Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[toto]

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.

I don't think her diary would have necessarily expressed all her thoughts: things take time to properly process I would imagine, and memory can play tricks on one.

 

[LondonJohn]

In addition, of course, Vixen overlooks (or is ignorant of) the fact that Knox's prison diary was not a sworn statement - nor, for that matter, was it by any means necessarily written by Knox as any form of notarising everything that happened to her in prison. It was a diary - nothing more or less than that.

So even though Knox does not mention in her prison diary any request to list her sexual partners, this is only the most minor of "evidence" that she in fact was not asked to do so. Had Knox produced a sworn statement about this event which contradicted her ECHR application, then this would clearly constitute a serious (and probably insurmountable) credibility issue on this specific matter. Had Knox even produced a contradictory account in a formal interview (e.g. the December 2007 interview with Mignini), this too would have obviously damaged the credibility of the application on this specific matter.

But I seriously doubt whether the ECHR would judge that the fact that one detail in her application (that the doctor requested that she list all her prior sexual partners) was omitted in her prison diary - a diary that was almost-certainly written under great stress, fear and confusion, and which was only ever intended for Knox's own use - would be of any material significance to this particular aspect of her application. Furthermore, Knox has (to my knowledge) been entirely consistent in her claim that the doctor requested that she write a list of her prior sexual partners ever since she was eventually released from prison in 2011 - and in fact I think perhaps even before this date. Knox's claim was (IIRC) always that the authorities told her to write down her prior sexual partners, and then searched her cell very shortly afterwards - in the knowledge that they would almost certainly find Knox's written list, which they would then confiscate and leak, in order to try to discredit Knox and paint her as a slut (of course, in the event, they were almost certainly very disappointed that Knox's list had far, far fewer names on it than they had expected - though that didn't stop them trying to misrepresent it such that Knox's list referred to the sexual partners she'd had just while she'd been in Italy for those six weeks......).

Lastly, as Numbers correctly points out, this is in any case an extremely peripheral component to Knox's ECHR application. And of course it's entirely unrelated to the matters related to the Lumumba criminal slander - and it's this which Knox (understandably) wants the ECHR to address and remedy far above anything else.

 

[bagels]

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.

There is no doctor, was no doctor. It was all a ruse. She's making accusations against the Italian authorities that arrested and prosecuted her. Not any doctor.

 

[toto]

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

No, I think that memories can be a bit faulty. I couldn't the other day recollect who I saw a recent Star Wars film recently, and I was talking to the person with whom I had gone.
(fx means effects as in sound effects)

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I would say it's pretty "contemptible" to misrepresent someone writing "he told me it could be a mistake" into "he told me it was probably a mistake". But, as they say, YMMV.

Plus, as toto has recalled accurately, Knox alleges that the person who told her to write a list of her prior sexual partners was a prison officer, and not a doctor. If so, this would explain why she didn't mention the list in respect of the doctor, but it would mean that the ECHR application is inaccurate in this respect. I would imagine that, as and when the application is accepted, there will be a quick and easy opportunity to remedy this very small mistake.

(Incidentally, the claim that it was a prison officer who told her to write that list is far more in keeping with any plan to seize the list - since it was obviously the prison officers and not the doctors who were in control of searching cells and seizing materials from prisoners.)

 

[LondonJohn]

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

You're aware that it could have been a doctor who gave her the test results, and then a prison officer who told her to write the list of her sexual partners?

(And the adoption of an accent is not a "fx" (special effect or sound effect) - just so you know...)

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

And Vixen (and others) should also perhaps be very mindful of the (very high, IMO) possibility that Knox was strongly deterred from accusing senior prison officers of malpractice while she was still incarcerated in that very same prison with the same prison officers, and awaiting a criminal trial for murder.

It shouldn't take a particularly high intellect to figure out why that might be the case..........

 

[Numbers]

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).

The Communication is written by the ECHR, probably by someone who works in the Registry.

The lawyer and applicant write the application, which the ECHR summarizes or abstracts in the Communication.

There are obvious typos or garbles of information in this Communication. I challenge you to find two more besides the one you found and the one I have mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Whether or not the person who told her she could have HIV was actually a medical doctor is irrelevant to the Article 8 claim. The ECHR may not even investigate the identity of this person. What is most relevant to this part of the case is the release of private information to unauthorized persons by an agent of the Italian State.

The finding against Sarzanini and her publishers by the Court of Milan in 2014 shows that the release occurred, and that it was private information that had no relevance to the Kercher murder/rape and should not have been provided to any unauthorized person. Italy will have a high burden to show that it was not responsible for a violation of Convention Article 8 in this case.

 

[Numbers]

In addition, of course, Vixen overlooks (or is ignorant of) the fact that Knox's prison diary was not a sworn statement - nor, for that matter, was it by any means necessarily written by Knox as any form of notarising everything that happened to her in prison. It was a diary - nothing more or less than that.

So even though Knox does not mention in her prison diary any request to list her sexual partners, this is only the most minor of "evidence" that she in fact was not asked to do so. Had Knox produced a sworn statement about this event which contradicted her ECHR application, then this would clearly constitute a serious (and probably insurmountable) credibility issue on this specific matter. Had Knox even produced a contradictory account in a formal interview (e.g. the December 2007 interview with Mignini), this too would have obviously damaged the credibility of the application on this specific matter.

But I seriously doubt whether the ECHR would judge that the fact that one detail in her application (that the doctor requested that she list all her prior sexual partners) was omitted in her prison diary - a diary that was almost-certainly written under great stress, fear and confusion, and which was only ever intended for Knox's own use - would be of any material significance to this particular aspect of her application. Furthermore, Knox has (to my knowledge) been entirely consistent in her claim that the doctor requested that she write a list of her prior sexual partners ever since she was eventually released from prison in 2011 - and in fact I think perhaps even before this date. Knox's claim was (IIRC) always that the authorities told her to write down her prior sexual partners, and then searched her cell very shortly afterwards - in the knowledge that they would almost certainly find Knox's written list, which they would then confiscate and leak, in order to try to discredit Knox and paint her as a slut (of course, in the event, they were almost certainly very disappointed that Knox's list had far, far fewer names on it than they had expected - though that didn't stop them trying to misrepresent it such that Knox's list referred to the sexual partners she'd had just while she'd been in Italy for those six weeks......).

Lastly, as Numbers correctly points out, this is in any case an extremely peripheral component to Knox's ECHR application. And of course it's entirely unrelated to the matters related to the Lumumba criminal slander - and it's this which Knox (understandably) wants the ECHR to address and remedy far above anything else.

Yes, all the issues about how the private information reached the Italian authorities, agents of the State, are largely irrelevant. It is possible that simply seizing the diary was a violation of Article 8, but if there was a valid and reasonable warrant, perhaps not. The issue is how Knox's specific private information reached one or more unauthorized persons.

 

[Numbers]

There is no doctor, was no doctor. It was all a ruse. She's making accusations against the Italian authorities that arrested and prosecuted her. Not any doctor.

Again, this is not quite correct and may lead to confusion. The accusations are against Italy; the individuals who (allegedly) carried out violations of rights are not "accused" in the ECHR process.

The ECHR has no interest in accusations against individuals, nor does it have any authority in relation to censuring or punishing individuals.

Its jurisdiction relates to allegations of violations of the European Convention of Human Rights by STATES, such as ITALY.

The case is Knox v. Italy, not Knox v. an individual or group of individuals.

The identity of the individuals who allegedly violated Knox's rights in the case is not relevant*. It is also not relevant whether or not they were following orders from some person of higher rank in their organization, or did it solely on their own initiative*. What is relevant is that they were agents (employees) of the State of Italy, and thus Italy is responsible before the ECHR for their conduct.

*However, these facts may be useful to the ECHR in determining the events that may allow it to make a judgment regarding the allegations against the State.

 

[Numbers]

I would say it's pretty "contemptible" to misrepresent someone writing "he told me it could be a mistake" into "he told me it was probably a mistake". But, as they say, YMMV.

Plus, as toto has recalled accurately, Knox alleges that the person who told her to write a list of her prior sexual partners was a prison officer, and not a doctor. If so, this would explain why she didn't mention the list in respect of the doctor, but it would mean that the ECHR application is inaccurate in this respect. I would imagine that, as and when the application is accepted, there will be a quick and easy opportunity to remedy this very small mistake.

(Incidentally, the claim that it was a prison officer who told her to write that list is far more in keeping with any plan to seize the list - since it was obviously the prison officers and not the doctors who were in control of searching cells and seizing materials from prisoners.)

Perhaps a bit of word choice issue here.

Knox's application has been accepted; the sign that it has been accepted is that it was Communicated to the Respondent State, Italy.

The questions that remain are:

1. Is the application admissible in its entirety, or are any parts or even the whole inadmissible? This is only decided by the ECHR after its review of comments on admissibility by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.

2. What are the merits of the case*? Again, this is only judged by the ECHR after its review of comments on the merits by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.

*For judgment, the case only consists of the admissible part (if any) of the application.

 

[Numbers]

Considering the somewhat lengthy discussion in recent posts about the HIV incident and the alleged violation of Article 8 by Italy in their release of private information to one or more unauthorized persons, it is of interest that no question directly addresses this matter in the initial Communication to Italy (29 April 2016).

Repeat of the Information Request and Questions to the Parties (that is, the operative part of the Communication):

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? _____
The Questions to the Parties address specifically the issues of alleged violations of Articles 3, 6, and 8 during the interrogations of November 6, 2007, and thus resulting in an unfair trial in violation of Article 6.1.

Convictions found to be the result of a violation of the Convention requiring a reopening of proceedings in a final judgment of the ECHR are entitled to consideration of a revision trial according to Italian Constitutional Court decision No. 113/2011.

The judgment of an unfair trial - a violation of Article 6 - generally means that the applicant is entitled to request a new trial in which rights guaranteed by the Convention and ECHR case-law must be respected. Thus, a statement obtained under coercion or in an interrogation without a lawyer could not be used as evidence to obtain a conviction.

Of course, one of the follow-up Communications may address the release of private information to unauthorized persons by agents of Italy.

 

[Vixen]

Numbers gets it wrong again. Directly from the court yesterday to Ergon: "Thank you for your message. Regarding your
request, the application in question is still pending before the Court and no
decision as to its admissibility has been made yet. With best
wishes, ECHR – Press Unit" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11683909&postcount=3192 …

 

[Vixen]

And Vixen (and others) should also perhaps be very mindful of the (very high, IMO) possibility that Knox was strongly deterred from accusing senior prison officers of malpractice while she was still incarcerated in that very same prison with the same prison officers, and awaiting a criminal trial for murder.

It shouldn't take a particularly high intellect to figure out why that might be the case..........

LOL In the world of the PIP the prison officers are scum and the inmates saints.

There is an adage. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

 

[toto]

Numbers gets it wrong again. Directly from the court yesterday to Ergon: "Thank you for your message. Regarding your
request, the application in question is still pending before the Court and no
decision as to its admissibility has been made yet. With best
wishes, ECHR – Press Unit" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11683909&postcount=3192 …

But this is what Numbers quoted:

The questions that remain are:

1. Is the application admissible in its entirety, or are any parts or even the whole inadmissible?

 

[toto]

LOL In the world of the PIP the prison officers are scum and the inmates saints.

There is an adage. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...guard-obsessed-Foxy-Knoxys-sex-life.html?vm=r

From the Daily Mail (yes the Mail, but still)

Amanda Knox's prison chief asked her to list men she had slept with 'after becoming obsessed with her sex life'
Prison also told Knox she had HIV before further test returned negative
Guard quizzed her about sex 'to provoke Knox and test her personality

 

[toto]

LOL In the world of the PIP the prison officers are scum and the inmates saints.

There is an adage. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

Amanda Knox’s prison guard investigated for rape

(from Seattle pi)

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/09/30/amanda-knox’s-prison-guard-investigated-for-rape/

By the way, it was another woman doing the accusing. And Andrea Vogt definitely reported it but I can't find her report at present; am looking for her blog site.

ps the same guard referred to above

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps a bit of word choice issue here.

Knox's application has been accepted; the sign that it has been accepted is that it was Communicated to the Respondent State, Italy.

The questions that remain are:

1. Is the application admissible in its entirety, or are any parts or even the whole inadmissible? This is only decided by the ECHR after its review of comments on admissibility by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.

2. What are the merits of the case*? Again, this is only judged by the ECHR after its review of comments on the merits by the Respondent State and a response on each State comment from the applicant.

*For judgment, the case only consists of the admissible part (if any) of the application.

Well yes: for total accuracy, I should have written "...as and when the application is deemed admissible"

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL In the world of the PIP the prison officers are scum and the inmates saints.

There is an adage. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

No: "in the world of the PIP", Knox's prison diary was seized by prison officers shortly after she wrote a list of all her prior sexual partners (after a request to do so, she claims), then that list of sexual partners found its way into the mass media almost immediately afterwards.

So which of the "saintly" prison officers, shall we say, *facilitated* the (unlawful) communication of the diary to the media?

There is an adage. "There are none so blind as those who will not see".