Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
My understanding is that a "revision trial" is a proceeding that evaluates the allegations of the miscarriage, and whether those allegations are credible or proven and whether if proven by the evidence introduced with the allegations the weight of the new evidence or allegations compared to the convicting trial evidence can change the verdict of conviction or the sentence.

There are rules in the CPP on what constitutes grounds for requesting revision (in CPP 630). These did not include the finding of a violation of Article 6 by the ECHR, etc. That is why the Italian Constitutional Court had to issue decision 113/2011 -- the Italian parliament did not act on the matter when it was really the branch to add the provision to the law.

I've read cases where the Respondent State admitted to some of the allegations against it but claimed the just satisfaction proposed by the applicant was too high.

I am sure a friendly settlement may involve more than compensation; some acknowledgement of the violations must be made by the State. I agree that a friendly settlement would not by itself seem to produce a revision trial in Italy under their law, and I think the ECHR would not allow a friendly settlement in this case even if Italy admitted to all violations claimed.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last sentence. And you are right about the circumstances surrounding the 113 decision. There is something in the new provisions that means all Art 6 findings must now vacate verdicts. There was a law journal article that dealt with it, but I can't seem to locate it. It means a revision process should be straightforward. I'll keep looking. The other point to make is that no court will ever again be able to apply Gemelli's construction permitting the use of disqualified statements or that some statements procured without lawyers present may be used (memoriale 1) unless later adopted.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Whoa! Steady on: didn't Carlos Dalla Vedova omit to file a complaint as per his professional obligation as an Italian barrister? Oh dear. He forgot.

Could be embarrassing for him to explain why he didn't complain at the time and why the defense team told the court Amanda wasn't hit.
Hold your horses!
Click to expand...

They never said Amanda was not hit. What Luciano Ghirga did say was "We never said she was hit." Not the same thing, but twist away. We're used to it.:eye-poppi
 
Stacyhs said:
They never said Amanda was not hit. What Luciano Ghirga did say was "We never said she was hit." Not the same thing, but twist away. We're used to it.:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

The claim she was hit was just a story she made up to get sympathy from Mom, remember?

It reminds me of a Derek and Clive sketch wherein he tells his wife he has cancer which is why she has caught him in the act of doing something quite filthy. Towards the end of the sketch Clive has to remind him, 'That was just a story you made up, remember?'.
 
Stacyhs said:
Who said Profazio "hates Americans"? No one that I can see.
Click to expand...

The guys were all moaning about Profazio and Giobbi (_sp?) bragging 'case closed' within days of arresting the kids. The criticism was, 'How can he say it's closed within just a few days?'

Fact is, Profazio solved the Olsson case 'within a few days'.

So much for the claim police have nothing better to do with their time than stitch up Americans instead of catching criminals.
 
acbytesla said:
It is this reason that I am extremely confident the previous callunia case involving Lumumba will be overturned as the reasoning is identical. One could cut and paste from the Boninsegna Motivation. Not a word from those interrogations should have been heard by a jury in a courtroom which eliminates any crimes of callunia.
Click to expand...

Love the stand up routine. Very droll.
 
Kauffer said:
This. We have, in fact, three courts, Gemelli, Hellmann and Boninsegna all referring to the disquieting circumstances of the interrogation. But, I think, what will make the process of wiping out the callunia conviction much easier this time, is Italy's own approach to these matters following the Dorigo case. They are bound to accept, constitutionally, the direct effects of the convention and specifically, that guilty verdicts cannot survive an Article 6 finding in favour of a complainant.

However, it may well be that a process of revision will in fact take place, procedurally. Such a revision would conclude there is no evidence for the prosecution to present and the court would rule summarily.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
 
Vixen said:
The guys were all moaning about Profazio and Giobbi (_sp?) bragging 'case closed' within days of arresting the kids. The criticism was, 'How can he say it's closed within just a few days?'

Fact is, Profazio solved the Olsson case 'within a few days'.

So much for the claim police have nothing better to do with their time than stitch up Americans instead of catching criminals.
Click to expand...

They thought the killer was a bartender who was serving drinks to customers in his bar all night lol
 
Vixen said:
Yeah, yeah, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Click to expand...

And if horse turds were biscuits, I'd eat till I died.

Will you be singing this same tune when the charges against Amanda are vacated and Italy pays Knox 520,000 Euros?
 
Vixen said:
The guys were all moaning about Profazio and Giobbi (_sp?) bragging 'case closed' within days of arresting the kids. The criticism was, 'How can he say it's closed within just a few days?'

Fact is, Profazio solved the Olsson case 'within a few days'.

So much for the claim police have nothing better to do with their time than stitch up Americans instead of catching criminals.
Click to expand...

Seems to me Profazio thought he'd solved the Kercher case in a few days as well. Are you sure he's arrested the right person this time? Seems to me he blew it big the last time. Oops!
 
Vixen said:
...Thanks to some American woman fingering him. Pretending to whimper in fear as she did so.
Click to expand...


lol yeah how could I forget :D

They believed it so strongly they ignored all of Patrick's witnesses and found some random guy on the street and coerced him to say Patrick's open bar was closed. (A lot of people forget about this guy, I never do, it illustrates what these cops have always been about).
 
acbytesla said:
Seems to me Profazio thought he'd solved the Kercher case in a few days as well. Are you sure he's arrested the right person this time? Seems to me he blew it big the last time. Oops!
Click to expand...

No less than Barbie Nadeau made this point on CNN. This was not the Barbie Nadeau of "Student killer" fame. Nadeau reported to America through that report that Profazio was the one who was part of a rush to judgement against Knox - leaving viewers with the feeling the Italians needed watching in the Olsen case.
 
Bill Williams said:
No less than Barbie Nadeau made this point on CNN. This was not the Barbie Nadeau of "Student killer" fame. Nadeau reported to America through that report that Profazio was the one who was part of a rush to judgement against Knox - leaving viewers with the feeling the Italians needed watching in the Olsen case.
Click to expand...

You can hardly blame them. But hey Italy, think positively. A broken watch is right twice a day.
 
Last edited:
bagels said:
lol yeah how could I forget :D

They believed it so strongly they ignored all of Patrick's witnesses and found some random guy on the street and coerced him to say Patrick's open bar was closed. (A lot of people forget about this guy, I never do, it illustrates what these cops have always been about).
Click to expand...


Yes, this point sticks in my mind too.

After all, we know for sure that Lumumba's bar was actually open through the whole relevant time period. So therefore we also know for sure that the "witness" who told the police that Lumumba's bar was closed was wrong.

And then the salient question arises: how and why was this "witness" wrong? Was the person somehow genuinely mistaken (hard to imagine in the circumstances)? Was the person simply an attention-seeking liar (c.f. Quintavalle)? Was the person beholden in some way to the police, who believed that by doing the police the "favour" of telling them that Lumumba's bar was closed, he/she might get favourable treatment from the police on another matter in return (c.f. Curatolo)? Was the person coerced by the police into telling them (the police) what they wanted/needed to hear (i.e. that Lumumba's bar was closed)? Was the person in cahoots with the police to lie about Lumumba's bar having been closed? Was the person a pure invention of the police?

Whatever the truth about this "witness", it vividly illustrates a number of human behavioural factors which are extremely germane to this case: "witnesses" can be spectacularly wrong even if they are honestly convinced they are right; "witnesses" can be easily coerced by experienced coaches (police officers) to believe in something, even though that something never happened; "witnesses" can be attention-seeking liars, or people with various types of mental illness, or people who are seeking to gain something for themselves by giving the police the "evidence" that the police are asking for; police can and do use clandestine and unlawful methods to gather evidence to support a particular position.
 
analemma said:
Vixen is crawling on her hands and knees.
Click to expand...
It is SO MUCH FUN to watch the Psycho lying Guilters and Italian police squirm in the wind!!!!!!!!!!
The last year has just been a delight, so bad for the hatecrew that even Mach, the Italian Oracle of Delphi, the expert on Italian jurisprudence, has been rendered speechless and all that remains is the pathetic whimpering from Vixen.
Even Barbi has given up, saying "Amanda Knox is not content with freedom, now she is after justice".
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom