• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthCalls said:
The most damning evidence that proves the Luminol traces were not Meredith's blood is, with the exception of three traces, they also did not contain Meredith's DNA. Three prints in Amanda's room.. all TMB negative and all have Amanda's DNA but not Meredith's. Still waiting for Vixen, or any PGP, to explain how those prints were made from Meredith's blood.
Click to expand...

I suggest you get a glass of wine, a beer, a scotch, whatever and settle back. You've got a long, long wait.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm curious about the court case numbers. Are the last 2 numbers related to a year? Like maybe the year they were filed or something else? And do you know the number of the Knox case?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The last two numbers (to the right of the slash) are the last two digits of the year that the application was lodged (submitted and accepted for review).

The digits to the left of the slash are a case number, assigned sequentially, unique for the year the application was lodged.

The important dates for an application to the ECHR are:

1. The date of an application "requiring a decision"; this may be a revised application.
2. The date the application was introduced into the ECHR system; this reflects the date of the first application rather than any revision.
3. The date, after the ECHR's preliminary review of the application for admissibility, when it was officially communicated, for the first time, to the respondent state. The application becomes a case with the communication.
4. The date the ECHR published a judgment or decision for the case.

Amanda's case, Knox v. Italy, is application number 76577/13.

1.The date of the application was 23 November 2013.
2.It was introduced to the ECHR system on 24 November 2013.
3. It was communicated to the government of Italy on 29 April 2016.
4. A judgment has not yet been published. The case is in queue for judgment but we have no certain information on when the judgment will be published. My guess or hope is that the judgment will be published within the next 14 months, since Knox v. Italy is a "noteworthy pending case" and judgments in some other such cases communicated to Italy somewhat before Knox v. Italy have been published recently.

For comparison, here are the relevant dates for some recently published judgments in "noteworthy pending cases" where Italy is the respondent state.

Azzolina and Others v. Italy
[joined case of Azzolina and Others v. Italy 28923/09 and Kutschkau and Others v. Italy 67599/10]

Application number 28923/09
1. Date of application: 02 September 2009
2. Date of introduction: 27 May 2009 (this suggests an initial application submitted on or about 27 May 2009 needed to be revised and the revision was submitted 02 September 2009)
3. Date communicated to respondent state government: 18 December 2012
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017

Application number 67599/10
1. Date of application: 17 January 2011
2. Date of introduction: 03 October 2010 (this suggests an initial application submitted on or about 03 October 2010 needed to be revised and the revision was submitted 17 January 2011)
3. Date communicated to respondent state government: 18 December 2012
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017

Blair and Others v. Italy
[joined case of Blair and Others v. Italy 1442/14, Amodio and Others v. Italy 21319/14, and Allueva Fortea and Others v. Italy 21911/14]

Application number 1442/14
1. Date of application: 29 April 2014
2. Date of introduction: 10 December 2013
3. Date communicated: 28 September 2015
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017

Application number 21319/14
1. Date of application: 12 August 2014
2. Date of introduction: 06 March 2014
3. Date communicated: 28 September 2015
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017

Application number 21911/14
1. Date of application: 12 August 2014
2. Date of introduction: 10 March 2014
3. Date communicated: 28 September 2015
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017

Cirino and Renne v. Italy
[joined case of Cirino v. Italy 2539/13 and Renne v. Italy 4705/13]

Application number 2539/13
1. Date of application: 08 April 2013
2. Date of introduction: 14 December 2012
3. Date communicated: 03 September 2015
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017

Application number 4705/13
1. Date of application: 08 April 2013
2. Date of introduction: 21 December 2012
3. Date communicated: 03 September 2015
4. Date judgment published: 26 October 2017
 
Last edited:
Those interested in how the ECHR proceeds in a recent case with an allegation of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) may find interest in the case of M.F. v. Hungary.

M.F. v. Hungary 45855/12 Communicated 22 October 2014

1. Date of application (requiring a decision): Not Available (because anonymous)
2. Date of introduction (date lodged): 20 July 2012
3. Date communicated (to the government of Hungary): 22 October 2014
4. Date judgment published: Scheduled in the period 31 October - 02 November 2017*

* Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
See link under "Forthcoming judgments and decisions"

The text of the communicated case may be found at:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-148115%22]}
 
Just to provide real information on the illegal and abusive actions sometimes carried out by police in Italy, here is an article on the recent judgments against Italy by the ECHR:

A Bolzaneto durante G8 fu tortura, Strasburgo condanna l'Italia
Corte sanziona azioni e indagine. Riconosciuti danni morali. Episodi anche nel carcere Asti

STRASBURGO - Gli atti commessi dalle forze dell'ordine a Bolzaneto nei giorni del G8 del 2001 sono atti di tortura. Lo ha stabilito la Corte europea dei diritti umani che ha condannato l'Italia per le azioni dei membri delle forze dell'ordine, e perché lo Stato non ha condotto un'indagine efficace. I giudici hanno riconosciuto ai ricorrenti il diritto a ricevere tra 10mila e 85mila euro a testa per i danni morali.

Tortura anche in carcere Asti - Alcune guardie carcerarie di Asti nel 2004 hanno torturato due detenuti, Andrea Cirino e Claudio Renne. Lo ha stabilito la Corte europea dei diritti umani che - in un secondo giudizio dopo quello su Bolzaneto - ha condannato l'Italia per le azioni delle guardie e perché i responsabili non sono stati puniti a causa della mancanza di leggi adeguate. La Corte ha inoltre stabilito che lo Stato dovrà versare 80 mila euro per danni morali ad Andrea Cirino e alla figlia di Claudio Renne, morto in carcere lo scorso gennaio.

Google translation:

At Bolzaneto during the G8 was tortured, Strasbourg condemned Italy
Court sanctions actions and investigation. Recognized moral damages. Episodes also in prison Asti

STRASBOURG - The acts committed by law enforcement in Bolzaneto on the G8 in 2001 are torture acts. It has been established by the European Court of Human Rights who condemned Italy for the actions of members of the police, and because the state did not conduct an effective investigation. Judges have granted the applicants the right to receive between 10,000 and 85,000 euros per head for moral damages.

Torture also in jail Asti - Some prison guards in Asti in 2004 tortured two detainees, Andrea Cirino and Claudio Renne. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that - in a second judgment after that on Bolzaneto - condemned Italy for the actions of the guards and why the perpetrators were not punished because of the lack of proper laws. The Court also ruled that the state would have to pay 80 thousand euros for moral damages to Andrea Cirino and daughter of Claudio Renne, who died in prison last January.

Source: http://www.ansa.it/europa/notizie/r...lia_2542d8b1-783e-4099-8e9c-53d3f8cd1bce.html

The article summarizes briefly the ECHR's 26 October 2017 judgments against Italy.
 
Gumbel/Sollecito book

The question has been asked elsewhere whether the court has to publish its reasons for dismissal, and whether the statement will be public, or whether there will be a private letter of apology.

To which the answer was that it "would be nice" if the court had to publish. (in other words "don't know").

Secondly the statement "was always demanded with the intent of setting the public record straight." The fact that it was demanded does not to me necessarily mean the demand has been acceded to.

The answer thus seems to me to rather vague. Why do the Mignini team not simply publish themselves ? ( I would ask if I were able to).
 
Last edited:
toto said:
The answer thus seems to me to rather vague. Why do the Mignini team not simply publish themselves ? ( I would ask if I were able to).
Click to expand...

Good question. Mignini's gripe against Maori is more well founded, and that did not stop a printed version of the case against him from being readily available.

In it, Mignini can't help himself, going at length as to why one must "understand" why the 2015 ISC acquittals of Sollecito/Knox is so illegal, to get why the defamation case against Maori should succeed.

That printed version is the songsheet from which Machiavelli and Vixen sing.

But here's the deal. For Mignini to go public with his imagined gripe against Sollecito & Gumbel, IMO opens Mignini to a defamation lawsuit against him.

Expect the Mignini-PR machine on this thread to be silent for a while, and then pick up again as if Mignini had not been embarrassed by having his lawsuit tossed and the subsequent criminal charges against S & G thrown out.

Also to be ignored at all costs is van der Leek's plagiarism. Soon this thread will pick up as if nothing had happened.
 
This was posted on Raff's uncle's FB page:

Giuseppe Sollecito
October 24 at 8:07pm ·

Assolto perché il fatto non sussiste, assolto da un'altra accusa insussistente figlia di un accanimento giudiziario senza precedenti, l'accusa era basata sul nulla, così come quella di omicidio dalla quale Raffaele fu assolto per non aver commesso il fatto, non dimentichiamolo. Non dobbiamo dimenticare altresì che per lo Stato Italiano o meglio per altri "giudici" che difendono la casta, dopo tutto ciò Raffaele non ha dirittto al risarcimento, ma a questo porrà rimedio, anche se tra qualche tempo, la Corte Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo, ci vorrà del tempo...ma il tempo farà giustizia, il giudizio del tempo è inesorabile e noi sappiamo aspettare...con pazienza, forti della verità.
Click to expand...


"He was acquitted because the fact that he did not exist, acquitted by another accusation by, the daughter of an unprecedented judicial overkill, was based on nothing, as well as the murder from which raffaele was acquitted for not doing the deed, let us not forget. We must not forget that for the Italian state or better for other 'Judges' who defend the caste, after all, raffaele has not to compensation, but that will be remedied, even if, in some time, the European court of human rights It will take time, but time will do justice, the judgement of time is inexorable and we can wait patiently, strong for the truth."

No mention of any alleged "settlement" nor does he seem upset or angry about the outcome of the slander case which he would be if Raff were being forced to apologize and admit he "lied".

At dotnut, this was posted this afternoon:

Italian media seem to have stopped implying this was a win for RS and Gumbel.
Click to expand...

In truth, they have stopped reporting on this acquittal at all. There has been nothing new at all since the first couple of days. This quote is itself implying there have been reports and that they are changing their tune that it was a clear win for RS and AG. I do have to give the PGP credit for their consistent spin. Only the WH press secretaries come close.
 
toto said:
The question has been asked elsewhere whether the court has to publish its reasons for dismissal, and whether the statement will be public, or whether there will be a private letter of apology.

To which the answer was that it "would be nice" if the court had to publish. (in other words "don't know").

Secondly the statement "was always demanded with the intent of setting the public record straight." The fact that it was demanded does not to me necessarily mean the demand has been acceded to.

The answer thus seems to me to rather vague. Why do the Mignini team not simply publish themselves ? ( I would ask if I were able to).
Click to expand...

I am puzzled why this question has come up.

There has been a trial and a verdict. The Italian Constitution, Article 111, requires, among other provisions: "All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons."

The full text of Article 111, translated into English by the Senate of the Italian Republic, which I have posted on ISF several times previously, is available at this site:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

The "statement of reasons" is called the "motivation report". It includes the short-form verdict (aka "operative verdict") as the last section, under the heading "P. Q. M." which is the Italian abbreviation for the term "per questi motivi" = "For these reasons".

According to the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 544, the operative verdict part of the judgment of a court trial is to be drafted and made public immediately after the conclusion of the deliberation of the judge(s), except in cases where the judge(s) find that more time is required. The time limit for the full motivation report to be issued is 90 days, or 180 days for some complex guilty verdicts, but in practice judges exceed these limits when they believe it is required by the complexity of the case.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
This was posted on Raff's uncle's FB page:

Giuseppe Sollecito
October 24 at 8:07pm ·




"He was acquitted because the fact that he did not exist, acquitted by another accusation by, the daughter of an unprecedented judicial overkill, was based on nothing, as well as the murder from which raffaele was acquitted for not doing the deed, let us not forget. We must not forget that for the Italian state or better for other 'Judges' who defend the caste, after all, raffaele has not to compensation, but that will be remedied, even if, in some time, the European court of human rights It will take time, but time will do justice, the judgement of time is inexorable and we can wait patiently, strong for the truth."

No mention of any alleged "settlement" nor does he seem upset or angry about the outcome of the slander case which he would be if Raff were being forced to apologize and admit he "lied".

At dotnut, this was posted this afternoon:



In truth, they have stopped reporting on this acquittal at all. There has been nothing new at all since the first couple of days. This quote is itself implying there have been reports and that they are changing their tune that it was a clear win for RS and AG. I do have to give the PGP credit for their consistent spin. Only the WH press secretaries come close.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I have googled "raffaele sollecito vilipendio" and have come up with no new results.

I also googled "la Corte europea" and looked for recent media articles, but there seems to be none since the 26 October judgments against Italy.

I did find this interesting one:

La Corte europea per i diritti dell’uomo ha condannato l’Italia per gli atti commessi dalle forze dell’ordine nella caserma di Bolzaneto nel 2001 e soprattutto perché lo stato non avrebbe condotto sui fatti un’indagine efficace. Mentre la sanzione dei comportamenti dei poliziotti che hanno violato i princìpi di una corretta gestione dell’ordine pubblico è comprensibile, c’è qualcosa di assai discutibile nella critica all’operato della magistratura italiana. Questo giornale ha condannato immediatamente le violenze, indipendentemente dal suo orientamento favorevole al...

The European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for acts committed by law enforcement in the Barracks of Bolzaneto in 2001 and above all because the state did not conduct an effective investigation on the facts. While the punishment of policing behaviors that violate the principles of proper public order management is understandable, there is something very controversial in criticizing the work of the Italian judiciary. This newspaper immediately condemned the violence, regardless of its favorable orientation...

Source: http://www.ilfoglio.it/giustizia/2017/10/26/news/su-bolzaneto-la-corte-europea-esagera-160119/

I suggest that the acquittal of Raffaele Sollecito for alleged criminal defamation of the police and the ECHR judgments against Italy for not properly investigating police abuse and for not having any law against torture are not reported because of the media's fear of criticizing the judiciary. There are defamation laws in Italy that have been used to suppress journalistic criticism, and organizations including Reporters Without Borders have found a relatively low level of press freedom in Italy.*

* "ROME -- Italy has slipped several places in the world rankings for freedom of press in 2016, according to a new report that was released Wednesday by ‘Reporters Without Borders’ [Reporters sans frontières]. The ranking contains details for 180 countries, within which Italy has slid from 73rd place to the 77th.

The organisation, which is based in France, says that most of the information released on Wednesday “is indicative of a climate of fear and tension combined with increasing control over newsrooms by governments and private sector interests. ....”

Source: http://www.italianinsider.it/?q=node/3825
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
I am puzzled why this question has come up.

There has been a trial and a verdict. The Italian Constitution, Article 111, requires, among other provisions: "All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons."
Click to expand...

My guess is that when it's published, some people from "the other side" will claim that the phrase "the fact does not exist," means something other than that, "the fact does not exist".

Or that "hypothesize" means something other than "hypothesize", "alleged" means something other than "alleged", and that "even if" means something other than "even if."
 
I'm reading a paper on wounding of assailants during stabbing and cutting attacks:

"The authors have been involved in a number of cases wherein such injuries have occurred. In several instances, these injuries and the resulting physical evidence have proven of great consequence in the resolution of the case. A review of the exemplar cases gives rise to several physical mechanisms described below whereby such wounding could, and likely does, occur.
Click to expand...

Let us remember that the burglar drenched in blood at the scene who was picked up alone on CCTV near the cottage before the attack and fled the country and told his friend he met Meredith alone, and was later identified from the rapekit, was arrested with sharp cuts on his hand.

Now I could give you my conclusion on what these cuts mean, but let's look at the conclusion of Rudy's own lawyer, Nicodemo Gentile:

"the wounds photographed and described at the time of the arrest in Germany are unequivocal signs left by the attacker’s knife."
Click to expand...

Wow. His own lawyer, in his appeal, apparently used as exonerating evidence. Only in Italy.
 
I found this comment left on VdL's "Despicable" site:

I always knew the truth about involvement. With the mixing of Amanda, Meredith, and Raffaele's blood found in several places.
Click to expand...

Apparently, after reading at least one of Nick's books, this is the kind of ignorance his fans display.
 
Stacyhs said:
I found this comment left on VdL's "Despicable" site:

I always knew the truth about involvement. With the mixing of Amanda, Meredith, and Raffaele's blood found in several places.
Click to expand...
Apparently, after reading at least one of Nick's books, this is the kind of ignorance his fans display.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Not even Harry Rag carpet bombed those kind of sites with mixed blood involving **Raffaele**.

It's good to know that guilt is sustained by complete ignorance. All NvdL's cut-and-paste efforts do is maintain the nuttiness.

Between NvdL and Mignini getting embarassed by the collapse of his defamation claims, it's been a bad week for the nutters.
 
Numbers said:
I am puzzled why this question has come up.

There has been a trial and a verdict. The Italian Constitution, Article 111, requires, among other provisions: "All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons."

The full text of Article 111, translated into English by the Senate of the Italian Republic, which I have posted on ISF several times previously, is available at this site:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

The "statement of reasons" is called the "motivation report". It includes the short-form verdict (aka "operative verdict") as the last section, under the heading "P. Q. M." which is the Italian abbreviation for the term "per questi motivi" = "For these reasons".

According to the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP Article 544, the operative verdict part of the judgment of a court trial is to be drafted and made public immediately after the conclusion of the deliberation of the judge(s), except in cases where the judge(s) find that more time is required. The time limit for the full motivation report to be issued is 90 days, or 180 days for some complex guilty verdicts, but in practice judges exceed these limits when they believe it is required by the complexity of the case.
Click to expand...

Yes. I suppose the questioner was wondering if there would be any criticism of Sollecito and Gumbel in the motivations report seeing as though PQ/FP is so adamant about his position:

"Acquittal?!!! I think not. And the publishable confession WILL come out…."​

When someone is so emphatic one feels there must be some truth to the statement. But his subsequent clarifications seem much vaguer:

" Italian media seem to have stopped implying this was a win for RS and Gumbel"​

A bit of a damp squib considering it was touted as one of the big things to proceed before "the fat lady sings" as he put it a couple of years ago.
 
toto said:
Yes. I suppose the questioner was wondering if there would be any criticism of Sollecito and Gumbel in the motivations report seeing as though PQ/FP is so adamant about his position:

"Acquittal?!!! I think not. And the publishable confession WILL come out…."​

When someone is so emphatic one feels there must be some truth to the statement. But his subsequent clarifications seem much vaguer:

" Italian media seem to have stopped implying this was a win for RS and Gumbel"​

A bit of a damp squib considering it was touted as one of the big things to proceed before "the fat lady sings" as he put it a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...


When PMF was still open there was a PGP poster that used to call him "Lyin Pete" because his promises and evidence all turned out to be BS.

This is a case where the killer was literally caught red handed with blood on his hands and they're still going on about Seattle dorks and mafia deals. Very amusing stuff.
 
toto said:
Yes. I suppose the questioner was wondering if there would be any criticism of Sollecito and Gumbel in the motivations report seeing as though PQ/FP is so adamant about his position:

"Acquittal?!!! I think not. And the publishable confession WILL come out…."​

When someone is so emphatic one feels there must be some truth to the statement. But his subsequent clarifications seem much vaguer:

" Italian media seem to have stopped implying this was a win for RS and Gumbel"​

A bit of a damp squib considering it was touted as one of the big things to proceed before "the fat lady sings" as he put it a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the internet meme that when one references Hitler, they've lost the argument. However, saying that... as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

“
In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
I'm well aware of the internet meme that when one references Hitler, they've lost the argument. However, saying that... as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

“
Click to expand...

I believe that the lies, big and little, of the PGP have lost all force with the public. The PGP fictions only serve to please and reinforce a guilter base.

Objectively, the truth is that:

1. Knox and Sollecito were acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher in March, 2015, and that acquittal is final and definitive. The civil cases against Knox and Sollecito ended with the acquittal and cannot be revived.

2. Knox was finally and definitively acquitted of calunnia against the police and Mignini. The motivation report from this trial was useful to her and the ECHR because it suggests that her defense rights under the Italian Constitution were violated in her interrogation.

3.1 Knox was finally convicted of calunnia against Lumumba, and that conviction and the events leading up to it, including but not limited to the coercive interrogation by the police, will be reviewed as violations of Knox's rights under the Convention by the ECHR in the case of Knox v. Italy. The ECHR currently lists that case as a "noteworthy pending case" in Italy's Country Profile. Therefore, it will likely receive some online publicity on the ECHR homepage when the ECHR announces the judgment.

3.2 If and when the ECHR issues its judgment that Knox's rights under the Convention were violated by the conviction for calunnia, she will be entitled under Italian law to apply for a revision trial to replace that conviction with an acquittal.

3.3 If Knox is acquitted of calunnia in a revision trial, she will be able to request compensation for wrongful detention for the time she spent in prison that was attributed to the sentence for calunnia.

4. Sollecito was finally denied compensation for wrongful (unfair) detention and his lawyer has indicated that an application claiming this denial was in violation of his Convention rights will be made to the ECHR.

5. Sollecito and Gumbel were acquitted of criminal defamation of the police, because the act of the crime did not occur, and Mignini has dropped his defamation lawsuit against them. These legal actions are most likely final.

6. Guede was finally convicted of murdering and raping Kercher, and his request for a revision trial on the basis that Knox and Sollecito had been acquitted was rejected. While his conviction claimed he committed the crimes against Kercher with others, by their final and definitive acquittal, it is clear that Knox and Sollecito were not those others. There was never any rational, reasonable evidence presented that others had committed the murder/rape with Guede.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom