Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
So if a rogue or mistaken cop beckoned you over the side of a cliff, you'd obey?
Click to expand...

Oh, good lord almighty...
Are you seriously presenting that as your argument? If this were a middle school debate, you'd be laughed off the stage.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, good lord almighty...
Are you seriously presenting that as your argument? If this were a middle school debate, you'd be laughed off the stage.
Click to expand...

Most middle-schools have anti-bullying protocols. The struggle in this case would be how to convey the same information to Vixen in a manner in which would be constructive.
 
abaddon said:
What a stupid suggestion.
Click to expand...

The point, if one can use that term, of these wildly imperfect attempted analogies by guilters is to obfuscate the fact that they have no counter-arguments based on the actual facts of the Knox-Sollecito case.

Let's consider the text of the original post by Planigale, where I have made a correction and a {clarification} relating to the criminal charge brought against Knox:

"The highlighted part is important. Knox is accused of making a 'false' allegation to "to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report it". So explicitly it is recognised that Knox had reported the alleged assault to an authority that was obliged to act on the report. However, other than bringing a charge of defamation calunnia there seems to have been no investigation into the substance of the claim.

Essentially what has happened is if you make a claim of abuse by the police, it will not be investigated, but you will be charged with making a false claim, a claim which is assumed to be false with no investigation.

But contrary to vixen's claim that no official complaint was made, the callunia case is entirely dependant on a {criminal} complaint having been made. the mere fact of bringing the case means the Italian authorities accept an effective complaint of abuse by the police against Knox has been made."

In charging Knox with calunnia against the police and Mignini, the prosecution detailed the criminal charges against the police and Mignini that, according to Italian law, the prosecution asserted that Knox had included by implication in her complaint, which was embodied in her testimony before the Massei court and subsequent appeals. These criminal charges include violations of 4 laws listed in the Italian Criminal Code with 3 aggravating factors listed in the Italian Criminal Code.

Thus, there can be no valid argument against the FACT that Knox properly and completely complained to the Italian authorities regarding her allegations of abuse by the police and Mignini and exhausted domestic (Italian state) remedies concerning this complaint through her appeals, which included a final appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel. That Knox complained and exhausted domestic remedies is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the Italian authorities charging Knox with aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini.

The poorly constructed attempts at analogy by the guilters is merely another attempt at diverting the thread from considerations of the actual events of the case.
 
Numbers said:
The point, if one can use that term, of these wildly imperfect attempted analogies by guilters is to obfuscate the fact that they have no counter-arguments based on the actual facts of the Knox-Sollecito case.

Let's consider the text of the original post by Planigale, where I have made a correction and a {clarification} relating to the criminal charge brought against Knox:

"The highlighted part is important. Knox is accused of making a 'false' allegation to "to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report it". So explicitly it is recognised that Knox had reported the alleged assault to an authority that was obliged to act on the report. However, other than bringing a charge of defamation calunnia there seems to have been no investigation into the substance of the claim.

Essentially what has happened is if you make a claim of abuse by the police, it will not be investigated, but you will be charged with making a false claim, a claim which is assumed to be false with no investigation.

But contrary to vixen's claim that no official complaint was made, the callunia case is entirely dependant on a {criminal} complaint having been made. the mere fact of bringing the case means the Italian authorities accept an effective complaint of abuse by the police against Knox has been made."

In charging Knox with calunnia against the police and Mignini, the prosecution detailed the criminal charges against the police and Mignini that, according to Italian law, the prosecution asserted that Knox had included by implication in her complaint, which was embodied in her testimony before the Massei court and subsequent appeals. These criminal charges include violations of 4 laws listed in the Italian Criminal Code with 3 aggravating factors listed in the Italian Criminal Code.

Thus, there can be no valid argument against the FACT that Knox properly and completely complained to the Italian authorities regarding her allegations of abuse by the police and Mignini and exhausted domestic (Italian state) remedies concerning this complaint through her appeals, which included a final appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel. That Knox complained and exhausted domestic remedies is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the Italian authorities charging Knox with aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini.

The poorly constructed attempts at analogy by the guilters is merely another attempt at diverting the thread from considerations of the actual events of the case.
Click to expand...

Diversion is a very effective tactic when used sparingly. However, when someone or a group overuses it, it becomes glaringly apparent so far less effective. It's like "the best defense is a good offense" tactic. Whenever someone resorts to that tactic, it's a very good indication that they have no facts to support their case.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, good lord almighty...
Are you seriously presenting that as your argument? If this were a middle school debate, you'd be laughed off the stage.
Click to expand...

Why did you have to say that Stacy? I was laughed off the stage in Middle School and it wounded me deeply. :(:wackycry::wackycry:
 
acbytesla said:
Why did you have to say that Stacy? I was laughed off the stage in Middle School and it wounded me deeply. :(:wackycry::wackycry:
Click to expand...

The truly amazing thing about our guilter is her complete lack of shame, her total inability to be embarrassed by anything she posts here.
 
Numbers said:
The point, if one can use that term, of these wildly imperfect attempted analogies by guilters is to obfuscate the fact that they have no counter-arguments based on the actual facts of the Knox-Sollecito case.

Let's consider the text of the original post by Planigale, where I have made a correction and a {clarification} relating to the criminal charge brought against Knox:

"The highlighted part is important. Knox is accused of making a 'false' allegation to "to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report it". So explicitly it is recognised that Knox had reported the alleged assault to an authority that was obliged to act on the report. However, other than bringing a charge of defamation calunnia there seems to have been no investigation into the substance of the claim.

Essentially what has happened is if you make a claim of abuse by the police, it will not be investigated, but you will be charged with making a false claim, a claim which is assumed to be false with no investigation.

But contrary to vixen's claim that no official complaint was made, the callunia case is entirely dependant on a {criminal} complaint having been made. the mere fact of bringing the case means the Italian authorities accept an effective complaint of abuse by the police against Knox has been made."

In charging Knox with calunnia against the police and Mignini, the prosecution detailed the criminal charges against the police and Mignini that, according to Italian law, the prosecution asserted that Knox had included by implication in her complaint, which was embodied in her testimony before the Massei court and subsequent appeals. These criminal charges include violations of 4 laws listed in the Italian Criminal Code with 3 aggravating factors listed in the Italian Criminal Code.

Thus, there can be no valid argument against the FACT that Knox properly and completely complained to the Italian authorities regarding her allegations of abuse by the police and Mignini and exhausted domestic (Italian state) remedies concerning this complaint through her appeals, which included a final appeal to the Chieffi CSC panel. That Knox complained and exhausted domestic remedies is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the Italian authorities charging Knox with aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini.

The poorly constructed attempts at analogy by the guilters is merely another attempt at diverting the thread from considerations of the actual events of the case.
Click to expand...

You overlook that Knox didn't complain via the correct avenues. It was rather the fact of the PR campaign (for example, the ludicrous claims in ROLLING STONE of being, starved, beaten and 'forced to confessed') was mischievously designed to lead the public into actually believing her lies.

I am sure the police were not very nice. It was not nice for the police to have to witness the poor victim's bruised and broken body. The police got Knox camomile tea and brioches, told her to go home and rest.

Can't say fairer than that.
 
Vixen said:
You overlook that Knox didn't complain via the correct avenues.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the last dozen posts which dealt with this?

Knox's testimony in court was the complaint. If it had not been, how did the cops end up having her charged with defamation?

Have you ever read the Boninsegna court report which acquitted her of that defamation charge? Our do you just ignore all that, wait a week, and simply regurgitate the original ignorance?
 
Vixen said:
You overlook that Knox didn't complain via the correct avenues. It was rather the fact of the PR campaign (for example, the ludicrous claims in ROLLING STONE of being, starved, beaten and 'forced to confessed') was mischievously designed to lead the public into actually believing her lies.

I am sure the police were not very nice. It was not nice for the police to have to witness the poor victim's bruised and broken body. The police got Knox camomile tea and brioches, told her to go home and rest.

Can't say fairer than that.
Click to expand...

If it was 'the PR campaign" that made the accusations then charges could not have been brought against Amanda. That Amanda was directly charged proves she directly made the claims.

"ludicrous claims"? Says who? PROVE Amanda was not subjected to the treatment as she claims. You can't. You simply CHOOSE to believe the police and not Amanda. But, of course, we all know it was up to the police to PROVE proper treatment by recording the interrogation. The police failed to record the session; they failed to provide an independent, impartial interpreter; they failed to provide a lawyer. The police denied Amanda every human right she had due her and now want to claim they were fair and compassionate? Only a 'blinded by bias' PGP would believe that. Certainly the courts didn't.
 
Bill Williams said:
Did you even read the last dozen posts which dealt with this?

Knox's testimony in court was the complaint. If it had not been, how did the cops end up having her charged with defamation?

Have you ever read the Boninsegna court report which acquitted her of that defamation charge? Our do you just ignore all that, wait a week, and simply regurgitate the original ignorance?
Click to expand...

The guilters go on and on about Knox not filing a "correct" complaint.

However, according to Italian law, ANY ORAL or WRITTEN STATEMENT suggesting that a law has been broken spoken before or given to a law enforcement (police) or judicial authority (prosecutor or judge) by a private person constitutes a report of an alleged crime. The law enforcement or judicial authority then formalizes this report into a complaint by obtaining the relevant details and writing all relevant details into the official records.

That is, according to Italian laws, CPP Articles 337 and 333, a private person may provide a REPORT and it may even be delivered orally; if delivered orally, the police or prosecutor is to write down (minute) the report as a complaint, which the complainant or his/her lawyer will sign and date.

There is no requirement in Italian law that a person or a person's lawyer must deliver some kind of "correct" formal complaint; that is merely a guilter fantasy. The person or the person's representative (who need not be a lawyer) gives a REPORT - orally or in writing - to the police or judicial authority (prosecutor or judge) and the police, prosecutor, or judge makes that REPORT a COMPLAINT by recording the relevant details.

Here are the relevant CPP articles:

CPP Article 336 Complaint

1. A complaint shall be submitted by means of a statement in which the complainant requests the prosecution of an act deemed an offense by law. Such statement may be submitted personally or by means of a specially appointed representative.

CPP Article 337 Formality of complaint

1. The statement of complaint shall be submitted, in the form provided for in Article 333, paragraph 2, to either the authorities to whom a report may be submitted or to a consular officer abroad. If it bears an authenticated signature, the statement may also be delivered by an appointed person or sent by mail in a registered envelope.

2. If the statement of complaint is submitted orally, the minutes in which it is recorded shall be signed by the complainant or his specially appointed representative.

3. {Not relevant to this case - only applies to a complainant that is an entity such as a company.}

4. The authority receiving the complaint shall certify the date and place of submission of the complaint, check the identity of the person submitting it and forward the case file to the Office of the Public Prosecutor.

CPP Article 333 Report by private parties

1. Whoever has knowledge of an offence subject to prosecution may submit a report. The law establishes the cases in which reporting an offence is mandatory.

2. The report shall be submitted orally or in writing, personally or by means of a specially appointed representative, to the Public Prosecutor or a criminal police official. If the report is submitted in writing, it shall be signed by its author or his specially appointed representative.
Thus, Amanda Knox's Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007 was a report, as was her testimony before the Massei court and each subsequent appeal.

The prosecution did not treat Memoriale 1 as a complaint, because no investigative action was taken, and no charge of calunnia against the police was launched against Knox based on that document. However, the courts used that document to justify a violation of Italian law CPP Article 63, allowing a criminal charge against Knox of calunnia against Lumumba based on Knox's otherwise inadmissible Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation statements.

The prosecution and courts treated Knox's statements in Massei's courts and subsequent appeals as complaints, with charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini brought against her for those statements and appeals. Knox was tried on those charges by the Boninsegna court and acquitted because there was no proof that her statements claiming mistreatment by the police were false.
 
Last edited:
TruthCalls said:
If it was 'the PR campaign" that made the accusations then charges could not have been brought against Amanda. That Amanda was directly charged proves she directly made the claims.

"ludicrous claims"? Says who? PROVE Amanda was not subjected to the treatment as she claims. You can't. You simply CHOOSE to believe the police and not Amanda. But, of course, we all know it was up to the police to PROVE proper treatment by recording the interrogation. The police failed to record the session; they failed to provide an independent, impartial interpreter; they failed to provide a lawyer. The police denied Amanda every human right she had due her and now want to claim they were fair and compassionate? Only a 'blinded by bias' PGP would believe that. Certainly the courts didn't.
Click to expand...


Probably should read "The police claimed to have not recorded the session".
 
Numbers said:
The prosecution and courts treated Knox's statements in Massei's courts and subsequent appeals as complaints, with charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini brought against her for those statements and appeals. Knox was tried on those charges by the Boninsegna court and acquitted because there was no proof that her statements claiming mistreatment by the police were false.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, one NEVER sees THIS LEVEL of analysis accompanying the nutters' talking points. There's a reason for that, because citing relevant codes and statutes does not sustain their opinions.

The point is - the Perugian police went a bridge too far. If they'd allowed Knox's complaint to proceed, then it would have been up to her to prove that she'd been hit at interrogation. Then, if any video of the interrogation existed, it would have been subpoena'able, if that's a word.

Instead they charged her with defamation. Indeed if the video had existed it was up to them to use it to prove they hadn't hit her. One fantasises that there had been some backroom conflict amongst the police as to let the presumed video be played in court!

Be that as it may, the cops lost; and it was an own goal, a self inflicted wound.

The world (and the ISC) already thinks that the Perugian cops are incompetent screwups who conducted an "amnesiac" investigation. In front of the Boninsegna court the cops themselves removed all doubt.

The hilarious tragedy - they didn't have to.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
The guilters go on and on about Knox not filing a "correct" complaint.

However, according to Italian law, ANY ORAL or WRITTEN STATEMENT suggesting that a law has been broken spoken before or given to a law enforcement (police) or judicial authority (prosecutor or judge) by a private person constitutes a report of an alleged crime. The law enforcement or judicial authority then formalizes this report into a complaint by obtaining the relevant details and writing all relevant details into the official records.

That is, according to Italian laws, CPP Articles 337 and 333, a private person may provide a REPORT and it may even be delivered orally; if delivered orally, the police or prosecutor is to write down (minute) the report as a complaint, which the complainant or his/her lawyer will sign and date.

There is no requirement in Italian law that a person or a person's lawyer must deliver some kind of "correct" formal complaint; that is merely a guilter fantasy. The person or the person's representative (who need not be a lawyer) gives a REPORT - orally or in writing - to the police or judicial authority (prosecutor or judge) and the police, prosecutor, or judge makes that REPORT a COMPLAINT by recording the relevant details.

Here are the relevant CPP articles:

CPP Article 336 Complaint

1. A complaint shall be submitted by means of a statement in which the complainant requests the prosecution of an act deemed an offense by law. Such statement may be submitted personally or by means of a specially appointed representative.

CPP Article 337 Formality of complaint

1. The statement of complaint shall be submitted, in the form provided for in Article 333, paragraph 2, to either the authorities to whom a report may be submitted or to a consular officer abroad. If it bears an authenticated signature, the statement may also be delivered by an appointed person or sent by mail in a registered envelope.

2. If the statement of complaint is submitted orally, the minutes in which it is recorded shall be signed by the complainant or his specially appointed representative.

3. {Not relevant to this case - only applies to a complainant that is an entity such as a company.}

4. The authority receiving the complaint shall certify the date and place of submission of the complaint, check the identity of the person submitting it and forward the case file to the Office of the Public Prosecutor.

CPP Article 333 Report by private parties

1. Whoever has knowledge of an offence subject to prosecution may submit a report. The law establishes the cases in which reporting an offence is mandatory.

2. The report shall be submitted orally or in writing, personally or by means of a specially appointed representative, to the Public Prosecutor or a criminal police official. If the report is submitted in writing, it shall be signed by its author or his specially appointed representative.
Thus, Amanda Knox's Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007 was a report, as was her testimony before the Massei court and each subsequent appeal.

The prosecution did not treat Memoriale 1 as a complaint, because no investigative action was taken, and no charge of calunnia against the police was launched against Knox based on that document. However, the courts used that document to justify a violation of Italian law CPP Article 63, allowing a criminal charge against Knox of calunnia against Lumumba based on Knox's otherwise inadmissible Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation statements.

The prosecution and courts treated Knox's statements in Massei's courts and subsequent appeals as complaints, with charges of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini brought against her for those statements and appeals. Knox was tried on those charges by the Boninsegna court and acquitted because there was no proof that her statements claiming mistreatment by the police were false.
Click to expand...

Bill Williams said:
If nothing else, one NEVER sees THIS LEVEL of analysis accompanying the nutters' talking points. There's a reason for that, because citing relevant codes and statutes does not sustain their opinions.

The point is - the Perugian police went a bridge too far. If they'd allowed Knox's complaint to proceed, then it would have been up to her to prove that she'd been hit at interrogation. Then, if any video of the interrogation existed, it would have been subpoena'able, if that's a word.

Instead they charged her with defamation. Indeed if the video had existed it was up to them to use it to prove they hadn't hit her. One fantasises that there had been some backroom conflict amongst the police as to let the presumed video be played in court!

Be that as it may, the cops lost; and it was an own goal, a self inflicted wound.

The world (and the ISC) already thinks that the Perugian cops are incompetent screwups who conducted an "amnesiac" investigation. In front of the Boninsegna court the cops themselves removed all doubt.

The hilarious tragedy - they didn't have to.
Click to expand...

The second point to make in terms of analysis is that the "formal" wording that the domestic Italian authorities used to record Amanda Knox's reports/complaints of police (and prosecutorial) misconduct are not relevant to the ECHR. And this whole discussion is about what is accepted as "exhaustion of domestic remedies" by the ECHR.

As proven without doubt by ECHR case-law, specifically Grinenko v. Ukraine, a statement by a person in court that claims abuse or mistreatment by the police, followed by appeals repeating the substance of this claim at each level of trial, including to the court of final decision, fully satisfies the ECHR requirement for "exhaustion of domestic remedies" for an allegation of a violation of Convention Article 3.

Amanda Knox and her lawyers followed the procedure for exhausting domestic remedies regarding a claim of a violation of Convention Article 3 as accepted by the ECHR in the Grinenko v. Ukraine case.

And for reasonable people, that would be the end of the discussion on this topic.
 
Vixen said:
You overlook that Knox didn't complain via the correct avenues. It was rather the fact of the PR campaign (for example, the ludicrous claims in ROLLING STONE of being, starved, beaten and 'forced to confessed') was mischievously designed to lead the public into actually believing her lies.

I am sure the police were not very nice. It was not nice for the police to have to witness the poor victim's bruised and broken body. The police got Knox camomile tea and brioches, told her to go home and rest.

Can't say fairer than that.
Click to expand...

I see that we can now add ROLLING STONE to the long list of those the PGP accuse of being part of the massive PR conspiracy.
You can believe that Douglas, Hampikian, Gill (none of whom was personally involved in or connected to the case and had no motive to lie about their professional opinions) were all bought off. Yet you cannot fathom that the actual police accused of illegal conduct during the interrogation could possibly tell a self-serving lie about that conduct in order to protect their own careers. Nope, that is just inconceivable to you.

Those same police claim they provided Knox with tea and brioche. There is no evidence they actually did. However, Patrick Lumumba claimed that he, too, was unfed during his several hours long interrogation. Can't say fairer than that.

Vixen, if you are correct that Knox did not complain "via the correct avenues", please do what Numbers has done: provide the exact Italian law that supports your case. We have not seen that from you. Why is that?
 
Numbers said:
The second point to make in terms of analysis is that the "formal" wording that the domestic Italian authorities used to record Amanda Knox's reports/complaints of police (and prosecutorial) misconduct are not relevant to the ECHR. And this whole discussion is about what is accepted as "exhaustion of domestic remedies" by the ECHR.

As proven without doubt by ECHR case-law, specifically Grinenko v. Ukraine, a statement by a person in court that claims abuse or mistreatment by the police, followed by appeals repeating the substance of this claim at each level of trial, including to the court of final decision, fully satisfies the ECHR requirement for "exhaustion of domestic remedies" for an allegation of a violation of Convention Article 3.

Amanda Knox and her lawyers followed the procedure for exhausting domestic remedies regarding a claim of a violation of Convention Article 3 as accepted by the ECHR in the Grinenko v. Ukraine case.

And for reasonable people, that would be the end of the discussion on this topic.
Click to expand...

Well, there's the problem!
 
Stacyhs said:
Vixen, if you are correct that Knox did not complain "via the correct avenues", please do what Numbers has done: provide the exact Italian law that supports your case. We have not seen that from you. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Crickets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom