Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

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 is 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 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 must be complied with and came about because the Italian Parliament could not reach 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 without such a judgement. 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.

Yes, in fact this is correct. The Italian judiciary is answerable to the will of the ECHR (since this is what it signed up for when it became a signatory to the Convention). And only a remedy instruction from the ECHR will be sufficient to trigger such a remedy (which in practice will mean an annulment without retrial in this case) from the Italian judiciary. So, as you say, I suspect that if Knox and her lawyers want the full judicial exoneration they're apparently seeking, there will be little option but to reject any pre-emptive overtures from the Italian State and wait for the ECHR ruling and instruction.

 

[Vixen]

Sarzanini's book was never suppressed, where did you get this one???

Amanda made a court application to have the case dismissed and a demand for €500K damages claiming the book and the newspaper excerpts prejudiced her case.

 

[Vixen]

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

...

Are you trying to claim the nude photos are just an internet rumour?

This person did have the photos and he did try to sell them to the tabloids, who gave him the bum's rush, even though they, too, were in the gutter and looking at the stars, as Oscar Wilde put it.

There are no depths too low to which some of Amanda's supporters will not sink.

 

[Vixen]

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."

They were detained for hours on end at the questura. Sophie was not allowed to leave Perugia. She was interrogated as to the final moments she spent with Mez. She had her phone wiretapped. As Amanda, in a loud Chinese whisper, 'named' Sophie's boyfriend, Khiri 'Shaky' Hicham, as 'very suspicious', in the bugged questura, police put him under very close surveillance.

Amanda certainly threw quite a few people under the bus to save herself.

So big deal, Filomena once smoked dope. So did Bill Clinton.

 

[Numbers]

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

If I understand correctly, the agent is merely in effect the ambassador or lawyer of the State government to the ECHR, and carries out decisions reached by the government.

 

[Kauffer]

They were detained for hours on end at the questura. Sophie was not allowed to leave Perugia. She was interrogated as to the final moments she spent with Mez. She had her phone wiretapped. As Amanda in a loud Chinese whisper 'named' Sophie's boyfriend Khiri 'Shaky' Hicham as very suspicious in the bugged questura police put him under very close surveillance.

Amanda certainly threw quite a few people under the bus to save herself.
So big deal, Filomena once smoked dope. So did Bill Clinton.

Yeah sure. And Knox named Lumumba , what was it now? Oh yes, 'chomping at the bit', deliberately placing herself at the scene of the crime, in an entirely voluntary manner, without any pressure from the police at all - thus ensuring she would be arrested. Now why on earth would she do that, rather than say absolutely nothing at all?

She bounces in all uninvited and freely puts herself in the cottage whilst listening to Lumumba killing her flatmate! What could she possibly hope to gain by saying that to the police?

It really is the stupidest theory of all. It's even stupider than the idea Knox could knife Kercher to death without leaving any evidence of her presence.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You are very good at deconstructing, Bill. It's such a shame to waste your talents.

 

[Numbers]

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.

The respondent State accepting in writing that it had committed violations and even offering compensation does not necessarily lead to a "friendly settlement" in which there is no judgment. The ECHR reserves the authority to issue a judgment.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I am all for ethical behaviour. I think the idea of higher court (than that of the sovereign state) of Human Rights an excellent concept.

If there were irregularities, let's hear about them.

You ought to know the ECHR dismiss many cases as not well-founded.

 

[Kauffer]

If I understand correctly, the agent is merely in effect the ambassador or lawyer of the State government to the ECHR, and carries out decisions reached by the government.

Yes. The agent is permanently stationed in Strasbourg and presumably acts in an advisory capacity to the government - of Italy in this case. Would love to be a fly on the wall during conversations between the agent and his government on this one!

 

[Kauffer]

The respondent State accepting in writing that it had committed violations and even offering compensation does not necessarily lead to a "friendly settlement" in which there is no judgment. The ECHR reserves the authority to issue a judgment.

I'm sure that's right. But what I'm saying is that there is a need for a judgement in order that the verdict of callunia is annulled.

 

[Kauffer]

I am all for ethical behaviour. I think the idea of higher court (than that of the sovereign state) of Human Rights an excellent concept.

If there were irregularities, let's hear about them.

You ought to know the ECHR dismiss many cases as not well-founded.

Yeah, but not this one.

 

[Vixen]

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.

He was being tongue-in-cheek. No doubt the cat shook itself rigorously and the blood spattered accordingly.

There is no doubt there was activity downstairs after the boys left for the Bank Holiday weekend with their families. (So much for the claim there was a padlocked gate across the door.)

Was this activity relevant to the murder? No-one knows.

It could be one of the perps hid downstairs standing on the bathroom chair to watch who was coming and going via the car parking approach to the front door.


Kokomani said he heard thuds, as did Amanda, and as did Rudy, so possibly there was some kind of party as Kokomani claimed.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That was Massei bending over backwards for the kids. He agreed to waive those statements just for a quiet life. In any case, there was ample evidence elsewhere forr the merits courts to find the pair guilty as charged.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Italian lawyers file claims with the ECHR almost as a matter of course.

Most get sifted out at the preliminary stage as misconceived or frivolous.

 

[Vixen]

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

Technically Carlo Dalla Vedova (for it is he behind the publicity stunt) could be offered a bribe settlement, in which a clause will be that he must write to ECHR as the legal representative and formally withdraw the claim.

 

[Kauffer]

Italian lawyers file claims with the ECHR almost as a matter of course.

Most get sifted out at the preliminary stage as misconceived or frivolous.

But not this one. X2

 

[Vixen]

Yeah sure. And Knox named Lumumba , what was it now? Oh yes, 'chomping at the bit', deliberately placing herself at the scene of the crime, in an entirely voluntary manner, without any pressure from the police at all - thus ensuring she would be arrested. Now why on earth would she do that, rather than say absolutely nothing at all?

She bounces in all uninvited and freely puts herself in the cottage whilst listening to Lumumba killing her flatmate! What could she possibly hope to gain by saying that to the police?

It really is the stupidest theory of all. It's even stupider than the idea Knox could knife Kercher to death without leaving any evidence of her presence.

I dare say she was brought up as a brat, used to lying and histrionics to get her own way.

 

[Vixen]

But not this one. X2

As the ECHR claim was drafted by Carlo Dall Vedova, then it should be blindingly obvious he will have been selective with the facts to paint his client in a rosy hue.

 

[Kauffer]

As the ECHR claim was drafted by Carlo Dall Vedova, then it should be blindingly obvious he will have been selective with the facts to paint his client in a rosy hue.

Oh I see, so you think that the ECHR has been hoodwinked by Dalla Vedova. I guess you think that Italy will vociferously defend itself and raise the court out of its stupor, so that they will realise that Knox is a mendacious, slandering killer after all. Do you think maybe they can order the Italians to re-adopt Nencini, extradite Knox and put her back in Capanne?