Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[TruthCalls]

The other two cited articles, however, do not seem in agreement, and apparently take what appears to some as a hypothesis in the Marasca CSC panel MR (that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder/rape of Kercher) as a conclusion.

How could it be? There was NO evidence that she was at the cottage at the time the murder was committed. Her letters (memorials) not only represent a retraction of her claim of being there but makes it clear she was coerced into making the statement in the first place. In order for the CSC to rule she was definitively there they would have to dismiss her retraction and then would have to accept with certainty a statement that was provably false (Lumumba was not there). And even then they would be making a definitive ruling based on a single piece of weak circumstantial evidence.

Those who claim the CSC report proves they were there are being disingenuous.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here is a relevant sentence:





Source: http://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354

The word "l'ipotesi" translates to "the hypothesis" or "the assumption" or "the speculation" or "the conjecture" or "the supposition".

So it is clear that this article, headlined:



which translates to:



agrees with those who maintain that the Marasca CSC panel MR only discusses a hypothesis or speculation that Knox and Solecito were in the cottage on the night of the murder, and does not state it as a fact.

Italian text here was Google translated.

Unless the ISC writes an explanatory note explaining the reason why its 2015 motivations report was both relatively short as well as why it was, at best, ambiguous on some secondary issues, we'll be calling each other names about it nigh unto the 50th ISF continuation!

Maybe the ISC has shares in ISF stock?

Still, Luca Cheli's 2015 analysis of it remains the most balanced in that it identifies four "shadows" on the case that for an inexplicable reason PGP never discuss.

But the 4 lights and the 4 fires of the ISC report show why it sends shockwaves through the Italian judiciary. PGP (for good reason given their bias) ignore those completely.

 

[Numbers]

How could it be? There was NO evidence that she was at the cottage at the time the murder was committed. Her letters (memorials) not only represent a retraction of her claim of being there but makes it clear she was coerced into making the statement in the first place. In order for the CSC to rule she was definitively there they would have to dismiss her retraction and then would have to accept with certainty a statement that was provably false (Lumumba was not there). And even then they would be making a definitive ruling based on a single piece of weak circumstantial evidence.

Those who claim the CSC report proves they were there are being disingenuous.

The Marasca CSC panel MR does state that they are examining hypotheses about the presence of Knox and Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder, as shown in Section 9.4 of the MR:

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.

In the original Italian:

9.4. Orbene, un dato di indubbia pregnanza a favore degli odierni ricorrenti, nel senso di escludere la loro partecipazione materiale all'omicidio, pur nell'ipotesi della loro presenza in casa di via della Pergola, consiste proprio nellrassoluta mancanza di tracce biologiche a loro riferibili (all'infuori del gancetto di cui si dirà più oltre) nella stanza dell'omicidio o sul corpo della vittima, ove invece sono state rivenute numerose tracce riferibili al Guede.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

The words "nell'ipotesi" may be translated as: "asuming" or "hypothesis" or "the assumption" or "the hypothesis" or "hypothesizing" (Google translate).

Apparently, some readers, even Italian ones, miss or ignore this wording.

 

[Bill Williams]

A reminder that even from a PIP point of view - one that eventually even the Italian judiciary adopted - it is not all sweetness and light for justice; as measured by the ISC 2015 motivations report.

As Luca Cheli writes, there are shadows in what they wrote, and only one of the four are as advertised by some individuals who claim to be able to read literal Italian.

http://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/

In summary, the shadows identified are:

1) “conflitto in giudicato” - which is a ghost haunting the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It's not that conflicts in rulings are illegal or unconstitutional, it's that the Sections try to align their rulings as much as possible. As such M/B spent a lot of time defending things like the multiple attacker theory. (As seen in the recent revision hearing for Rudy Guede, the judiciary in Italy does NOT see that theory as involving AK and/or RS anyway.)

2) The calumny against Lumumba. M/B had to deal with this because of Knox's defence team's request to delay the ISC ruling until the ECHR has made a decision. The real dark shadow of this part of M/B was their bizarre statement that an interrogation with a prosecutor is, “institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”. As Cheli notes, any of the interrogation videos which DO exist in other cases show that to be a dubious statement at best.

3) Even M/B evaluate the "spontaneous statements" potentially illegally, because a former ISC ruling had declared them inadmissible. (See #1 shadow above.)

4) M/B cast a thick fog over it's analysis of Knox's alleged presence at the cottage. In summary M/B seems to be saying, "There is the possibility they were there during the murder, but they could have been there later. Or indeed they could have not been there at all, since Marasca states on page 47 that there is no “tranquillizing certainty” that Knox’s alibi is false."​

Also about the "staged" burglary, M/B's opinion on the factuality of that, depends on the translation of the word “contestata”, which could mean either, "for which they have been charged", or equally "disputed".

The "light" which the 2015 ISC throws on this case begins with the “unsurmountable monolithic barrier” against the conviction of the defendants for murder because there is no trace of either in the murder room itself.

The second light is that the convicting courts had seemed to have forgotten that the Scientific Police themselves ruled out that the footprints found were the result of blood. The only court which seemed to have "got" that the Scientific Police themselves said that was the Hellmann court.

And finally M/B wades through the ever changing assertions of motive from 2008 onwards.... saying that first and foremost, there is no evidence at all that this murder had been the result of a "sex-game". But more to the point, Nencini's invention of a motive over rent money had absolutely no basis in anything presented at trial.

The thunder?

There's a couple of points that the ISC 2015 state, but the most shocking is - "the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations." And when the latter is seen as the reality it is, the lower court judge had no choice but to acquit - which he did not.

Finally - after Nencini had ruled that international protocols for forensics were not all that relevant (!!), the 2015 ISC said in correcting it, "Evidence collection must be “aseptic”, and performed “in an environment whose sterilization has been previously assured, so that it may be shielded from possible contamination. These fundamental rules were not followed in this investigation."

I commend everyone here to read Cheli's analysis, rather than pluck out a few words from Section 9 of the report, as if that's all the 2015 ISC had said.

 

[Numbers]

The question of the meaning of the "importance level" assigned to a case by the ECHR was raised previously by an ISF poster. The poster essentially claimed that the (preliminary) assignment of importance level 3 to the Knox v. Italy case meant that it was not considered a significant matter.

Of course, the "importance level" is the ECHR's assessment of the likelihood of a case generating new case-law. A recently judged ECRH case illustrates this.

In Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC] 60367/08 961/11, two adult males who had been convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment, claimed that their Convention rights had been violated since Russian law excludes life imprisonment as a sentence for females or anyone who is under 18 when the offense was committed or over 65 when convicted. The ECHR assigned this case an importance level of 1, because one must assume, it dealt with fundamental issues of possible discrimination never before considered by the Court (ECHR). Thus, new case-law would be generated.

The ECHR in its final judgment ruled that Russia operated within its "margin of appreciation" (sovereign authority to set law) in the circumstances and thus there was no violation.

Since the delicate issues raised in the present case touched on areas where there was little common ground (apart from the exemption of juvenile offenders from life imprisonment) amongst the member States and, generally speaking, the law appeared to be in a transitional stage, a wide margin of appreciation had to be left to the authorities of each State.

It therefore appeared difficult to criticise the Russian legislature for having established, in a way which reflected the evolution of society in that sphere, the exemption of certain groups of offenders from life imprisonment. Such an exemption represented, all things considered, social progress in penological matters. In the absence of common ground regarding the imposition of life imprisonment, the Russian authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation.

This cited case thus illustrates the significance of the "importance level":

Language(s)
English
Title
Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC]
App. No(s).
60367/08
961/11
Date
01/12/2018
Importance Level 1Respondent State(s)
Russia

Source: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC] 60367/08 961/11
Press Release; Case Details

 

[Numbers]

A reminder that even from a PIP point of view - one that eventually even the Italian judiciary adopted - it is not all sweetness and light for justice; as measured by the ISC 2015 motivations report.

As Luca Cheli writes, there are shadows in what they wrote, and only one of the four are as advertised by some individuals who claim to be able to read literal Italian.

http://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/

In summary, the shadows identified are:

1) “conflitto in giudicato” - which is a ghost haunting the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It's not that conflicts in rulings are illegal or unconstitutional, it's that the Sections try to align their rulings as much as possible. As such M/B spent a lot of time defending things like the multiple attacker theory. (As seen in the recent revision hearing for Rudy Guede, the judiciary in Italy does NOT see that theory as involving AK and/or RS anyway.)

2) The calumny against Lumumba. M/B had to deal with this because of Knox's defence team's request to delay the ISC ruling until the ECHR has made a decision. The real dark shadow of this part of M/B was their bizarre statement that an interrogation with a prosecutor is, “institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”. As Cheli notes, any of the interrogation videos which DO exist in other cases show that to be a dubious statement at best.

3) Even M/B evaluate the "spontaneous statements" potentially illegally, because a former ISC ruling had declared them inadmissible. (See #1 shadow above.)

4) M/B cast a thick fog over it's analysis of Knox's alleged presence at the cottage. In summary M/B seems to be saying, "There is the possibility they were there during the murder, but they could have been there later. Or indeed they could have not been there at all, since Marasca states on page 47 that there is no “tranquillizing certainty” that Knox’s alibi is false."​

Also about the "staged" burglary, M/B's opinion on the factuality of that, depends on the translation of the word “contestata”, which could mean either, "for which they have been charged", or equally "disputed".

The "light" which the 2015 ISC throws on this case begins with the “unsurmountable monolithic barrier” against the conviction of the defendants for murder because there is no trace of either in the murder room itself.

The second light is that the convicting courts had seemed to have forgotten that the Scientific Police themselves ruled out that the footprints found were the result of blood. The only court which seemed to have "got" that the Scientific Police themselves said that was the Hellmann court.

And finally M/B wades through the ever changing assertions of motive from 2008 onwards.... saying that first and foremost, there is no evidence at all that this murder had been the result of a "sex-game". But more to the point, Nencini's invention of a motive over rent money had absolutely no basis in anything presented at trial.

The thunder?

There's a couple of points that the ISC 2015 state, but the most shocking is - "the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations." And when the latter is seen as the reality it is, the lower court judge had no choice but to acquit - which he did not.

Finally - after Nencini had ruled that international protocols for forensics were not all that relevant (!!), the 2015 ISC said in correcting it, "Evidence collection must be “aseptic”, and performed “in an environment whose sterilization has been previously assured, so that it may be shielded from possible contamination. These fundamental rules were not followed in this investigation."

I commend everyone here to read Cheli's analysis, rather than pluck out a few words from Section 9 of the report, as if that's all the 2015 ISC had said.

Bill, thanks for reminding us of these points.

One likely reason (among possibly others) for the Marasca CSC panel not disputing the validity of Knox's statement from the interrogation is that to do so would be equivalent to an accusation against the police and prosecutor.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, thanks for reminding us of these points.

One likely reason (among possibly others) for the Marasca CSC panel not disputing the validity of Knox's statement from the interrogation is that to do so would be equivalent to an accusation against the police and prosecutor.

Another reason is that former ISC rulings had been all over the place on the relationship of those statements to the murder case - ruling them inadmissible but then even the ISC refers to them!

 

[Numbers]

Another reason is that former ISC rulings had been all over the place on the relationship of those statements to the murder case - ruling them inadmissible but then even the ISC refers to them!

Yes. And, as far as I know, no Italian court has referred to Memoriale 2, from Nov. 7, 2007, where Amanda Knox apparently overcomes the effects of the interrogation and clearly explains the details of her whereabouts on Nov. 1, pointing out that she has no way to know if Lumumba murdered Meredith Kercher. This type of recovery of memory or assertiveness is not unknown among persons subjected to coercive interrogations; its seen in some ECHR cases where applicants claim coercion during an interrogation without a lawyer.

 

[sept79]

.
.
The Italian system could - and IMO should - easily be changed to one in which the appeal court stage is totally skipped on the way "up the chain". In other words, there's a court-of-first-instance trial, then - for all serious cases - there's no appeal-level second trial, bu rather the case moves all the way up to an automatic review of that first-instance court's verdict by the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court finds that the first-instance court has erred, the case is sent back to an appeal-level court for a (higher form of) retrial.
.
.

Why not treat 'not guilty' verdicts as final--i.e., no appeals?

 

[acbytesla]

THIS. I've been astonished by how well Sollecito behaved throughout most of this affair. I found it amazing that someone who had been through such trauma and in particular the period of solitary confinement was apparently so well-adjusted.

So if he's maybe not as well-adjusted as it seemed and was only managing to hold it together until the whole ordeal was over, it's not entirely surprising.

I really can't see how anyone can look at his behaviour over the past (almost) ten years and call him weak-willed.

I agree. In fact, I would describe him as strong willed and principled. Everything I've seen from Raffaele is a mostly polite, thoughtful intelligent young man. That doesn't mean he doesn’t have problems or issues. Who doesn't? And considering he was incarcerated for 4 years and under a cloud, I'd say he has carried himself very well.

 

[Numbers]

Getting back to the subject of acquittal specifications in Italian law (CPP Article 530), here is the PQM (For These Reasons), the short-form operative verdict, of the Boninsegna Motivation Report of the trial of Amanda Knox for calunnia against the police and Mignini.

PQM

Visto l' art. 530 cpp,
assolve Knox Amanda Marie dal attribuitole al capo a), perché i fatti non sussistono, e dal reato attribuitole al capo b), perche i fatti non sussistono e perché il fatto non costituisce reato, quanto alle accuse rivolte dr. Giuliano Mignini.


For These Reasons

Pursuant to article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure,
acquits Knox Amanda Marie for the charge under letter a), because the facts do not exist, and for the charge under letter b), because the facts do not exist and because the act does not constitute an offense, as regards the accusations addressed to Dr. Giuliano Mignini.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

Now here is how these acquittal specifications of the Boninsegna court's MR compare to the ones detailed in the Wikipedia article (call them W1, ..., W5):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

W1: Perché il fatto non sussiste
Because the action the defendant was alleged to have committed never took place
MR: perché i fatti non sussistono

W2: Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso
Because the action allegedly committed by the defendant was actually committed by another party
MR: {Not used}

W3: Perché il fatto non costituisce reato
Because the action committed by the defendant is not considered a crime, for he was excused (e.g. self defense)
MR: perché il fatto non costituisce reato

W4: Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato
Because law no longer considers the action committed by the defendant to be a crime
MR: {Not used}

W5: Perché l'imputato non è punibile
Because the defendant is not liable for his crime, because he was legally insane at the time
MR: {Not used}

Conclusions:

1. In a previous post in which I attempted to explain the acquittal specifications, I made a mistake when I "adapted" the Wikipedia specifications; I confused the meanings in English of W3 and W4, if I recall correctly. With the Boninsegna MR as an example of actual use, I see that the Wikipedia article is correct.

Thanks to poster toto for pointing out my error in a previous post.

2. According to the reasoning of the Boninsegna court MR, it is clear that the acquittal was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox had committed calunnia against the police, or even that such calunnia had occurred. Calunnia could not have occurred if Knox's statements about police mistreatment were true or she believed them to be true.

For example, the text of the MR has this statement with "reasonable doubt" elements:

There is not, hence, sufficient evidence that the events did not occur as Knox reported, as regards the police. But it is also plausible, given the dramatic context that has been revealed, that Knox was convinced or had the - reasonable - doubt of being the victim of an unjustly oppressive and abusive machinery....

Thus, while the Boninsegna court did not specify which paragraph of CPP Article 530 was immediately relevant, it is clear that it was paragraph 2. And, as previously discussed, an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2 is no different in legal consequences than one under CPP Article 530.1, which is no doubt why the PQM only calls out CPP Article 530.

Furthermore, the specifications are meaningful, and while only certain specifications may be used to identify the cause of an acquittal, as listed in CPP Article 530, they are not "pro forma" in the sense of being merely formal. They are intended to summarize the reasons for acquittal, and there are only the stated five reasons of Article 530 that are valid under Italian law.

 

[Numbers]

Discussion of the Boninsegna court MR and verdict ties in to the ECHR case of Knox v. Italy.

Here is the operative part of the published Communication to Italy of 29 April 2016; English translation by Google translate with my assistance:

GRIEFS

1. La requérante soulève plusieurs griefs concernant le manque d’équité de la procédure pénale à l’issue de laquelle elle a été condamnée à trois ans de réclusion pour dénonciation calomnieuse.

a) Invoquant l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 a) de la Convention, la requérante se plaint de ne pas avoir été informée dans les meilleurs délais et dans une langue compréhensible de la nature et des motifs de l’accusation formulée à sa charge.

b) Sous l’angle de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c), elle dénonce en outre ne pas avoir été assistée par un avocat lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007.

c) Invoquant l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 e), la requérante se plaint également de ne pas avoir été assistée par un interprète professionnel et indépendant au cours de son interrogatoire et de ce que l’agente de police l’ayant assistée pendant les interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 a exécuté des fonctions de « médiatrice » ainsi suggérant des hypothèses sur le déroulement des faits.

2. Invoquant l’article 3 de la Convention, la requérante se plaint de ce que les tapes sur la tête qu’elle a subies (scappellotti) ont constitué des traitements inhumains et dégradants.

3. Invoquant l’article 8 de la Convention, elle dénonce la violation de son droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, au motif que, le 6 novembre 2007, elle a été obligée de répondre à des questions concernant M. D.L. alors qu’elle se trouvait en défaut de discernement et de volonté (incapacità di intendere e volere) et sous pression psychologique.


DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS


1. La requérante est invitée à produire une copie de l’arrêt du tribunal de Pérouse du 5 décembre 2009, concernant sa condamnation pour dénonciation calomnieuse, ainsi qu’une copie du recours en appel et du pourvoi en cassation concernant cette procédure.


2. Les parties sont invitées à indiquer si l’arrêt du tribunal de Florence du 14 janvier 2016 a été attaqué ou s’il est devenu définitif ainsi qu’à fournir une copie des documents pertinents.

QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES

1. La requérante a-t-elle épuisé les voies de recours internes qui lui étaient ouvertes pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?

2. Dans l’affirmative :

a) la requérante a-t-elle été soumise, en violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants ?

b) La requérante a-t-elle, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 a) de la Convention, été informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprenait et d’une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation portée contre elle pour dénonciation calomnieuse ?

c) La requérante a-t-elle pu avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention, notamment lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 ?

d) La requérante a-t-elle obtenu l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète, au sens de l’article 6 § 3 e) de la Convention ?

e) La pression psychologique prétendument subie par la requérante lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007, a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit de celle-ci à un procès équitable, au sens de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, et au droit au respect de sa vie privée, protégé par l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention?
_____________

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant raises several complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings following which she was sentenced to three years in prison for false accusation.

a) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 a) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being informed promptly and in a language that she understood of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.

b) In terms of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), she also alleges that she was not assisted by a lawyer during the interrogation of 6 November 2007.

c) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 e), the applicant also complains that she was not assisted by a professional and independent interpreter during interrogation and that the police officer who assisted during the interrogation of 6 November 2007 performed the duties of a "mediator", thereby suggesting hypotheses about what events had taken place.

2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the slaps on the head that she suffered (scappellotti) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she denounces the violation of her right to respect for private and family life, on the grounds that, on 6 November 2007, she was forced to answer questions about Mr DL so that she was unable to exercise judgment and will (incapacità di intendere volere e) and under psychological pressure.


INFORMATION REQUEST

1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding her conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.

2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016 was appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. If so:

a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?

b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?

c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?

d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?

e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

 

[Vixen]

Exposé des Faits 76577/13 A.K. v. Italy ECHR Application

Exposé des Faits 76577/13 A.K. v. Italy ECHR Application

I happened to cast my eye over this document and came across this little gem, as attached.

How peculiar, her 'Prison Diary sets out a completely different story to the one in her application.

Surely Amanda wouldn't lie to a court of law?

In her Prison Diary - also attached - she writes that the doctor told her it was probably a false-positive and not to worry. She then idles her time away listing her partners. It says nothing about the doctor demanding a list of her partners. Why would he, if he thinks the result is unreliable?

She then claims this list was released for publication in various newspapers.

Looks like this story has been manufactured in retrospect.

 

[Numbers]

Exposé des Faits 76577/13 A.K. v. Italy ECHR Application

I happened to cast my eye over this document and came across this little gem, as attached.

How peculiar, her 'Prison Diary sets out a completely different story to the one in her application.

Surely Amanda wouldn't lie to a court of law?

In her Prison Diary she writes that the doctor told her it was probably a false-positive and not to worry. She then idles her time away listing her partners. It says nothing about the doctor demanding a list of her partners. Why would he, if he thinks the result is unreliable?

She then claims this list was released for publication in various newspapers.

Looks like this story has been manufactured in retrospect.

Another possibility is that this is a typo or garbling of the facts of the case by the ECHR in this early stage of the case. It is the ECHR that produces the Communication, not the applicant, and I have spotted several minor errors in it. For example, the ECHR wrote in the Communication that Knox was acquitted in September 2015 because "the fact (of the crime) did not exist" when the actual reason was because "the accused did not commit the act (of the crime)".

The actual detail of the events, whether they occurred exactly as written in the Communication or exactly as written by Knox in her memoir or diary, leading to the release of the names of her sexual partners or other private information would in reality not be of much concern to the ECHR.

The issue of concern to the ECHR would be whether or not someone employed by the State of Italy - that is, one of its agents of any job category - provided Knox's private information to the media or any other unauthorized person or organization. This would include allowing an unauthorized person to see private material in a case file. Such a release of private information, without Knox's permission, to an unauthorized person or organization would constitute the alleged violation of Article 8. The State is held responsible by the ECHR for the acts of its employees and agents.

 

[Vixen]

Another possibility is that this is a typo or garbling of the facts of the case by the ECHR in this early stage of the case. It is the ECHR that produces the Communication, not the applicant, and I have spotted several minor errors in it. For example, the ECHR wrote in the Communication that Knox was acquitted in September 2015 because "the fact (of the crime) did not exist" when the actual reason was because "the accused did not commit the act (of the crime)".

The actual detail of the events, whether they occurred exactly as written in the Communication or exactly as written by Knox in her memoir or diary, leading to the release of the names of her sexual partners or other private information would in reality not be of much concern to the ECHR.

The issue of concern to the ECHR would be whether or not someone employed by the State of Italy - that is, one of its agents of any job category - provided Knox's private information to the media or any other unauthorized person or organization. This would include allowing an unauthorized person to see private material in a case file. Such a release of private information, without Knox's permission, to an unauthorized person or organization would constitute the alleged violation of Article 8. The State is held responsible by the ECHR for the acts of its employees and agents.

It is Dalla Vedova's job as a lawyer to particularise the claim accurately. I can only imagine he is writing it as instructed by his client.

It would of course be against Bar Standard (even in Italy) for a lawyer to knowingly lie to a court (their reputation for dissemblance notwithstanding).

 

[LondonJohn]

Another possibility is that this is a typo or garbling of the facts of the case by the ECHR in this early stage of the case. It is the ECHR that produces the Communication, not the applicant, and I have spotted several minor errors in it. For example, the ECHR wrote in the Communication that Knox was acquitted in September 2015 because "the fact (of the crime) did not exist" when the actual reason was because "the accused did not commit the act (of the crime)".

The actual detail of the events, whether they occurred exactly as written in the Communication or exactly as written by Knox in her memoir or diary, leading to the release of the names of her sexual partners or other private information would in reality not be of much concern to the ECHR.

The issue of concern to the ECHR would be whether or not someone employed by the State of Italy - that is, one of its agents of any job category - provided Knox's private information to the media or any other unauthorized person or organization. This would include allowing an unauthorized person to see private material in a case file. Such a release of private information, without Knox's permission, to an unauthorized person or organization would constitute the alleged violation of Article 8. The State is held responsible by the ECHR for the acts of its employees and agents.

Quite.

It's also *interesting* that Vixen changes Knox's "the guy (the doctor) told me.... it (the positive HIV result) could be a mistake" into "the doctor told her it was probably a false-positive" (my bolding in both quotes).

This would appear to be the same sort of anti-Knox/anti-Sollecito exaggeration/misrepresentation which Vixen employed in her incorrect assertions that Sollecito "bragged about getting away with (the Kercher murder)" and so on. What is one to make of it all......?

 

[Bill Williams]

It is Dalla Vedova's job as a lawyer to particularise the claim accurately. I can only imagine he is writing it as instructed by his client.

It would of course be against Bar Standard (even in Italy) for a lawyer to knowingly lie to a court (their reputation for dissemblance notwithstanding).

Imaging things must be a 530.3 acquittal.

 

[toto]

Exposé des Faits 76577/13 A.K. v. Italy ECHR Application

I happened to cast my eye over this document and came across this little gem, as attached.

How peculiar, her 'Prison Diary sets out a completely different story to the one in her application.

Surely Amanda wouldn't lie to a court of law?

In her Prison Diary - also attached - she writes that the doctor told her it was probably a false-positive and not to worry. She then idles her time away listing her partners. It says nothing about the doctor demanding a list of her partners. Why would he, if he thinks the result is unreliable?

She then claims this list was released for publication in various newspapers.

Looks like this story has been manufactured in retrospect.

According to AK's book Waiting to be heard it was the Vice-Comandante Argiro who told her : "You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from" after being told that she was tested positive for HIV by the doctor. She was later propositioned by this guard. But Numbers's post is more relevant.

 

[Vixen]

Quite.

It's also *interesting* that Vixen changes Knox's "the guy (the doctor) told me.... it (the positive HIV result) could be a mistake" into "the doctor told her it was probably a false-positive" (my bolding in both quotes).

This would appear to be the same sort of anti-Knox/anti-Sollecito exaggeration/misrepresentation which Vixen employed in her incorrect assertions that Sollecito "bragged about getting away with (the Kercher murder)" and so on. What is one to make of it all......?

Nothing in the diary about the doctor 'saying she had HIV and demanding she list her sex partners', and then in the days following publishing the list in newspapers and the media.

You don't think it despicable that Amanda is making a serious allegation against a doctor of medicine, without having made any effort at all to complain about it at the time.

Contemptible.

 

[Vixen]

According to AK's book Waiting to be heard it was the Vice-Comandante Argiro who told her : "You should think about who you slept with and who you got it from" after being told that she was tested positive for HIV by the doctor. She was later propositioned by this guard. But Numbers's post is more relevant.

Oh really? A prison officer doubles up as a doctor. <fx Brummie accent 'yes, mate!'>