The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Numbers]

I think I'm following this. I think.

There's a huge debate within the USA between justices who are "originalists" and those who attempt to interpret laws as their original intent was, rather than how this intent might evolve through the ages. Justice Scalia was one, and his replacement, Gorsuch, is another.

There's another huge debate as to the amount judges can divine the intent of a law, from the way it developed - as opposed to forgetting its development and simply interpreting the final judicial product as legislators drafted it.

You've positioned yourself as a liberal interpreter of laws. You're no Scalia or Gorsuch.

Still - the starting point for determining if calunnia has an equivalent crime in Canada, so I am told, is where it is listed (which other laws it is sectioned with). It seems Vixen is on the right track, so I am told, in that both public mischief (Canada) and calunnia (Italy) are contained in sections titled (loosely), "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice".

In Italy, this is even more pronounced, because other countries around it which also descend from Inquisatorial criminal systems (like France or Belguim) count this crime as a crime against honour, not the administration of law and justice.

So the argument as to the two laws inequivalency, belongs elsewhere. No one as of yet has shown me where it is, and I don't have access or training, really, to figure it out myself.

But, I am told, the compelling issue here is that in this case, we are talking about someone who has twice now gone to Canada within 6 months - to talk on the very subject that should naturally attract the attention of CBSA. And here's the key, CBSA found no barriers to her entrance - which you might expect if Vixen were 100% right.

For someone who is not a lawyer to be invited to talk at a law school event on the wrongfully convicted, and having a name which once had been in the news (although not big in Canada) - can be expected to attract attention.

So the fact of the seamless travel through the border signals something that I cannot find, but also that Vixen cannot admit, and which undeniably remains. CBSA does not regard Knox as a felon.

I'd be surprised if a CBSA agent - who always has full discretion - buried themselves in the minutiae as per above Numbers. That scenario would require a prior intervention by, perhaps, a Seattle lawyer to the Canadian government, and then a notice sent to ports of entry attached to the American passport in question.

My guess - an uneducated one - is that it would be more akin to why Canada threatened to refuse extradition to Wisconsin of Laurie Bembenek, who was MORE than simply a convicted murderer, but an escaped convict! Yet when Canada looked into the case when preparing for a potential extradition, Canada put riders onto the request that Wisconsin review the conviction, or Canada would refuse extradition.

This act won Bembenek a new trial. My guess is akin to your other scenario that someone in the Canadian government has actually looked into Knox's calunnia conviction and determined that the evidence in Italy does not support a conviction.

So where I am sitting now is that more than likely calunnia and public mischief are not equivalent crimes, but that the reason is located elsewhere other than in the Criminal Code itself.

Custody battles

I hope I'm getting this last part right, but it was mentioned earlier today and I ran across this frequently in my own reading - in case law "public mischief" shows up frequently in parental custody battles, where the accusation is a targeted maneuver against a specific person. What Knox's calunnia conviction lacks is any sense that (assuming it was a safe conviction for a moment) Knox purposefully wanted to harm Lumumba specifically. It was you, Numbers, who noted that Hellmann based his own calunnia conviction on something other than that Lumumba specifically had been targeted.

I would have said that a key element in the case law for public mischief was this specific targeting against an individual (something contained in the case law surrounding Section 140 in Canada, but totally absent from calunnia in Italy) - except there's also this strange case of the New Year's Eve party, where when the host falsely claimed that the murder victim had left her party safely, she was herself ended up being charged with public mischief under Section 140, without even naming a culprit (falsely or otherwise) at all!

When the defence lawyer wanted the judge to dismiss the charge as the wrong one on which to try his client, the judge refused. That one was a headscratcher.

So - I can only repeat what I've been told - the key element is that CBSA is acting as if Italian calunnia and Canadian public mischief are not equivalents, with all the caveats above.

But regardless of the nuances, it's what CBSA is doing. This is where the guilter will have to, eventually, start accusing the CBSA of being a stooge to the Masons - like they've done with Kassim, Douglas, Moore, Dr. Gill, etc.

Bill, are you reading all of CCC 140? It has more sections than 140(1a). It includes intent to mislead the police by: 140(1b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself.

For some reason you are focusing on the fact that calunnia and public mischief are under similar headings of crimes relating to or against the administration of justice. But there are many Italian laws under this heading, and not all of them are close to public mischief. One must look at the specific definition of the crimes - their elements. Otherwise, one could say a mouse and an elephant are the same, since they're both mammals.

"Intent to mislead" is a critical element in public mischief, but not in calunnia. However, "aggravated calunnia" includes intent to mislead. Intent to mislead, such as using calunnia to shift the blame of a crime from one's self to another, is what is called an "aggravating factor" in Italian law. The Nencini court provisionally convicted Knox of "aggravated calunnia" with an increase in sentence over the one given by the Hellmann court. This conviction was quashed by the Marasca CSC panel; they reiterated that Knox was convicted of calunnia (meaning non-aggravated, "simple" calunnia) and reaffirmed that her sentence was only that given by the Hellmann court.

Thus, "aggravated calunnia", where the aggravating factor is intent to mislead by shifting blame from one's self to another, is exactly equivalent to part of public mischief 140 (1b). The guilters, assuming that Knox is guilty of the murder/rape or that she knew that Guede was guilty and Lumumba innocent, therefore, wrongfully equate her "simple" calunnia conviction to public mischief.

I hope the above explanation helps.

If it doesn't, think about the different kinds of blasphemy laws.

Here's a puzzle: Suppose A publicly denounces God (or the ancient Greek gods, if you will) in libelous terms (I'm not sure what that means) in the US. Under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, A has committed no crime; however, A's actions arguably fall under Canadian blasphemy law. Must A report his acts to CBSA in order to legally enter Canada?

In practice, regarding entry, does CBSA only concern itself with acts and convictions that only raise potential issues of public safety in Canada?

 

[Numbers]

In the section of the Codice Penale listing crimes against the administration of justice, let's not forget the crime that the police committed:

Art. 377-bis - Induzione a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci all'autorità giudiziaria
Salvo che il fatto costituisca più grave reato, chiunque, con violenza o minaccia, o con offerta o promessa di denaro o di altra utilità , induce a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci la persona chiamata a rendere davanti alla autorità giudiziaria dichiarazioni utilizzabili in un procedimento penale, quando questa ha la facoltà di non rispondere, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.

Art. 377-bis - Inducement not to make statements or to make false statements to the judicial authority
Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, induces to not make statements or to make false statements the person who has been summoned to appear before the court (judicial authority) to give statements used in a criminal proceedings, when he has the right to remain silent, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. {Google translation with my assistance}

Source: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/c...ere_dichiarazioni_o_a_rendere_dichiarazioni_/

 

[Numbers]

The Nencini court provisionally convicted Amanda Knox of aggravated calunnia, under CP Articles 368 with 61.2; the Marasca CSC panel quashed that verdict, reinstating her conviction under CP Article 368 alone. Marasca could not legally revise that verdict, which had been the judgment of the Hellmann court and confirmed as definitive by the Chieffi CSC panel.

Previously Article 368, calunnia, has been shown on ISF. Here is CP Article 61:


CP Art. 61 - Circostanze aggravanti comuni
Aggravano il reato quando non ne sono elementi costitutivi o circostanze aggravanti speciali le circostanze seguenti:
2) l'aver commesso il reato per eseguirne od occultarne un altro, ovvero per conseguire o assicurare a sè o ad altri il prodotto o il profitto o il prezzo ovvero la impunità di un altro reato;

CP Article 61
Common aggravating circumstances
The following circumstances aggravate the offense when they are constitutive elements or special aggravating circumstances:
2) having committed offenses carried out {intended, with purpose} to conceal another, or to achieve or secure for himself or for others the product or profit or the benefit or the impunity of another crime;

Comments: “Carried out to” suggests intent or purpose; “prezzo” = “price”; in context, “benefit” is a better choice

 

[Matthew Best]

You are WRONG: border guards abide by RULES and LAWS. They do not use their discretion without first consulting higher management.

So your contention is that Canadian border guards consulted higher management, and it was higher management that decided Knox should be allowed in the country.

Seems plausible.

 

[Welshman]

The comment about Hellmann isn't a crime, it is 'fair comment'

As I have zero convictions, there is nothing to declare.

How can it be fair comment to falsely accuse Hellman of receiving a bribe to reach a not guilty verdict. A false accusation that Hellman has committed a crime is calunia. Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of committing a crime and committing calunia and then Vixen falsely accuses Hellman of a crime which falls under Calunia. How is this massive level of hypocrisy explained? Vixen has repeatedly said Amanda has told numerous lies and Amanda has been viciously attacked for lying. I have seen Amanda described as a pathalogical liar on Amazon reviews. How can PGP be in a position to attack Amanda for lying when they spread malicious lies people have committed crimes?

 

[acbytesla]

.

So - I can only repeat what I've been told - the key element is that CBSA is acting as if Italian calunnia and Canadian public mischief are not equivalents, with all the caveats above.

But regardless of the nuances, it's what CBSA is doing. This is where the guilter will have to, eventually, start accusing the CBSA of being a stooge to the Masons - like they've done with Kassim, Douglas, Moore, Dr. Gill, etc.

The part of this I find hilarious is Vixen's insistence that the border guards don't have any discretionary power. Never mind that the entire system is based on discretion and exceptions. If you've crossed the border a lot you know this. The whole system is arbitrary and can change from day to day. I've waited in line to cross the border as many as 4 hours to as little as seconds. I've had them search my car while I waited inside the border building and I've had them ask me maybe one question and wave me through.

I also imagine that it is political with the competing pressures of keeping the borders secure and having the borders run efficiently. I know when the backups are long at the border people complain a lot.

The TRP is itself just a piece of paper where somebody exercised discretion.

 

[Vixen]

Applying the difference between calunnia and public mischief to this case:

1. Amanda Knox was convicted of calunnia against Lumumba by the Hellmann court. This conviction was made definitive by the Chieffi CSC panel.

2. Knox's conviction, according to the Hellmann court motivation report, was not at all based on any intent to deceive or mislead. This is a quote from the MR, English translation:

"Beyond the formal aspect, the context in which those statements were made was clearly characterized by a psychological situation which for Amanda Knox had become an unsupportable burden: witness Donnino reports that an outright emotional shock on the part of Amanda Knox occurred when the matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised.

Now, since Lumumba was in fact uninvolved in the murder, the emotional shock cannot be considered to have arisen from her having been caught (doing what, exchanging a message with a person who had nothing to do with the crime?), but rather from having reached the limit of emotional tension.

In that context, it is understandable that Amanda Knox, yielding to pressure and fatigue, would have hoped to put an end to that situation by giving her interrogators that which, in the end, they wanted to hear: a name, a murderer."

Thus, no intention to mislead, and therefore the calunnia conviction is not equivalent to public mischief under Canadian law.

The Hellmann court MR also indicates that Knox's statement, even though it claims she knew it to be false, was not given voluntarily, in the sense of "voluntary" that applies under common law in Canada.

It's important to remember that calunnia only requires knowing that the statement of accusation is false, not requiring any intent. In practice, apparently it does not matter that the false statement is given under coercion. The importance of this in Italian law is that the police are thus provided with impunity for any misconduct which induces a witness to make a false accusation. So it that sense, calunnia is an honor crime - it protects the honor of the police.

Numbers quotes the repudiated and much scorned Hellmann, 2011, but fails to even mention the final Supreme Court ruling, Marasca 2015, which has this to say, and is definitive:

2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code. [21] And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.

This is only the half of it: it goes on to set out how Amanda's serious crime of malicious Calunnia was motivated by her seeking to cover up for sex-murderer Rudy Guede.

And of her certain presence at the murder. This is underlined by the recent Masi-Martuscelli verdict at Florence hearing Raff's claim for compensation, and dismissing it with a costs order, 22 Jan 2017.

 

[Vixen]

Bill, I think you found through your anonymous source that calunnia is not simply a "crime against honor", so your argument is in about the same condition as the parrot in the Monty Python skit.

Calunnia is really the crime of false accusation or false denunciation. Think of it from its origins in the 1930 Codice Penale. Some people in Italy were probably eager to get a disliked neighbor in trouble with the Fascist authorities by going to the police and falsely claiming that the neighbor had said something negative about Il Duce. So the authorities wanted this false denunciation stopped and enacted a strict law against it.

But it apparently has continued to serve the needs of the Italian Republic and remains law, as does autocalunnia - false confession - another crime in Italy. The beauty of the autocalunnia law (CP Article 369) is that, if the police "accidentally" subject a person to (mis)treatment that results in a false confession, the police have immunity from responsibility; it is the person who falsely confessed that must be punished for making the false statements to Italian authorities. And certainly "autocalunnia" is not an honor crime.

These laws of the Codice Penale and others of similar nature are in the following section:

Titolo III - Dei delitti contro l'amministrazione della giustizia

Title III - Crimes against the administration of justice

Source: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/c...itti_contro_lamministrazione_della_giustizia/

I hope you can see the elegance of these Italian laws now. Anyone who doesn't approve of them may be in trouble with Il Duce.

Now, getting back to Canadian public mischief compared to Italian calunnia.

Public mischief under Canadian Criminal Code 140(1a) has these elements: 1) the person committing it has the intent to mislead; 2) the person committing it makes a false statement accusing someone else of committing a crime; 3) the false statement causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation.

I think you will agree that "the intent to mislead" itself has two elements in this context: 1) the person committing public mischief, based on evidence, knows the statement is false; 2) the person committing it, based on evidence, makes the false statement with the intention of misleading - that is, the statement is a willful, voluntary act meant to mislead.

Calunnia under Italian CP Article 368 has these elements: 1) the person committing it makes a false statement accusing someone else of committing a crime; 2) the person committing knows the statement is false; 3) the statement is made to a judicial authority - which means the police, a prosecutor or a magistrate or a judge, or a court - or to the International Criminal Court.

Now, what's the difference between public mischief CCC 140(1a) and calunnia CP Article 368? I see the significant difference is that public mischief includes the element of "intent to mislead" which itself implies "knowing the statement is false" and "willfully (voluntarily) making the statement to mislead or deceive the peace officer".

So calunnia is NOT public mischief, in my opinion. Just as blasphemy in, for example, Pakistan, is not the same (depending on the specific acts) as blasphemy in Canada. To belabor this point: suppose a person Z in country A, with intentional disrespect, but in private without publicizing the act, tears up a Bible and uses the pages to line the bottom of a bird cage (which houses the Monty Python parrot while it was still alive). A visiting neighbor sees the pages of the Bible on the bottom of the bird cage (without Z calling attention to them) and reports this crime to the police. Person Z is convicted of blasphemy in accordance with the laws of country A. After being released from prison, Z decides to visit Canada, perhaps even to immigrate. What are Z's obligations to the CBSA with regard to the blasphemy conviction in country A? Has Z committed blasphemy or any act that would be a crime in Canada?

Any particular reason you picked out Pakistan? Is that a dig at the victim's maternal line?

 

[Vixen]

No, it's called evidence. It points to one person only.

It very much points to Amanda as the instigator of the violence.

 

[Vixen]

So your contention is that Canadian border guards consulted higher management, and it was higher management that decided Knox should be allowed in the country.

Seems plausible.

I would imagine Amanda is far too vain to admit to any felony.

Let's hope she had a work permit for the US$5K she is demanding for her 'talks' as an 'exoneree' who was acquitted for 'miscarriage of justice in Italy'.

As a corollary, we had the case in the UK of Nigella Lawson (clearly a person of means who can support herself) who wanted to enter the USA to cast for a tv show. She was barred before she even boarded the plane. How so? She had admitted snorting cocaine in a court case, and this was a 'no-no'. She was never charged, cautioned or convicted.

Amanda's alibi is that she was smoking dope at the time of the murder and her defence for not remembering what she did on the night of the murder is blamed on the marijuana (remember Paul McCartney and John Lennon had problems with a green card thanks to this drug) - so we have Amanda's brag that she's a druggie.

So, did Amanda declare her drug use and her felony to the Canadian Border Security? Especially if she was going there to technically work (cf Nigella).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/22/nigella-lawson-us-travel-ban-lifted-drugs-the-taste

 

[Vixen]

<snip prolix>

If it doesn't, think about the different kinds of blasphemy laws.

Here's a puzzle: Suppose A publicly denounces God (or the ancient Greek gods, if you will) in libelous terms (I'm not sure what that means) in the US. Under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, A has committed no crime; however, A's actions arguably fall under Canadian blasphemy law. Must A report his acts to CBSA in order to legally enter Canada? In practice, regarding entry, does CBSA only concern itself with acts and convictions that only raise potential issues of public safety in Canada?

It is no puzzle at all. If you are known as a preacher of hate then you are considered a security risk. End of. (cf UK being penalised by ECHR for wanting rid of the 'Hate Preacher') USA had no problem. As soon as he set foot in its country it had no compunction whatsoever in locking him up and throwing away the key.

 

[Vixen]

I think I'm following this. I think.

There's a huge debate within the USA between justices who are "originalists" and those who attempt to interpret laws as their original intent was, rather than how this intent might evolve through the ages. Justice Scalia was one, and his replacement, Gorsuch, is another.

There's another huge debate as to the amount judges can divine the intent of a law, from the way it developed - as opposed to forgetting its development and simply interpreting the final judicial product as legislators drafted it.

You've positioned yourself as a liberal interpreter of laws. You're no Scalia or Gorsuch.

Still - the starting point for determining if calunnia has an equivalent crime in Canada, so I am told, is where it is listed (which other laws it is sectioned with). It seems Vixen is on the right track, so I am told, in that both public mischief (Canada) and calunnia (Italy) are contained in sections titled (loosely), "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice".

In Italy, this is even more pronounced, because other countries around it which also descend from Inquisatorial criminal systems (like France or Belguim) count this crime as a crime against honour, not the administration of law and justice.

So the argument as to the two laws inequivalency, belongs elsewhere. No one as of yet has shown me where it is, and I don't have access or training, really, to figure it out myself.

But, I am told, the compelling issue here is that in this case, we are talking about someone who has twice now gone to Canada within 6 months - to talk on the very subject that should naturally attract the attention of CBSA. And here's the key, CBSA found no barriers to her entrance - which you might expect if Vixen were 100% right.

For someone who is not a lawyer to be invited to talk at a law school event on the wrongfully convicted, and having a name which once had been in the news (although not big in Canada) - can be expected to attract attention.

So the fact of the seamless travel through the border signals something that I cannot find, but also that Vixen cannot admit, and which undeniably remains. CBSA does not regard Knox as a felon.

I'd be surprised if a CBSA agent - who always has full discretion - buried themselves in the minutiae as per above Numbers. That scenario would require a prior intervention by, perhaps, a Seattle lawyer to the Canadian government, and then a notice sent to ports of entry attached to the American passport in question.

My guess - an uneducated one - is that it would be more akin to why Canada threatened to refuse extradition to Wisconsin of Laurie Bembenek, who was MORE than simply a convicted murderer, but an escaped convict! Yet when Canada looked into the case when preparing for a potential extradition, Canada put riders onto the request that Wisconsin review the conviction, or Canada would refuse extradition.

This act won Bembenek a new trial. My guess is akin to your other scenario that someone in the Canadian government has actually looked into Knox's calunnia conviction and determined that the evidence in Italy does not support a conviction.

So where I am sitting now is that more than likely calunnia and public mischief are not equivalent crimes, but that the reason is located elsewhere other than in the Criminal Code itself.

Custody battles

I hope I'm getting this last part right, but it was mentioned earlier today and I ran across this frequently in my own reading - in case law "public mischief" shows up frequently in parental custody battles, where the accusation is a targeted maneuver against a specific person. What Knox's calunnia conviction lacks is any sense that (assuming it was a safe conviction for a moment) Knox purposefully wanted to harm Lumumba specifically. It was you, Numbers, who noted that Hellmann based his own calunnia conviction on something other than that Lumumba specifically had been targeted.

I would have said that a key element in the case law for public mischief was this specific targeting against an individual (something contained in the case law surrounding Section 140 in Canada, but totally absent from calunnia in Italy) - except there's also this strange case of the New Year's Eve party, where when the host falsely claimed that the murder victim had left her party safely, she was herself ended up being charged with public mischief under Section 140, without even naming a culprit (falsely or otherwise) at all!

When the defence lawyer wanted the judge to dismiss the charge as the wrong one on which to try his client, the judge refused. That one was a headscratcher.

So - I can only repeat what I've been told - the key element is that CBSA is acting as if Italian calunnia and Canadian public mischief are not equivalents, with all the caveats above.

But regardless of the nuances, it's what CBSA is doing. This is where the guilter will have to, eventually, start accusing the CBSA of being a stooge to the Masons - like they've done with Kassim, Douglas, Moore, Dr. Gill, etc.

No, the Canadian government would not have reviewed her case and decided it was not a felon. The onus is always on the applicant to make the claim. A court cannot issue its own pleadings, it has to be initiated by a party external to it. For example, the District Attorney, CPS in the UK, public prosecutor in Italy, or alternatively as an application for exemption from border laws, by the defendant. A court cannot make a ruling on something that has not been pleaded.

IOW unless Amanda herself has made an application pleading the Calunnia does not stand in Canadian law, it certainly will not have looked into the case at all. Let alone determine a priori that the law does not apply to her.

Under the CBSA rules, even if you are awaiting an appeal outcome, you must still declare your conviction.

 

[Vixen]

How can it be fair comment to falsely accuse Hellman of receiving a bribe to reach a not guilty verdict. A false accusation that Hellman has committed a crime is calunia. Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of committing a crime and committing calunia and then Vixen falsely accuses Hellman of a crime which falls under Calunia. How is this massive level of hypocrisy explained? Vixen has repeatedly said Amanda has told numerous lies and Amanda has been viciously attacked for lying. I have seen Amanda described as a pathalogical liar on Amazon reviews. How can PGP be in a position to attack Amanda for lying when they spread malicious lies people have committed crimes?

I was making a fair comment on what was overheard by an attorney in Italy in the presence of witnesses. It is a simple alleged incidence. Nobody knows for sure he was bribed: it is reasonable speculation, given the egregiousness and most irregular reasoning of the Hellman court, which as you know was eviscarated and excoriated by the supreme court in the harshest of terms, never before seen in Italian legal history.

It is an established legal fact that Amanda is a liar, who lied to obstruct justice ( a young woman was brutally murdered, here, and here's Amanda and Raff making fun of the cops) .

The most recent ruling, issued by Florence, 22 January 2017, underlines Amanda's perfidity and perversity:

In the judgment, however, considering the statements made by Knox, who also claimed
that she had remained with Sollecito in his house from the evening of 1 November 2007
until 10:00 of 2 November 2007, the Court noted a lack of correspondence after 20:40, the
time of the second visit of Popovic and the last call from Sollecito's father, (or anyway,
later than 21:10, the time of the last computer interaction); the falseness of the girl's assertions that she had eaten in the house at 22:00 or 23:00 (because Sollecito's father at
20:40 was told that they had already eaten and that a leak had occurred under the sink
while they were washing up); the untruthfulness of her statement that both had slept
together all night until 10:00, given the evidence of human interaction with Sollecito's
computer at 05:32 and the turning on of his cell phone at about 06:00.

Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI
Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017
Antonio Bossa
Clerk

 

[Vixen]

In the section of the Codice Penale listing crimes against the administration of justice, let's not forget the crime that the police committed:

Art. 377-bis - Induzione a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci all'autorità giudiziaria
Salvo che il fatto costituisca più grave reato, chiunque, con violenza o minaccia, o con offerta o promessa di denaro o di altra utilità , induce a non rendere dichiarazioni o a rendere dichiarazioni mendaci la persona chiamata a rendere davanti alla autorità giudiziaria dichiarazioni utilizzabili in un procedimento penale, quando questa ha la facoltà di non rispondere, è punito con la reclusione da due a sei anni.

Art. 377-bis - Inducement not to make statements or to make false statements to the judicial authority
Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, induces to not make statements or to make false statements the person who has been summoned to appear before the court (judicial authority) to give statements used in a criminal proceedings, when he has the right to remain silent, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. {Google translation with my assistance}

Source: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/c...ere_dichiarazioni_o_a_rendere_dichiarazioni_/

Do you have a citation of the criminal charges brought against Mignini and the cops? Sorry? What's that? You don't?

Oh we see, it's Numbers overactive imagination in overdrive again.

 

[Vixen]

The part of this I find hilarious is Vixen's insistence that the border guards don't have any discretionary power. Never mind that the entire system is based on discretion and exceptions. If you've crossed the border a lot you know this. The whole system is arbitrary and can change from day to day. I've waited in line to cross the border as many as 4 hours to as little as seconds. I've had them search my car while I waited inside the border building and I've had them ask me maybe one question and wave me through.

I also imagine that it is political with the competing pressures of keeping the borders secure and having the borders run efficiently. I know when the backups are long at the border people complain a lot.

The TRP is itself just a piece of paper where somebody exercised discretion.

It is all part of the rules and routines: random spot checks.

It works on the poisson distribution often used by banks and retail outlets to estimate queuing times and thus how many cashiers should be supplied at any given time during the day.

The data analysts will have calculated that there are X number of attempted illegal entries per Y number of passengers, and it will have calculated the seasonal trends (time series) as to when this activity reaches a peak.

It will then carry out tailored spot checks to (a) optimise apprehension of illegals and (b) maximise its public appearance, which has the effect of telling the public, "Don't try it on, because you could be stopped at any random point".

So, no, not chaotic and unpredictable, but carefully organised.

 

[toto]

I was making a fair comment on what was overheard by an attorney in Italy in the presence of witnesses. It is a simple alleged incidence. Nobody knows for sure he was bribed: it is reasonable speculation, given the egregiousness and most irregular reasoning of the Hellman court, which as you know was eviscarated and excoriated by the supreme court in the harshest of terms, never before seen in Italian legal history.

It is an established legal fact that Amanda is a liar, who lied to obstruct justice ( a young woman was brutally murdered, here, and here's Amanda and Raff making fun of the cops) .

The most recent ruling, issued by Florence, 22 January 2017, underlines Amanda's perfidity and perversity:



Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI
Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017
Antonio Bossa
Clerk

...and then the Supreme Court reinstated the not guilty verdict that the wise and common sense Judge Hellmann and his jury had arrived at; his calunnia verdict being the only thing that didn't logically follow from his reasonings. Hellmann since then being free from any hint or malicious accusation in the Italian main stream media whatsoever. and it being an established legal fact that A and R did not commit the act of murder and furthermore that AK did not slander the police by accusing them of mistreatment.

 

[Vixen]

...and then the Supreme Court reinstated the not guilty verdict that the wise and common sense Judge Hellmann and his jury had arrived at; his calunnia verdict being the only thing that didn't logically follow from his reasonings. Hellmann since then being free from any hint or malicious accusation in the Italian main stream media whatsoever. and it being an established legal fact that A and R did not commit the act of murder and furthermore that AK did not slander the police by accusing them of mistreatment.

Please don't change the context. We were discussing whether or not Amanda is an established liar.

The Masi report is chronologically after the Marasca report (2017: 2015). In law, chronology is important.

The pair were acquitted despite 'lying umpteen times', the behaviour remains 'highly suspicious' and Amanda was at the murder scene.

Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.
About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from The fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time – except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96).

Marasca report, 2015.

 

[toto]

No, the Canadian government would not have reviewed her case and decided it was not a felon. The onus is always on the applicant to make the claim. A court cannot issue its own pleadings, it has to be initiated by a party external to it. For example, the District Attorney, CPS in the UK, public prosecutor in Italy, or alternatively as an application for exemption from border laws, by the defendant. A court cannot make a ruling on something that has not been pleaded.

IOW unless Amanda herself has made an application pleading the Calunnia does not stand in Canadian law, it certainly will not have looked into the case at all. Let alone determine a priori that the law does not apply to her.

Under the CBSA rules, even if you are awaiting an appeal outcome, you must still declare your conviction.

I think the only thing you can probably be sure of is that AK has been to Canada and that her name is quite well known.

 

[Vixen]

I think the only thing you can probably be sure of is that AK has been to Canada and that her name is quite well known.

You could argue Nigella Lawson is well-known. When it comes to law, a key priniciple is that of a level playing field: everybody is equal, as various celebrities have discovered, to their cost. (Bowie, Lennon, McCartney, Lochte, Hugh Grant, etc., etc.). Likeability does not, and should not, come into it.

When travelling abroad, make sure your papers are in order, even if you are Mother Teresa the second.

 

[toto]

Please don't change the context. We were discussing whether or not Amanda is an established liar.

The Masi report is chronologically after the Marasca report (2017: 2015). In law, chronology is important.

The pair were acquitted despite 'lying umpteen times', the behaviour remains 'highly suspicious' and Amanda was at the murder scene.

Marasca report, 2015.

Part of the context was you having a pop at the distinguished Judge Hellmann. I can understand the legal contortions the legal system goes through to not to contradict previous findings as much as possible. This presumably is why Timothy Evans is still technically guilty of murder.