Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Yep...already provided this upthread! I have to wonder why she thinks we wouldn't check her citations. She should know better by now.
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
Yep...already provided this upthread! I have to wonder why she thinks we wouldn't check her citations. She should know better by now.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, Dr. Sollecito knew.
But it is completely irrelevant to my point which seems to have gone right over your head. They didn't have to say they were going anywhere. All they had to do was go back to her place for any reason whatsoever and the rest could have followed as I described.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
And you accused me of changing the context and the subject?
You claimed that "under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse". THAT is what you were requested to provide a citation for and have failed to do.
What is required in England and Wales for a lawyer to
As you have been told before, the complaint of being hit, etc was made known to the police in writing via the memorial that Amanda handed to Ficarra before she even had a lawyer and which became part of the court records. AND she testified to it. Your claim that there is no record of any complaint to the police is wrong.
(Boninsegna MR)
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Wow. Have you forgotten that Amanda was acquitted of defamation regarding her claims of being hit?
(Boninsegna report)
So much for your claims of "sheer malice to evade a murder rap."
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Oh, good lord. What a silly and obviously incorrect statement. Regardless, they did alert the police to the murder when they called 112 to report the break-in BEFORE the postales arrived as concluded by your beloved and infallible Massei. Which, according to your (false) reasoning above, can only mean they didn't commit the murder.
Try to remember that it was impossible for the police's timeline to be correct according to their own testimony. They claimed no one saw RS sneak out to call 112 in the confusion of all the "young people" being there. But phone records show that Luca and Marco could not have arrived before 1:00 according to their testimony and to the amount of time it took for Marco to pick up Luca and then drive to the cottage. Testimony also showed that the boys arrived almost simultaneously as Filomena and Paola.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It's a complete mystery why you need to embellish like this. Knox wss charged and eventually acquitted of a defamation charge for claiming to be slapped. Her parents were similarly charged for repeating the claim because of one article John Follain wrote in England.
Why you need to embellish with "criminal torture" is what undoes you.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
One embellishes and uses hyperbole when the plain truth is insufficient in supporting one's agenda. Repeating something is also a classic tactic. For example:
TRUMP:
Fact is, the FBI found no evidence Clinton had lied. Why was it the "most incredible thing anybody has ever seen" when speaking to the FBI does not require being under oath as lying to an FBI agent is already illegal? Flynn ruined his own life but Trump places the blame on the FBI.
And would someone please inform Trump that it's "I feel bad" not "badly"?
Last edited:
Has anyone read "Three False Convictions, Many Lessons: The Psychopathology of Unjust Prosecutions by Prof. David Anderson and Nigel Scott"?
http://thejusticegap.com/2016/09/confrontational-justice-system-elements-intrinsically-psychopathic/
It appears there is another Professor who has been corrupted to write a book about how Knox was wrongly convicted. It is really cunning that the FoA are able to get all these Professors on side. Of course it would be impossible to conceive that they do so because there is case in favour of Knox they must be corrupt?
http://thejusticegap.com/2016/09/confrontational-justice-system-elements-intrinsically-psychopathic/
It appears there is another Professor who has been corrupted to write a book about how Knox was wrongly convicted. It is really cunning that the FoA are able to get all these Professors on side. Of course it would be impossible to conceive that they do so because there is case in favour of Knox they must be corrupt?
The written document, Memoriale 1, submitted by Amanda Knox to the police on 6 Nov. 2007, before she was allowed by the prosecutor to consult with any lawyer, and which was included in the case file, is indeed a complaint of police misconduct and degrading treatment (an alleged violation of Article 3) in accordance with ECHR case-law. On receiving this, the Italian authorities - not Amanda Knox or her lawyer - were obligated under ECHR case-law to launch an effective investigation of the complaint, which would have included instructing Knox on how to fill out and file any formal complaint required under Italian law. The Italian authorities did not do this.
Furthermore, Knox testified before the Massei court of this same alleged misconduct and degrading treatment by the police. This court testimony is indeed a complaint in accordance with ECHR case-law. The Italian authorities again were obligated to launch an effective investigation in accordance with ECHR case-law. The Italian authorities did not do this. Instead, they began a prosecution of Knox, charging her with calunnia against the police and the prosecutor.
The failure of the Italian authorities to launch an effective investigation of the violation of Article 3, alleged by Knox in her written Memoriale 1 and her testimony, and repeated in each of her appeals, according to ECHR case-law, itself constitutes a violation under its procedural branch of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The ECHR case-law stresses that Article 3 is positive obligation of the authorities, requiring the launch of an effective investigation, as soon as they become aware of a credible allegation of acts that may be a violation of that article.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
It's amazing just how many respected experts/professors were willing to place their reputations and careers on the line to be paid shills for Gogerty-Marriott, innit?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
No wonder Gogerty-Marriott went out of business. All I know is I've never been paid.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Isn't it amazing how we're still posting when our cash cow is no longer in business? The PGP will interpret that as proof we're being paid. Go figure.
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,471
I just got my regular big check today. Oops. I don't think I am supposed to let anyone know about it.
While I don't have statistical data on the effectiveness of filing a complaint against alleged mistreatment in violation of Convention Article 3, there was a recent ECHR case which illustrated that the Italian judicial system does not effectively investigate such complaints.
In TIZIANA PENNINO v. ITALY 21759/15 12/10/2017, on 2 April 2013 an Italian woman was brought to an Italian police station on suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol. While she was at the police station, a police officer handcuffed her and allegedly squeezed her buttocks and asked if the handcuffs were tight enough. The applicant, Pennino, stated that she then began screaming loudly and the officer removed the handcuffs violently, thereby fracturing her thumb. She alleged further that the officer then warned her not to cause further trouble and threatened her. Soon after she was released from the police station, she went to a hospital where medical examination confirmed that her thumb had been fractured.
On 4 April 2013 Pennino filed a criminal complaint alleging assault and battery, infliction of bodily harm, abuse of office, and threats. The end result was that no case was found by the Italian authorities: By an order of 3 October 2014, served on the applicant on 27 October 2014, the Benevento District Court preliminary investigations judge (giudice per le indagini preliminari) decided to discontinue the proceedings. The order stated that the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation had not been sufficient to warrant indicting the officers. It stated that the victim’s allegations had not been corroborated by evidence and that further investigative measures, as requested by the victim, would have “no influence whatsoever”.
The ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 3 under its substantive and procedural branches. Here is an excerpt from the judgment illustrating the reasoning of the ECHR:
50. The Court notes at the outset that the investigation file shows no evidence of any investigative efforts directed towards the events that occurred in the municipal police station, although that is where the applicant alleged that the most important injuries had been inflicted. The Court further notes that the applicant explicitly complained about the lack of investigative measures concerning the events that had taken place at the station to the domestic authorities .... The only documents which relate to the events at the municipal police station are reports by the municipal police officers ....
52. Another aspect which the Court finds to be problematic in so far as the thoroughness of the investigation is concerned is the extremely succinct reasoning in the prosecutor’s request to discontinue the proceedings and the investigating judge’s decision to that effect .... The Court underlines in this respect that the prosecutor’s request appears to be drafted in a standardised manner. The investigating judge’s decision is similarly laconic. It contains generic formulations to the effect that the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation was not sufficient to warrant indicting the officers and that the victim’s allegations have not been corroborated. No information can be gleaned from the request and the decision regarding the reconstruction of the facts, the possible causes of the applicant’s injuries, the nature of the force used, or the elements relied on by the prosecutor and investigating judge to request and order the discontinuance of the proceedings.
53. The Court notes further that the investigating judge gave no reasons for denying the applicant’s request for additional acts of investigation. The decision contains a generic dismissal to the effect that the further measures would have “no influence whatsoever”.
54. Those considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the investigating authorities failed to devote the requisite attention to the applicants’ allegations concerning the events that occurred at the municipal police station despite the nature of the alleged acts, involving law-enforcement officers using force and causing injuries to a person under their control. The effect of the shortcomings identified above entailed, in practice, a failure to shed light on important aspects of the impugned events, the circumstances surrounding the use of force by the police against the applicant and, consequently, on the necessity of the use of such force.
55. Concerning the substantive limb of Article 3, the Court is not persuaded that the Government have provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicant’s injuries, namely the fractured finger, could have been caused. In conclusion, it cannot consider that the Government have discharged their burden of proof by demonstrating that the use of force was strictly necessary.
56. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 3 under both its substantive and procedural head.
_____
For Knox v. Italy, the ECHR would draw the conclusion from the above example and other cases that filing a criminal complaint against the police in Italy does not necessarily result in an effective investigation, and that therefore following the path of complaining in testimony before a court is a reasonable alternative. And indeed, Knox's Memoriale 1 was enough to notify the police that there was a credible allegation of police mistreatment, yet the police took no action to obtain a formal complaint from her.
In TIZIANA PENNINO v. ITALY 21759/15 12/10/2017, on 2 April 2013 an Italian woman was brought to an Italian police station on suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol. While she was at the police station, a police officer handcuffed her and allegedly squeezed her buttocks and asked if the handcuffs were tight enough. The applicant, Pennino, stated that she then began screaming loudly and the officer removed the handcuffs violently, thereby fracturing her thumb. She alleged further that the officer then warned her not to cause further trouble and threatened her. Soon after she was released from the police station, she went to a hospital where medical examination confirmed that her thumb had been fractured.
On 4 April 2013 Pennino filed a criminal complaint alleging assault and battery, infliction of bodily harm, abuse of office, and threats. The end result was that no case was found by the Italian authorities: By an order of 3 October 2014, served on the applicant on 27 October 2014, the Benevento District Court preliminary investigations judge (giudice per le indagini preliminari) decided to discontinue the proceedings. The order stated that the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation had not been sufficient to warrant indicting the officers. It stated that the victim’s allegations had not been corroborated by evidence and that further investigative measures, as requested by the victim, would have “no influence whatsoever”.
The ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 3 under its substantive and procedural branches. Here is an excerpt from the judgment illustrating the reasoning of the ECHR:
50. The Court notes at the outset that the investigation file shows no evidence of any investigative efforts directed towards the events that occurred in the municipal police station, although that is where the applicant alleged that the most important injuries had been inflicted. The Court further notes that the applicant explicitly complained about the lack of investigative measures concerning the events that had taken place at the station to the domestic authorities .... The only documents which relate to the events at the municipal police station are reports by the municipal police officers ....
52. Another aspect which the Court finds to be problematic in so far as the thoroughness of the investigation is concerned is the extremely succinct reasoning in the prosecutor’s request to discontinue the proceedings and the investigating judge’s decision to that effect .... The Court underlines in this respect that the prosecutor’s request appears to be drafted in a standardised manner. The investigating judge’s decision is similarly laconic. It contains generic formulations to the effect that the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation was not sufficient to warrant indicting the officers and that the victim’s allegations have not been corroborated. No information can be gleaned from the request and the decision regarding the reconstruction of the facts, the possible causes of the applicant’s injuries, the nature of the force used, or the elements relied on by the prosecutor and investigating judge to request and order the discontinuance of the proceedings.
53. The Court notes further that the investigating judge gave no reasons for denying the applicant’s request for additional acts of investigation. The decision contains a generic dismissal to the effect that the further measures would have “no influence whatsoever”.
54. Those considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the investigating authorities failed to devote the requisite attention to the applicants’ allegations concerning the events that occurred at the municipal police station despite the nature of the alleged acts, involving law-enforcement officers using force and causing injuries to a person under their control. The effect of the shortcomings identified above entailed, in practice, a failure to shed light on important aspects of the impugned events, the circumstances surrounding the use of force by the police against the applicant and, consequently, on the necessity of the use of such force.
55. Concerning the substantive limb of Article 3, the Court is not persuaded that the Government have provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicant’s injuries, namely the fractured finger, could have been caused. In conclusion, it cannot consider that the Government have discharged their burden of proof by demonstrating that the use of force was strictly necessary.
56. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 3 under both its substantive and procedural head.
_____
For Knox v. Italy, the ECHR would draw the conclusion from the above example and other cases that filing a criminal complaint against the police in Italy does not necessarily result in an effective investigation, and that therefore following the path of complaining in testimony before a court is a reasonable alternative. And indeed, Knox's Memoriale 1 was enough to notify the police that there was a credible allegation of police mistreatment, yet the police took no action to obtain a formal complaint from her.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
So much for the, "she never complained at the time," talking point, as if that settles it.
Eventually one must concede that, first, she did complain; second, she complained in a manner that obliged the authorities to investigate; and third, that that investigation was probably as simple as.......
Comodi asking Napoleoni to come into her office, and she asked Napoleoni, "Did you hit her?"
When Napoleoni said, "No," the investigation was closed and Knox herself was charged with defaming the police.
Not only were the cards stacked against her, the remaining present day guilters have the cheek to claim Knox had never complained in the first place.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Please don't twist my words. I said the FBI had found no evidence she lied to them vs what Trump said which was that she had lied to the FBI specifically on the Fourth of July weekend per my previous quote. Ex-Dir. Comey said that "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI".
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Napoleoni would have answered truthfully if asked if she had hit Knox since it was Rita Ficarra who smacked Knox. But your point still stands.
The problem with the PGP is that they have created their own entirely fictitious version of Knox: the cocaine addled, devious, manipulating, vindictive, jealous, selfish, unpopular slut who dragged all kinds of strange men back to the cottage for sex. That nothing in her history before the murder or since her release six years go supports that version goes completely ignored by them. Only their version of Knox exists in their alternate reality.
Last edited:
Methos
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 870
Remember the good old Perugia Shock? This is an excerpt from Frank's January 19, 2010 post, titled "Endless Persecution":
No highlighting needed, I think...
Remember the good old Perugia Shock? This is an excerpt from Frank's January 19, 2010 post, titled "Endless Persecution":
No highlighting needed, I think...
Well, if this is true it is certainly enlightening.
- Status