdf

 

[LondonJohn]

I assume your question is whether the Executive in Italy can negotiate a "friendly settlement" with Amanda Knox in the ECHR case without the involvement of the Judiciary.

I don't know such practical details. It is really the executive cabinet, which in Italy - a parliamentary democracy - are voted into office by the parliament, which represents the people of Italy, that exercises sovereignty internationally. And the ECHR is an international court that is part of an international treaty organization, the Council of Europe.

So formally, the Italian executive alone may be the deciding body. The judiciary perhaps has an informal role. But the Italian Constitution states in Article 10: The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law. This has been interpreted by the Italian Constitutional Court (which is not the Court of Cassation) that Italy must abide by the final judgments of the ECHR, including offering on request the possibility of a revision trial when the ECHR judgment indicates the need to reopen proceedings (Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011).

Even in a friendly settlement, the ECHR may issue a judgment of the violations of the Convention that have occurred.

I think in practice it will be impossible for the executive branch in Italy to sort this out without involving the judiciary. While it's almost certainly within the power and the remit of the Italian executive to issue pardons (viz. presidential pardons in the US), in cases such as Knox's I would have thought that the standard route would be for the executive, via its senior law officer (viz. Attorney General in the US and UK), to make a request to the judiciary to issue an annulment. In Italy, I imagine this would go via the Constitutional Court, then possibly down to the Supreme Court, where the annulment would be proclaimed.

It will certainly be very interesting to see just how hard the Italian State feels like challenging this situation, and thus how hard they feel like defending the position of the courts. In theory, the state ought to do everything in its power to try to defend its national courts' judgements, since not to do so would be in many ways an implicit attack on its own sovereignty. But I wonder if senior figures in the executive have taken a more enlightened position and have understood the situation properly, and therefore have the appetite to admit failings and apply full remedy as soon as possible. We'll see.........

 

[Kauffer]

I assume your question is whether the Executive in Italy can negotiate a "friendly settlement" with Amanda Knox in the ECHR case without the involvement of the Judiciary.

I don't know such practical details. It is really the executive cabinet, which in Italy - a parliamentary democracy - are voted into office by the parliament, which represents the people of Italy, that exercises sovereignty internationally. And the ECHR is an international court that is part of an international treaty organization, the Council of Europe.

So formally, the Italian executive alone may be the deciding body. The judiciary perhaps has an informal role. But the Italian Constitution states in Article 10: The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law. This has been interpreted by the Italian Constitutional Court (which is not the Court of Cassation) that Italy must abide by the final judgments of the ECHR, including offering on request the possibility of a revision trial when the ECHR judgment indicates the need to reopen proceedings (Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011).

Even in a friendly settlement, the ECHR may issue a judgment of the violations of the Convention that have occurred.

I think in practice it will be impossible for the executive branch in Italy to sort this out without involving the judiciary. While it's almost certainly within the power and the remit of the Italian executive to issue pardons (viz. presidential pardons in the US), in cases such as Knox's I would have thought that the standard route would be for the executive, via its senior law officer (viz. Attorney General in the US and UK), to make a request to the judiciary to issue an annulment. In Italy, I imagine this would go via the Constitutional Court, then possibly down to the Supreme Court, where the annulment would be proclaimed.

It will certainly be very interesting to see just how hard the Italian State feels like challenging this situation, and thus how hard they feel like defending the position of the courts. In theory, the state ought to do everything in its power to try to defend its national courts' judgements, since not to do so would be in many ways an implicit attack on its own sovereignty. But I wonder if senior figures in the executive have taken a more enlightened position and have understood the situation properly, and therefore have the appetite to admit failings and apply full remedy as soon as possible. We'll see.........

These are most apposite points. However I do not think the resolution is straightforward. As Numbers notes, Italy is bound to accept the 'judgements of the ECHR'. Yet, a friendly settlement precludes the possibility of a judgement. Effectively, the parties would agree that Italy is in a position to offer a substantive solution to an outstanding problem - in this case, the rescinding of the callunia conviction (assuming that is what Knox wants). But the rescinding of the conviction must be predicated on a judgement and therefore Italy is not in a position to grant it, even if it wanted to. This would not be a case of a recalcitrant judiciary either. They are restricted. There is a legal process in place. It took some manipulation for the Italian constitutional court to impose its judgement (113) on Art 630 of the CCP in order that rulings of the ECHR may be complied with and came about because the Italian Parliament could not reach an agreement to pass an enabling law. So, I do not see how, in the absence of a judgement of the ECHR, which is a necessary prerequisite for a reconsideration of a guilty verdict (subverting res judicata), it will be possible to vacate the verdict. The Italian state can offer apologies and money and even a pardon, but I don't think it can offer what we think Knox really wants. And a pardon means accepting an imputation of guilt.