Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[bagels]

The ECHR will not change a iota of Knox's guilt, since even a finding of a violation would be irrelevant as to the merits of the evidence.

This is your same circular argument - since she wasn't coerced to name Patrick, naming Patrick is a crime.

Nobody has ever said otherwise. In fact I said it would still be a crime several pages before you decided to rejoin us.

Unfortunately for Italy they made one very stupid mistake, they forgot to switch on the tape recorder to prove there was no coercion, and Amanda's letter is the only contemporary evidence of what happened in that interrogation, and it supports coercion. They may as well have used thumb screws to get what they wanted, because it's all going to be erased in the end. There will be no crime standing.

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't write an opinion post about Nadeau and Pisa.

I talked abaout trial documents.

You avoid documents again. You try to mention this and that, now you shun the topic entirely and you decide to mention Maresca. You avoid to deal with the fact that your claim is unfounded, contradicts the evidence of court documents - including the words of Micheli - and is nonsensical. You dodge, and dodge.
You'll do anything to avoid dealing directly with something.

If you like talking about what people say of other people and build narratives from that, why don't you draw your world from Sollecito's words stating that Knox is a murderess and an insane individual?

Please understand. My interest now is the rhetorical war which still rages in some minds. This case is settled. They are innocent.

Yet there still is the urge to define the parameters of allowed rhetoric as to prejudice the discussion before it starts.

Why I am deemed important enough to accuse is beyond me.

 

[toto]

read my post above.

This is my issue: No unfiltered primary source.

 

[bagels]

Yes. And you talked about "shedevil" instead.

You also talked about Mignini putting forward scenarios - here we have instead Matteini, and she is basically only reporting from witnesses.

The judge believed the evidence they had in their possession that Amanda had a promiscuous nature in contrast with Meredith, and this nature contributed to the crime where Amanda enticed Patrick with the promise of sexual satisfaction, which ended in deadly violence.

But now your defense is technically they did not explicitly use the word shedevil. Ok, sure

 

[Machiavelli]

ROFL you're now researching the family background of some official thousands of miles away because they once said something positive about a girl you hate. This is incredible.

I'm glad I have no idea who Mignini's 2nd cousin is or whatever.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

No, I'm not researching now - I did my research a long time ago, when it was in real time.
No the senator in question did not say something positive about any girl; actually what she said was something negative about someone else, that is blaming Italian authorities of plotting a conspiracy and Italian judiciary targeting Amanda Knox because of an anti-American agenda.

So I happened to discover that the respected senator, once when she was a youg woman, together with her family, they already blamed other police & authorities of plotting politically motivated conspiracies (obviously a false allegation like the latest one).

 

[bagels]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

No, I'm not researching now - I did my research a long time ago, when it was in real time.
No the senator in question did not say something positive about any girl; actually what she said was something negative about someone else, that is blaming Italian authorities of plotting a conspiracy and Italian judiciary targeting Amanda Knox because of an anti-American agenda.

So I happened to discover that the respected senator, once when she was a youg woman, together with her family, they already blamed other police & authorities of plotting politically motivated conspiracies (obviously a false allegation like the latest one).

So now she's been upgraded from family member of someone who once allegedly did something, to the head conspirator. Haha.

The reason she spoke out against the prosecution of Amanda Knox, as opposed to the probably scores of people prosecuted abroad without incident, is because the case was so self evidently crap and politically motivated, for all the reasons that have been thoroughly discussed in this thread.

That's why on the PIP side you have like, for example, some of the most influential figures in forensic science who held senior positions at some of the most influential and respected forensic labs in the world (the FBI, and the Forensic Science Service in the UK)

and on the PGP side you have, uh... Ann Coulter.

 

[toto]

read my post above.

Knox 'stabbed Kercher in neck as part of satanic rite'
Prosecutor: American delivered fatal blow, then student was strangled

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...r-in-neck-as-part-of-satanic-rite-966242.html

I am not expecting you to agree with this headline, but to show you that I am sure you can appreciate why I have a problem with not having full, unedited, unfiltered and commentated sources. The things you say are obvious are not necessarily so.

 

[Numbers]

It would certainly alter the perception as it would undermine the confused and troubled statements AK made.

If there is a final judgment of the ECHR that Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was the result of an unfair trial, it would enable Knox, under Italian law*, to request a revision trial in Italy, conducted with respect to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

JUDGMENT NO. 113 YEAR 2011*
In this case the Court considered a reference from the Bologna Court of Appeal concerning the constitutionality of the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which did not provide for criminal proceedings to be reopened if the original judgment had been ruled unfair by a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court ruled that the situation was unconstitutional, and that the relevant provision had to be read as granting the right to request that a criminal trial be reopened under those circumstances.

*Supreme Constitutional Court of Italy judgment

Source:
http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionJudgment.do

 

[Briars]

ROFL you're now researching the family background of some official thousands of miles away because they once said something positive about a girl you hate. This is incredible.

I'm glad I have no idea who Mignini's 2nd cousin is or whatever.

The US Senator was a girl of 17 who witnessed her father leave politics over the murder charge her brother faced. She became emotionally invested in Amanda Knox and used her political influence based on the subject which had cased her family pain. I'm not sure if her personal story is widely known but it should have been given her involvement in an unrelated case.

 

[bagels]

The US Senator was a girl of 17 who witnessed her father leave politics over the murder charge her brother faced. She became emotionally invested in Amanda Knox and used her political influence based on the subject which had cased her family pain. I'm not sure if her personal story is widely known but it should have been given her involvement in an unrelated case.

Since she took office there have been, by my rough estimate, ~ 2500 homicides involving people from Washington State. How many of these did she use her political influence on and claim resulted in unfair trials?

Her personal story is probably not widely known because it happened to someone other than herself, a long time ago, and there is no pattern of it causing biased influence to her positions as a senator.

I think the most striking part of this story is the PGP's seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the far reaching remote background of seemingly every single person that ever once said something positive about Amanda Knox.

 

[Numbers]

If there is a final judgment of the ECHR that Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was the result of an unfair trial, it would enable Knox, under Italian law*, to request a revision trial in Italy, conducted with respect to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.



*Supreme Constitutional Court of Italy judgment

Source:
http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionJudgment.do

The Supreme Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011 is 16 pages long. Here is an excerpt:

In this case, as noted above (see paragraph 4 of the Facts of the Case above), the Strasbourg Court considers, according to case law that is now settled, that the obligation to comply with its final judgments incumbent upon the contracting Parties under Article 46(1) ECHR also entails the commitment for the contracting States to allow trials to be reopened, if requested by the interested party, whenever this may appear necessary in order to grant full redress to that person in cases in which the guarantees recognised by the Convention have been violated, particularly the right to a fair trial.

This interpretation cannot be deemed to contrast with the relevant protections offered by the Constitution. In particular – without prejudice to the undoubted relevance of the values represented by the certainty and stability of a res iudicata – the provision for the setting aside of the related exclusionary effects in cases involving particularly serious infringements – such as those ascertained by the Strasbourg Court, having regard to the judicial proceedings as a whole – of the guarantees relating to fundamental human rights cannot be regarded as unconstitutional. With particular reference to the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention, these guarantees are moreover largely confirmed under the current text of Article 111 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the lower court specified Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – not unjustifiably – as the provision in respect of which the Court is requested to take action. Indeed, out of all the institutions currently available under the law of criminal procedure, review – which entails the reopening of the trial as an extraordinary ground for appeal of a general nature, implying a resumption of procedural activities addressing the merits of the case, including also the discovery of evidence – is that which most closely resembles the remedy which it appears necessary to introduce in order to guarantee that the national legal order complies with the principle invoked.

 

[toto]

If there is a final judgment of the ECHR that Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba was the result of an unfair trial, it would enable Knox, under Italian law*, to request a revision trial in Italy, conducted with respect to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.



*Supreme Constitutional Court of Italy judgment

Source:
http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionJudgment.do

I hope you are right but I did not have the knowledge to say this!

 

[bagels]

I hope you are right but I did not have the knowledge to say this!

Well we have to acknowledge there is a point of contention.

Obviously if the police took thumbscrews to Amanda Knox, and screwed them in until she agreed Patrick was the killer, the ECHR's ruling would eliminate her entire statement and there would be no basis on which to support a criminal slander conviction after the revision trial, if Italy even bothered to hold one. Nobody would argue with this.

And on the other end, obviously if Amanda Knox just blurted out voluntarily with no prompting and no coercion whatsoever from the police - who just wanted to ask some basic questions - that Patrick did it - then an ECHR finding that there were certain minor procedural violations during the interrogation would not undo her criminal slander. Nobody would argue with this.

So we can obviously understand there is a spectrum and after tea and crumpets, but before thumbscrews, Knox's statements become coerced and no criminal slander occurred. The PGP's default position is Knox's case is not on this spectrum. It's obviously a contested position. So saying the ECHR can do nothing to help her is an opinion based on their contested position, not a rudimentary explanation of ECHR procedures.

We wont know what the ECHR will decide until they decide it.

 

[Numbers]

Well we have to acknowledge there is a point of contention.

Obviously if the police took thumbscrews to Amanda Knox, and screwed them in until she agreed Patrick was the killer, the ECHR's ruling would eliminate her entire statement and there would be no basis on which to support a criminal slander conviction after the revision trial, if Italy even bothered to hold one. Nobody would argue with this.

And on the other end, obviously if Amanda Knox just blurted out voluntarily with no prompting and no coercion whatsoever from the police - who just wanted to ask some basic questions - that Patrick did it - then an ECHR finding that there were certain minor procedural violations during the interrogation would not undo her criminal slander. Nobody would argue with this.

So we can obviously understand there is a spectrum and after tea and crumpets, but before thumbscrews, Knox's statements become coerced and no criminal slander occurred. The PGP's default position is Knox's case is not on this spectrum. It's obviously a contested position. So saying the ECHR can do nothing to help her is an opinion based on their contested position, not a rudimentary explanation of ECHR procedures.

We wont know what the ECHR will decide until they decide it.

I disagree with this, because it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ECHR does in its judgments.

The ECHR is not an appeal court. It does not evaluate State procedures in a case or trial in isolation, but only according to the international treaty - the European Convention on Human Rights - and the case-law it has developed.

In other words, unless the violations or errors in procedure in a trial amounted to causing an unfair trial, based on a provision of Article 6 of the Convention or case-law based on Article 6, the ECHR would not judge a violation had occurred. In fact, a claim of a violation or error of domestic (national) procedure that was not linked in substance to violation of a Convention article or case-law would be decided as inadmissible.

Furthermore, a violation of some articles alone, such as Article 8 alone, would not generate an unfair trial, and thus would not generate a right for a revision or new trial with all Convention rights respected.

ECHR case-law requires that a defense lawyer be present during interrogations for statements from the interrogation to be used in convicting someone. Even the known exception on the requirement for the presence of a defense lawyer, for terrorist safety interviews - that is, asking a suspected terrorist if there are any other planted bombs and so forth - cannot according to ECHR result in use of statements from the safety interview as a sole basis for conviction. See ECHR case Ibrahim and others v. the UK for details.

 

[Numbers]

I hope you are right but I did not have the knowledge to say this!

Well, I am not saying this, I am reproducing information from the judgment of the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court which they have kindly translated into English on their website (shown as the source). It's Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011.

It gives the right to request the revision trial if the ECHR has a final judgment of an unfair trial (violation of Article 6) in a case. However, that request is subject to review by the Italian courts (Court of Appeal) with an appeal to the CSC allowed. But from the ECHR view, if there is a violation of Article 6 and the applicant is entitled to a retrial, and the state unjustly denies the retrial to the applicant, that would constitute a new case before the ECHR. Usually the states of the Council of Europe follow the ECHR rulings; after all, they have voluntarily signed the treaty obligating them to do so!

Source for Italian Constitutional Court judgments: http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionJudgment.do

 

[Machiavelli]

This is your same circular argument - since she wasn't coerced to name Patrick, naming Patrick is a crime.

Nobody has ever said otherwise. In fact I said it would still be a crime several pages before you decided to rejoin us.

Unfortunately for Italy they made one very stupid mistake, they forgot to switch on the tape recorder to prove there was no coercion, and Amanda's letter is the only contemporary evidence of what happened in that interrogation, and it supports coercion. They may as well have used thumb screws to get what they wanted, because it's all going to be erased in the end. There will be no crime standing.

What Amanda Knox wrote in her hand written notes (of Nov 6th & 7th) supports - and actually proves - she was a malicious liar.

In fact, also what she wrote and said before her interrogation is a series of proven lies demonstrating she was deceptive and a liar all along.

Witnesses prove she is a liar.

He books proves she is a liar.

What she said after the police interrogation before prosecutor Mignini demonstrates she is a liar.

Anna Donnino's testimony shows she is a liar.

Her own defensive position throughout the trial, moreover, was not to claim coercion. The defence in fact never claimed coercion. So not only there is no evidence of coercion, or mistreatment, whatsoever; there is not even a claim. Such coercion claim simply doesn't exist in the trial. It was never a defensive position.
The defence claimed a false memory syndrome, and they never alleged anything factually different from what the police and the other witnesses described.
Even Knox's account of the interrogation is basically identical to that of the police.
She had no claim about "what happened in that interrogation". There is no factual difference between the Knox version and the police version, the only difference between the police version and Knox's version being the alleged hitting at the back of the head (which would have happened around 1am according to her), for which she did not complain and was not able to indicate the person who allegedly did it.
Her only claim is the false memory syndrome.

And also, no subsequent alleged interogation by Mignini ever happend at 05:45 - she manifestly lies in her book about it - there was no claim by Knox at the time that this ever happened, and there was no claim by her defence that an illegal interrogation ever happened: it never hapened.

And then her 17. Dec. interrogation, where she sinks in a spiral of contradictions until when she is asked about what happened during the interrogation and why she falsely accused Lumumba -at that point she refuses to answer.

Forget about the ECHR, it will ever change any of those truths.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Raff is doing missionary work is he? Helping the poor, hungry and homeless? Helping out the earthquake rescue efforts?


Splendid!


Sorry? What's that you say? He's running hate Facebook pages desecrating women, idolising knives and hurling racist abuse at Rudy?


<sfx splutter>


You were saying...?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Furthermore, a violation of some articles alone, such as Article 8 alone, would not generate an unfair trial, and thus would not generate a right for a revision or new trial with all Convention rights respected.
(...)

The only point of interest to those who are actually interested in the matter of innocence or guilt, is that a right for a revision based on unfair trial procedure does not generate innocence.

Other trial were subject to revisions in Italy following a finding of violation of art. 6 by ECHR, but not a single trial revision ended in a finding of innocence.

The questions of "fair trial" and those about "guilt or innocence" are two separate issues, and they may be completely independent.

 

[bagels]

What Amanda Knox wrote in her hand written notes (of Nov 6th & 7th) supports - and actually proves - she was a malicious liar.

In fact, also what she wrote and said before her interrogation is a series of proven lies demonstrating she was deceptive and a liar all along.

Witnesses prove she is a liar.

He books proves she is a liar.

What she said after the police interrogation before prosecutor Mignini demonstrates she is a liar.

Anna Donnino's testimony shows she is a liar.

Her own defensive position throughout the trial, moreover, was not to claim coercion. The defence in fact never claimed coercion. So not only there is no evidence of coercion, or mistreatment, whatsoever; there is not even a claim. Such coercion claim simply doesn't exist in the trial. It was never a defensive position.
The defence claimed a false memory syndrome, and they never alleged anything factually different from what the police and the other witnesses described.
Even Knox's account of the interrogation is basically identical to that of the police.
She had no claim about "what happened in that interrogation". There is no factual difference between the Knox version and the police version, the only difference between the police version and Knox's version being the alleged hitting at the back of the head (which would have happened around 1am according to her), for which she did not complain and was not able to indicate the person who allegedly did it.
Her only claim is the false memory syndrome.

And also, no subsequent alleged interogation by Mignini ever happend at 05:45 - she manifestly lies in her book about it - there was no claim by Knox at the time that this ever happened, and there was no claim by her defence that an illegal interrogation ever happened: it never hapened.

And then her 17. Dec. interrogation, where she sinks in a spiral of contradictions until when she is asked about what happened during the interrogation and why she falsely accused Lumumba -at that point she refuses to answer.

Forget about the ECHR, it will ever change any of those truths.

You seem to be going back to the tactic that because the actual literal word "coercion" or "shedevil" (or their Italian equivalents) were never explicitly used, it means the general sentiment was never expressed in any form.

I understand you have a particular view of the interrogation. This is different from having a particular view on ECHR procedures, which are a matter of actual law.

I already stated your position on the ECHR claim would only be of interest to me if you had it without regard to the alleged coercive nature of the interrogation. I don't need you to remind me you think she blamed the black guy.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
I think the most striking part of this story is the PGP's seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the far reaching remote background of seemingly every single person that ever once said something positive about Amanda Knox.

She did not say positive things about Amanda Knox, bagels, she pushed a conspiracy theory about Italian police and judiciaries - like just like the one her family launched to protect her young brother, a campaign she was involved in and after which she decided to get into politics following her father's steps.

Let's not forget that this respected senator started a defamatory campaign against unknown people thousands of miles away. She's a politician who stuck her nose into the Italian judiciary.