whoanellie
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,471
Now Vixen is a historian....
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
She's a regular Renaissance woman.
Last edited:
It's interesting to look back at the case and continually correct the misrepresentations of the guilters, but actually there will be news to report in the coming months or years. But not too much immediately.
I will point out that the Deputies of the Committee of Ministers who supervise the execution of judgments of the ECHR will, within the next week or so, be adding Knox v. Italy to their list of cases requiring an Action Plan from the respondent state (Italy). This list is maintained on the site https://hudoc.exec.coe.int.
To date (7 July 2019) the most recent case from Italy is Arnaboldi v. Italy, with ECHR final judgment date of 14 June 2019, but the list this past week was expanded with a few more recent cases, with final judgment up to 27 June June 2019, for some of the Eastern European states such as Russia, Ukraine, and Hungary. Since the ECHR final judgment date for Knox v. Italy is 24 June 2019, it should be joining the list in due time.
I will point out that the Deputies of the Committee of Ministers who supervise the execution of judgments of the ECHR will, within the next week or so, be adding Knox v. Italy to their list of cases requiring an Action Plan from the respondent state (Italy). This list is maintained on the site https://hudoc.exec.coe.int.
To date (7 July 2019) the most recent case from Italy is Arnaboldi v. Italy, with ECHR final judgment date of 14 June 2019, but the list this past week was expanded with a few more recent cases, with final judgment up to 27 June June 2019, for some of the Eastern European states such as Russia, Ukraine, and Hungary. Since the ECHR final judgment date for Knox v. Italy is 24 June 2019, it should be joining the list in due time.
To give some insight into the kind of response Italy may have in the Knox case, here is an excerpt from a letter (in French) sent by the Permanent Representative of Italy to the Department of the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR about an earlier case.
"Objet: Affaire Cestaro contre Italie (Requête n. 6884/11) Arrêt du 7 avril 2015
Madame Geneviève Mayer
Service de l'exécution des arrêts
de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme
Conseil de l'Europe
Strasbourg
Chère Madame Mayer,
Faisant suite à votre courrier du 26 juin dernier, je suis heureux de vous informer que le 5 juillet, la Chambre des Députés a définitivement approuvé la loi qui introduit dans l'ordre juridique italien le crime de torture.
Un nouvel article du code pénal - 613 bis - punit par la réclusion de 4 à 10 ans celui qui, avec des violences ou de graves menaces ou, en agissant avec cruauté, cause d'aiguës souffrances physiques ou un traumatisme psychique qui peut être vérifié à une personne privée de sa liberté ou confiée à sa garde, à son autorité, à sa vigilance, à son contrôle, à ses soins ou son assistance ou qui se trouve dans des conditions de détresse, si le fait est commis par plusieurs conduites ou s'il entraîne un traitement inhumain et dégradant pour la dignité de la personne. ...."
Google translation with my help:
"Subject: The Cestaro case against Italy (Application No. 6884/11) Judgment of 7 April 2015
Mrs. Geneviève Mayer
Department for the Execution of Judgments
of the European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
Strasbourg
Dear Mrs. Mayer,
Following your letter of June 26, I am pleased to inform you that on July 5, the Chamber of Deputies definitely approved the law that introduces the crime of torture into the Italian legal order.
A new section of the Penal Code - 613 bis - punishes by imprisonment of 4 to 10 years the person who, with violence or serious threats or, acting with cruelty, causes acute physical suffering or psychological trauma that can be verified to a person deprived of his liberty or entrusted to his care, authority, vigilance, control, care or assistance or who is in distress, if the act is committed by more than one or if it results in inhuman and degrading treatment for the dignity of the person. ...."
Now, this proposed law may not have been finally enacted, but it shows that Italy does attempt to respond positively to the final judgments of the ECHR, and illustrates how a state responds to the Committee of Ministers and their Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR.
This is the text of Criminal Code (Codice Penale, CP) Article 613-bis:
"Art. 613-bis c.p. Tortura.
Chiunque, con violenze o minacce gravi, ovvero agendo con crudeltà, cagiona acute sofferenze fisiche o un verificabile trauma psichico a una persona privata della libertà personale o affidata alla sua custodia, potestà, vigilanza, controllo, cura o assistenza, ovvero che si trovi in condizioni di minorata difesa, è punito con la pena della reclusione da quattro a dieci anni se il fatto è commesso mediante più condotte ovvero se comporta un trattamento inumano e degradante per la dignità della persona.
Se i fatti di cui al primo comma sono commessi da un pubblico ufficiale o da un incaricato di un pubblico servizio, con abuso dei poteri o in violazione dei doveri inerenti alla funzione o al servizio, la pena è della reclusione da cinque a dodici anni. Il comma precedente non si applica nel caso di sofferenze risultanti unicamente dall'esecuzione di legittime misure privative o limitative di diritti.
Se dai fatti di cui al primo comma deriva una lesione personale le pene di cui ai commi precedenti sono aumentate; se ne deriva una lesione personale grave sono aumentate di un terzo e se ne deriva una lesione personale gravissima sono aumentate della metà. Se dai fatti di cui al primo comma deriva la morte quale conseguenza non voluta, la pena è della reclusione di anni trenta.
Se il colpevole cagiona volontariamente la morte, la pena è dell'ergastolo.
Ultimo aggiornamento: 19 luglio 2017"
Google translation with my help:
"Art. 613-bis of the Penal Code: Torture.
Anyone who with serious violence or threats, or acting with cruelty, causes acute physical suffering or verifiable psychological trauma to a person deprived of personal liberty or entrusted to his custody, authority, supervision, control, care or assistance, or who is in a condition of disability, is punished with imprisonment of from four to ten years if the offense is committed by more than one individual or if it involves inhuman and degrading treatment against the dignity of the person.
If the facts referred to in the first paragraph are committed by a public official or a person in charge of a public service, with abuse of powers or in violation of the duties inherent to the function or service, the penalty is imprisonment of from five to twelve years. The preceding paragraph does not apply in the case of suffering resulting solely from the execution of legitimate deprivations or measures restricting rights.
If the facts referred to in the first paragraph result in a personal injury, the penalties referred to in the preceding paragraphs are increased; if a serious personal injury results, they are increased by one third and a very serious personal injury results it is increased by one half. If the facts referred to in the first paragraph result in death as an unintended consequence, the penalty is the imprisonment for thirty years.
If the culprit deliberately causes death, the penalty is life imprisonment.
Last updated: 19 July 2017"
__
So it appears that Italy now does have a law against torture, including infliction of psychological trauma or inhuman and degrading treatment. And it was adopted based upon a final judgment of the ECHR in a case against Italy.
Sources:
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=0900001680737d0a
https://lexscripta.it/codici/codice-penale/articolo-613-bis
Last edited:
To refresh our memories, here is the ECHR Legal Summary for Cestaro v. Italy:
"Cestaro v. Italy - 6884/11
Judgment 7.4.2015 [Section IV]
Article 3
Torture
Acts of torture committed by members of security forces against demonstrators at G8 summit: violation
Effective investigation
Positive obligations
Inadequacy of legal machinery for punishing members of security forces responsible for torture and other ill-treatment of demonstrators at G8 summit: violation
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Measures of a general character
Respondent State required to take general measures with a view to punishing persons responsible for torture and other ill-treatment
Facts – The twenty-seventh G8 summit took place in Genoa in July 2001. A number of NGOs organised an alternative anti-globalisation summit in the city at the same time. On the night of the last day of the summit the security forces decided to carry out a search in two schools used as night shelters for “authorised” demonstrators, to find evidence and possibly to arrest members of a group responsible for acts of violence. About 500 police officers took part in the operation.
After breaking down the doors of the school where the applicant was taking shelter, the security forces began to strike the occupants with their fists, feet, and truncheons, while shouting and threatening the victims, some of whom were lying or sitting on the ground. A number of occupants, awakened by the noise of the attack, were struck while they were still in their sleeping bags. Others had their hands up in surrender or were presenting their identity papers. Some were trying to escape, hiding in toilets or storerooms, but they were caught, beaten and sometimes pulled by their hair from their hiding places. When the police arrived the applicant, then aged 62, was sitting with his back to the wall and his arms raised. He was struck several times, especially on the head, arms and legs, causing multiple fractures. He was operated on in hospital, where he spent four days. He was temporarily unfit for work for a period of more than 40 days. He has never fully recovered from his injuries, which have left him with permanent weakness in his right arm and right leg. After an investigation opened by the public prosecutor’s office, 30 members of the security forces stood trial. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party. Some charges were time-barred and, after sentence reductions, the prison sentences actually served were for terms of between three months and one year, and only for attempts to justify ill-treatment and unlawful arrest. No one was convicted for the ill-treatment itself.
Law – Article 3
(a) Substantive limb – The facts had been established by the domestic courts and were not in dispute between the parties. It could not be denied that the ill-treatment of the applicant had caused him acute pain and suffering and that it had been particularly serious and cruel in nature. In addition, in view of the lack of resistance on the part of the occupants, there was no causal link between the applicant’s conduct and the use of force by the police. The ill-treatment at issue in the present case had thus been inflicted on the applicant totally gratuitously and could not be regarded as a means used proportionately by the authorities to fulfil the intended aim. In this connection it was noteworthy that the storming of the school was supposed to be a search, but at no time had the police attempted to converse with the persons who had lawfully taken shelter in the building, or to ask them to open doors that they had been entitled to close, preferring to break them down. Lastly, the police had systematically beaten up all the occupants in the building. Therefore, the ill-treatment of which the applicant, among others, was a victim had undoubtedly been intentional and premeditated. Nor was there any doubt about the attempts by the police to conceal these events or to justify them on fallacious grounds.
In those circumstances, the seriousness of the ill-treatment inflicted when the police stormed the school could not be relativised in the light of the very tense context resulting from the numerous clashes which had taken place during the demonstrations or the very specific requirements of the protection of public order. Any tension arising during the storming of the school by the police could be explained less by objective reasons than by the decision to carry out well-publicised arrests and by the adoption of operational tactics that did not meet the requirement to protect the values arising from Article 3 of the Convention.
Having regard to the foregoing, the ill-treatment sustained by the applicant when the police raided the school was to be characterised as “torture” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Procedural limb
(i) Failure to identify the perpetrators of the ill-treatment at issue – The police officers who had attacked the applicant in the school and had physically subjected him to acts of torture had never been identified. They had not therefore been the subject of an investigation and had quite simply remained unpunished.
(ii) Time-barring of charges and partial reduction in sentences – As regards the storming of the school, the acts of violence committed there and the attempts to conceal or justify them, a number of officers of the security forces, of higher and lower ranks, had been prosecuted and had stood trial for various offences. However, after the criminal proceedings, nobody had been convicted for the ill-treatment perpetrated in the school against the applicant, among others, as the offences of wounding and grievous bodily harm had become time-barred. The convictions upheld by the Court of Cassation had concerned the attempts to justify the ill-treatment and the lack of any factual or legal basis for the arrest of the school’s occupants. In addition, by the effect of the general reduction in sentence, the terms of imprisonment had been reduced by three years. The convicted persons had thus had to serve between three months and one year. Having regard to the foregoing, the authorities had not reacted sufficiently in response to such serious acts, and consequently that reaction had been incompatible with their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
However, this result could not be imputed to the shortcomings or negligence of the public prosecutor’s office or the domestic courts, which had been firm and had not been responsible for any delay in the proceedings. It was the Italian criminal legislation applied in the present case which had proved both inadequate as regards the need to punish acts of torture and devoid of the necessary deterrent effect to prevent other similar violations of Article 3 in the future.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 46: The Court ruled out any negligence or indulgence on the part of the public prosecutor’s office or the trial courts and found that the Italian criminal legislation had been inadequate. The structural nature of the problem thus seemed undeniable. However, that problem arose not only for the repression of acts of torture but also for the other ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3: in the absence of any appropriately differentiated sanctions under Italian criminal law for all the acts of ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3, the statute of limitations and the system of sentence reduction could in practice preclude any punishment, not only of those responsible for acts of “torture” but also of the perpetrators of “inhuman treatment” and “degrading treatment”, in spite of all the efforts of the prosecution authorities and trial courts.
The State’s positive obligations under Article 3 might include the duty to introduce an adapted legal framework, in particular through effective provisions of criminal law. In that connection, the Italian legal order needed legal mechanisms that could ensure adequate punishment for the perpetrators of acts of torture or other ill-treatment and prevent such individuals from benefiting from measures that were incompatible with the Court’s case-law.
Article 41: EUR 45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed."
_____
The case Cestaro v. Italy, and the similar cases resulting from the police violence against non-violent individuals at the 2001 Genoa G8 meeting, provides useful background for the case Knox v. Italy.
Among other points, it shows how the Italian justice system, including laws, were inadequate to address the premeditated violence inflicted on non-violent person by the police without justification and solely attributable to the police, and how the system worked to assure that even police convicted of violations of law were given sentences disproportionately low compared to the severity of their crimes.
Also, in terms of the amount of just satisfaction (monetary compensation for violations of the Convention) awarded to Cestaro by the ECHR, it is clear that the amount is a token that is symbolic rather than compensatory as would be delivered, presumably, by a national court. This is generally true for ECHR judgments, with the possible exceptions of cases where there has been a documented unlawful expropriation of valuable property in violation of the Convention by the respondent state.
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Putting aside the fact that Raffaele's plumbing problem had begun a couple of days prior to the murder, and a plumber had already been there to work on the problem....
This is another 'pro-guilt piece of evidence' that has always befuddled me. If the murder and subsequent clean-up was at the cottage, what was the reason behind (I assume) "faking" a leaked pipe in order to go fetch a mop from the cottage to bring to the apartment? What did they presumably do at his apartment that would necessitate a mop?
Some of the greatest mysteries arising from this case is the 'reasoning' of PGP theories.
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
So then you clearly would agree that traces that were both TMB and DNA negative can not be deemed traces of the victim's blood BARD?
Further, I'm sure you would agree that when the ENFSI standards dictate that a DNA sample MUST be amplified a minimum of two times in order to establish the results are reliable, then the results of any sample amplified only once can't possible be considered to be correct BARD.
You basically shot yourself in the foot here. You insist criminal courts need to adhere to basics and meet BARD, yet when basic science proves BARD has not been met, you choose to ignore your own guidelines. I would argue the odds of tertiary transfer of one trace of LCN quantity is more likely than multiple prints being made from the victim's blood yet yielding negative TMB and DNA results. You seem to be very selective in what you think is possible and what isn't. No surprise there.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Hark back to your original post.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
This was all dealt with in the trial.
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 326
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
In other words, you can't admit that you have, indeed, shot yourself in the foot as Truthcalls has so clearly pointed out.
And yes, this was all dealt with by Marasca who ruled that the failure to follow collection protocols and the failure to repeat the analyses nullified any evidentiary value of the bra clasp and knife:
(Marasca Bruno MR)
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Oh yes, all dealt with in trial. Let's see...
I believe it was Massei who chose to ignore science (TMB & DNA) and declared the traces were from Meredith's blood because, after all, what else could it be. Surely that meets the BARD standard
And I believe it was Stefanoni who said she chose to ignore ENFSI standards and amplify samples only once because SHE didn't think doing it more than once would be helpful. Once again, easily clearing the BARD hurdle.
But you're right, it was all dealt with in trial and that is precisely why Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You do not understand how it works.
In a merits hearing (a trial) the court's job is to ascertain the facts. It then decides on a verdict having heard all of the evidence in front of it from all parties, defence and prosecution, witnesses and exhibits. This is done by a mixture of highly qualified judges (usually people who have practised as criminal barristers for over seven years) and randomly selected members of the public (the defendants' peers, as it were).
In Italy there is an automatic appeal process. This time,it is simply a couple of judges (a junior and the lead judge) who read through both parties 'points of appeal' and each parties barristers are then give a few minutes each to present their skeleton argument in person before the judges.
The judges have to decide whether they prefer the defence's legal arguments or the prosecutions. You will note it is now nothing at all to do with presenting evidence,witnesses or facts.
In this particular case, there were iirc five parties presenting their appeals (for the Kercher family, for the prosecution, for the Knox defence, for the Sollecito defence and Lumumba's barrister). Each were told they were limited to twenty minutes.
Bongiorno, for Raff, was heard over a period of two and a half days - totally disproportionately to the others - together with a tacked on report from Peter Gill, who borrowed heavily from Conti and Vecchiotti and did not see or examine any of the forensic evidence at first hand (as we know C&V turned out to be defence advocates). Bongiorno hammered the judges over the head with 360 pages, when a skeleton is supposed to be no more than two sides of A4 maximum.
Surprise surprise, having given Bongiorno an unfair advantage in the amount of time she was given to present her appeal, not to mention the totally irregular use of evidence that had never been presented at trial (Gill was never called as a witness and had not been cross-examined) the judges on this occasion preferred the arguments of the defence. That's how it works. This why Bongiorno's crackpot and illogical arguments appear all over the motivational report.
Had it preferred the prosecutor's appeal then their arguments would appear in it.
The judges are not supposed to impose their own opinion. This is another way M-B erred as it was never put before the trial that the press were banned from speculating on the case (Italy doesn't have subjudice, being inquisitorial), which isn't against Italian law anyway and nor was the competence of the forensic scientists ever ruled as incompetent, either. This is something Marasca-Bruno made up.
One thing Bongiorno could not change though, without it having gone back to the merits courts, were the facts found, which stand in perpetuity.
So she got them out of jail but she did NOT clear their names. They are forever held to have been at the cottage during the time of the murder of 'the young Meredith Kercher'.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Oh yes, all dealt with in trial. Let's see...
I believe it was Massei who chose to ignore science (TMB & DNA) and declared the traces were from Meredith's blood because, after all, what else could it be. Surely that meets the BARD standard
And I believe it was Stefanoni who said she chose to ignore ENFSI standards and amplify samples only once because SHE didn't think doing it more than once would be helpful. Once again, easily clearing the BARD hurdle.
But you're right, it was all dealt with in trial and that is precisely why Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted?
No. If you look at the correct Italian translation, the conviction was annulled not that they were acquitted.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
It is YOU who does not know how this works. At the appeals level there are two professional judges and six lay judges - same as the firat level trial. At the Supreme Court level, each Chamber is comprised of 5 judges - also highly trained, if that is the sort of thing you're looking for.
Why do you insist on never learning how it works?
You've now conflated the Appeals' level with the Supreme Court level. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court level looked at the evidence of both sides, and determined that the prosecution evidence, even if true, still did not merit a conviction. They then annulled the conviction, which is the same as acquitting the defendants.
Wait a minute.... isn't this the report you cite to say that it is a judicial truth that Knox had participated in the murder? It would be great if you made up your mind.
They are not!? Then you must be mad at Massei, the 1st Chambers of Cassation, and the Nencini court for imposing theirs!!!
No they did not. They said that the presence at the cottage was alleged. When the SC then looked at those allegations, it decided that even if true, it did not prove they'd taken part on the murder.
No number of times you repeat this canard makes it true.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The other three judges are just there as spares.
No, the Supreme Court does not make 'allegations'. That is not its job.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I've got the Supreme Court reasons right here. They say that the Nencini court erred in many ways. One way in which the Nencini court erred, was assuming that the prior 2013 Supreme Court referral was a directive to convict. The 2015 Supreme Court cited that as the main reason why Nencini evaluated the evidence wrongly, and illogically.
Unlike you, I shall post what the SC actually said....
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Sigh. There is a basic reading comprehension problem here.
First, no, those other three are not "spares". Where you came up with that is anyone's guess.
Second, the Supreme Court did not deem those items to be allegations, they stated as fact that as received by the Nencini court they were factual, unproven allegations.
.... and what you always miss (to the point of probably knowing this by lying about it) is that those allegations EVEN IF TRUE still was not enough to convict the pair because of the unavoidable fact......
..... that there was no trace of the pair in the murder room.
- Status