whoanellie
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,471
Thanks for posting that. I've been wondering what you were banging on about. It's a big nothing burger.
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 30
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for posting that. I've been wondering what you were banging on about. It's a big nothing burger.
1. The quote from the Boninsegna court motivation report may be found on page 26, near the end of the page, of the translation*. It is a part of a long quotation from the Hellmann court motivation report presente by the Boninsegna court. Recall that it was the Hellmann court that provisionally convicted Knox of "simple" calunnia against Lumumba; this conviction was affirmed (made "final" except for a possible revision trial) by the Chieffi CSC panel.
2. The Boninsegna court was hearing a separate case, the allegation that Knox had committed aggravated continuing calunnia against the police and Mignini by her testimony during the Massei court trial and in subsequent appeals. It was not a revision trial and had no authority under Italian law to reverse the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba. It did, however, indicate that there was no proof that Knox had committed calunnia against the police and Mignini, because there was no proof that the known circumstances of the interrogation were different than her allegations about them, and because the known circumstances of the interrogation had violated her defense rights under Italian law and Constitution**. It was, of course, also known that Knox had no defense lawyer during the interrogation (see the 2008 Gemelli CSC panel decision) and CPP Articles 63 and 64 had thus been violated. Thus, the Boninsegna court MR provides indications that the calunnia against Lumumba conviction was obtained "unfairly" in violation of Italian law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
* http://www.amandaknoxcase.net/
** These Boninsegna court statements on the violations appear in a somewhat cautious style.
Last edited:
TomG
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 693
It is interesting that Boninsegna is prepared to highlight the gross misconduct of Donnino that (correct me if I'm wrong) the other courts didn't consider regarding the calunnia conviction.
"...and was moreover being assisted by an interpreter who — as shown by Ms. Bongiorno — did not limit herself to translating, but induced her to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements;..."
As I see it there is a violation of article 188 that states:
"1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned."
So it seems to me that while Boninsegna does not and cannot re-evaluate the existing calunnia, it addresses the same issues and comes up with a completely different perspective and undermines the integrity of the calunnia conviction, even though it can't legally affect it.
Hoots
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Luca Cheli put it this way in his Sept 22, 2015, analysis of the Marasca-Bruno Report. Whereas Cheli found much in the M/B report which would send shockwaves through the legal system, he also said that even the M/B report hid some of the other stuff "in the shadows". There are, apparently, still some sacred cows that even the most progressive judge-panel has to bow to.
Full transparency, Cheli has no particular legal expertise, but is a native Italian also fluent in English. He had commented at length on the Kercher murder case over the years, and wrote the following before moving on to other things.....
https://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/
People who have followed this case, as well as extending back into Mignini's persecution of Narducci et al., are familiar with Italian "dietrology". It's somewhat troubling that the Italian legal system permits "dietrology" at a limited level, distinguishing between things to be believed, from things which are REALLY to be believed.
AK and RS are going about their lives these days in a modified normal fashion. How many others are in Italian prisons because judges only wrote what they believed, rather than what they REALLY believed?
Last edited:
In fact, the excerpt quoted in your post originates with the Hellmann court motivation report, the relevant parts of which are quoted in the Boninsegna court motivation report.
The Hellmann court did not appear to use specifically the many abuses or errors committed by the authorities during the interrogation in reaching its judgment of provisional conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba.
The Hellmann court may have felt compelled by Italian jurisprudence (mentioned in the Italian government response in the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy) to convict on calunnia, or perhaps it was attempting to give the prosecution a partial victory in hopes of gaining CSC approval of the provisional acquittal on the murder/rape charges, or perhaps it was protecting the police and Mignini from possible prosecution for the crimes implied in their behavior during the interrogation (assuming Knox's allegations were true), or perhaps it was setting up a case for the ECHR on the basis that the Italian judiciary were unable to fairly deal with Knox's complaints of police mistreatment during the interrogation.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
The thing is, the Marasca SC panel would have opened a problematic can of worms if anything in its reasoning had contradicted the "settled" verdict (and supporting reasoning). After all, had it done so, it would have created a legal dissonance which could only then be resolved by virtue of a revision of one or both of the reasonings.
Also (IIRC) the convention in Italian justice, when such a contradiction occurs, is for the most recent judgement/reasoning to take precedence over the prior judgement reasoning. So in this case, had the Marasca reasoning pointed to Knox's non-guilt wrt the criminal slander, then the original criminal slander conviction/reasoning would require revision to bring it into harmony with the Marasca reasoning.
All in all, it was clearly far less problematic - in many different respects - for the Marasca SC to steer well clear of the Knox criminal slander issue as much as it could, and to mirror the extant conviction where it had to make a referance. As numbers has pointed out though, the acquittals/annulments could safely (and logically) be done without ever needing to consider the central question of Knox's guilt wrt the criminal slander.
Incidentally, this very factor is a major reason why the criminal slander charge should never have been tried in conjunction with the murder-related charges: it should never have been viewed as being "in continuance with" (linked to) the actions around the murder itself. And that was Massei's first mistake - no doubt, under *guidance* from Mignini........
TomG
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 693
Cheers! I just think that it's ironic that the two courts could come to such differing conclusions that are now set in stone Each referring to the same events. It seems to me that there is a sort of conflict in judgement in that respect. I don't see how Boninsegna's considerations would have resulted in a slander conviction.
Can anyone tell me the relevant CPP article that deals with the calunnia. I can't find anything so far?
Hoots
The Italian laws are codified into several different "codes" based on their topic, including those relevant here: criminal procedural law (Codice di procedura penale, CPP) and criminal law - that is, a list of crimes and their penalties (Codice penale, CP).
Calunnia is defined as a crime, so it is included, along with other crimes, for example, murder and fraud by the authorities in an investigation or trial, in the CP. It does not belong in the CPP, which has laws specifying procedures, for example, the warnings by the police or prosecutor that must be given to a suspect under interrogation and the procedures to be followed in a first-instance trial, in an appeal trial, and in an appeal to the CSC.
I have previously posted the text of the crime of calunnia in Italian and in English translation. There are several online sources that have the CP and the CPP (as well as the other codes) in Italian. Here's a list of a few of those sources, listing the CP page (in most cases there's a link to the CPP from that page); the last source is from the "Normattiva" ("Standards of Law") of the CSC:
https://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/10/30/codice-penale
https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/
https://www.studiocataldi.it/codicepenale/codicepenale.pdf
https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1930-10-19;1398
Here's the Italian text of the law against calunnia, from the 1st source; the footnotes are explanations of changes to the law:
Here's a translation (Google with my help using Collins Reverso & Gialuz et al.):
Art. 368.
False Accusation.
Anyone who, with a report, complaint, request or application, even if anonymous or under a false name, directs to the judicial authority {police, prosecutor, or judge} or to another authority that is obliged to report to it or to the International Criminal Court, accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against a person he knows to be innocent, is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years (1).
The penalty is increased if someone is accused of an offense for which the law establishes the penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty.
The imprisonment is from four to twelve years, if the act of the alleged crime results in a prison sentence of more than five years; is from six to twenty years, if the act results in a life sentence; and the penalty of life imprisonment is applied, if the act results in a death penalty (2).
(1) Paragraph thus amended by art. 10, paragraph 3, Law 20 December 2012, n. 237. The text previously in force was the following: "Anyone who, with a report, complaint, request or application, even if anonymous or under a false name, addressed to the judicial authority or to another authority which is obliged to report to it, accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against the person he knows to be innocent, is punished with imprisonment of from two to six years. ".
(2) The death penalty for crimes provided for by the penal code has been abolished by art. 1 of the Legislative Decree 10 August 1944, n. 224.
________
ETA: One of the crimes the Italian prosecutors agreed was implied as having been committed by the police and Mignini by Amanda Knox in her testimony before the Massei court, and in her appeals, was calunnia. In other words, if Amanda Knox's testimony about the interrogation is true, the Italian authorities believe that the case can be made that the police and Mignini framed her by means of an intentional (malicious) false accusation. Similarly, the police and Mignini would have committed the crimes of falsification of official documents and (IIRC) the use of threats and violence to obtain false testimony. This information may be found in the introductory part of the Boninsegna court motivation report.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
What exactly makes this guy an 'expert' in body language? What specific training did he receive? I can find lots of great sounding claims that he's an expert but absolutely nothing about his background or education other than what LJ provided. For example, this claim:
Global Gurus manages speakers. Basically, they find speaking engagements for Bowden. If you look at his Bio, there is zero information on his professional training in body language, psychology, etc.
I guess this is what you present as some kind of evidence when you have nothing else but it is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
TomG
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2014
- Messages
- 693
Brilliant! Thanks for the links and the interpretation. I've saved it in document format so I'll explore it further tomorrow. One thing that does stick out is the criteria:
"accuses anyone he knows to be innocent of a crime, or simulates evidence of a crime against the person he knows to be innocent,"
Even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, how would they necessarily know who was in Meredith's bedroom with her? A narrative to accommodate the theory that Amanda was at VDP AND knew full well who was in Meredith's bedroom doesn't exist.
Hoots
Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article on Mark Bowden, English author.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Bowden_(English_author)
The UK GCHQ does signals intelligence - I haven't seen any public information that they do body language analysis.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ
https://www.gchq.gov.uk/
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Well, it's hard to deny that this is an outstanding set of qualifications and experience for the job in which he claims expertise:
"Bowden concurrently studied between 1989 and 1995 in London with French masters of physical theatre and the psychology of movement, Philippe Gaulier and Jacques Lecoq; Italian Nobel Prize winner and satirical comedian, Dario Fo; Canadian improvisational theatre master, Keith Johnstone; the British acrobat Johnny Hutch MBE.[21] and with the internationally acclaimed Theatre de Complicite."
But wait, there's more. Now I'm really convinced that he is a towering intellect and an outstanding expert in a notoriously-difficult (and
"Mark Bowden notoriously starred in the 2003 Nike Streaker Super Bowl ad, lauded by AdWeek as one of the top ten soccer commercials ever made.[23] Shot by British director, Frank Budgen[24] at Millwall Football Club, the ad—in which a streaker (Bowden) clad only in a long scarf and a pair of Nike Shox NZ running shoes darts across the field during an English soccer game, dodging police—prompted calls and emails to Nike asking whether the incident was real.[25] This led to Bowden being awarded a Nude of The Week in Sports Illustrated,[26] and earned him heavy criticism from the US Christian Evangelist activist group, Concerned Women For America who lobbied for Bowden to be banned from US national TV."
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
And, by the way, I can instantly tell that this charlatan is engaging in CV inflation from this information (gleaned, no doubt, from Bowden himself ultimately):
"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"
Let's unpack this properly.
1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);
2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;
3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII
4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;
5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)
6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.
So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.
And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"
Let's unpack this properly.
1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);
2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;
3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII
4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;
5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)
6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.
So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.
And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
By the way, and in another one of those absolutely spooky coincidences which happens once in a while:
I was just flicking through the pay-TV schedules here in London, at 9.20pm our time. I went first to the group of documentary channels, to see if there was anything interesting to watch as I got myself set up for the coming week.
And what should I see on PBS's UK channel, starting in just over 90 minutes?
Why, only a documentary about how British intelligence used secret microphones to eavesdrop on, and record, captured German POWs in WWII, at Trent Park!!
Absolute total, genuine, gold-plated coincidence!
I was just flicking through the pay-TV schedules here in London, at 9.20pm our time. I went first to the group of documentary channels, to see if there was anything interesting to watch as I got myself set up for the coming week.
And what should I see on PBS's UK channel, starting in just over 90 minutes?
Why, only a documentary about how British intelligence used secret microphones to eavesdrop on, and record, captured German POWs in WWII, at Trent Park!!
Absolute total, genuine, gold-plated coincidence!
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
By the way, and in another one of those absolutely spooky coincidences which happens once in a while:
I was just flicking through the pay-TV schedules here in London, at 9.20pm our time. I went first to the group of documentary channels, to see if there was anything interesting to watch as I got myself set up for the coming week.
And what should I see on PBS's UK channel, starting in just over 90 minutes?
Why, only a documentary about how British intelligence used secret microphones to eavesdrop on, and record, captured German POWs in WWII, at Trent Park!!
Absolute total, genuine, gold-plated coincidence!
I was just flicking through the pay-TV schedules here in London, at 9.20pm our time. I went first to the group of documentary channels, to see if there was anything interesting to watch as I got myself set up for the coming week.
And what should I see on PBS's UK channel, starting in just over 90 minutes?
Why, only a documentary about how British intelligence used secret microphones to eavesdrop on, and record, captured German POWs in WWII, at Trent Park!!
Absolute total, genuine, gold-plated coincidence!
And, by the way, I can instantly tell that this charlatan is engaging in CV inflation from this information (gleaned, no doubt, from Bowden himself ultimately):
"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"
Let's unpack this properly.
1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);
2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;
3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII
4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;
5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)
6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.
So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.
And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
LJ, thanks for this!
I actually thought Bowden was claiming some kind of intelligence service training.
I see now that: "trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park,[19] at Middlesex University, London, graduating 1991, (BA Hons, Performing Arts)"
is, as you point out, merely stating what campus of Middlesex U. (or Polytech) he attended, at least at some point. No relationship to GCHQ, or MI19 (whose history I did not know).
So it's hilarious, like streaking in a TV ad to promote a brand of running shoe.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I just read that during WWII, MI19 operated an interrogation centre in Kensington Palace Gardens, London, commanded by Lt. Col. Alexander Scotland, where very questionable interrogation tactics were used.
One might want to avoid MI19 when bragging about credentials.
And, by the way, I can instantly tell that this charlatan is engaging in CV inflation from this information (gleaned, no doubt, from Bowden himself ultimately):
"...and trained on the site of the former secret intelligence service, GCHQ base of MI19, Trent Park"
Let's unpack this properly.
1) Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) is the official name of MI6, and it's the overseas intelligence arm of UK intelligence (the UK's CIA, effectively);
2) But GCHQ is an entirely different arm of the British intelligence community; it's based in Cheltenham (about 100 miles from London) and is responsible for communications surveillance;
3) And MI19 is (well, was) a different organisation from both SIS and GCHQ: MI19 was the branch of British military intelligence which was responsible in WWII for the interrogations (and other surveillance) of captured enemy prisoners of war. MI19 was disbanded at the end of WWII
4) Trent Park is a large country house in north London (I know it well, as I used to live not far away, and I've played golf on a course in its grounds....); it was requisitioned by the Government at the start of WWII and was then used by MI19 for the housing and interrogation of captured German officers, nearly all of whom were pilots/airmen;
5) Since the end of WWII, Trent Park has not been used by any arm of the British intelligence services (not MI19, which has long since been disbanded; not GCHQ; and assuredly not SIS, which only operates outside the UK)
6) In fact, at some point in (I think) the 1970s, Trent Park was bought by Enfield council, and it was then leased to Middlesex Polytechnic (sounding familiar....?) as part of its campus stock.
So in fact, Bowden attended Trent Park purely in its capacity as a place of teaching during his attendance at Middlesex Polytechnic (and I'm very confident indeed that his attendance predated the polytechnic's morphing into a (low-grade) university). His attendance there had literally nothing whatsoever to do with MI19, SIS or GCHQ.
And thus we see another (probable) intriguing example of CV inflation. I wonder if any posters in this thread have ever shamelessly inflated their CVs....?
LJ, you are also spot on about Bowden having necessarily attended Middlesex Polytechnic, a precursor of Middlesex University. Middlesex University only came into existence in 1992, and Bowden got his degree in Performing Arts in 1991, according to the Wikipedia article.
Of some interest, there was a Trent Park College of Education and New College of Speech and Drama which joined into Middlesex Polytechnic in 1974. However, the Trent Park campus was closed in 2012, as part of an effort to bolster the financial condition of Middlesex U. which to date has resulted in the closure of all its satellite campuses in the UK. The Trent Park site was converted to new residential housing by a developer.
The areas of study at the Trent Park campus were: Dance, drama and performing arts, English language and literature, media, culture and communication, music, theatre arts, languages and translation studies, product design, Teaching and education.
It's fascinating that Mr. Bowden has migrated from his acting career to claiming expertise in analyzing, apparently based on his own notions, the psychological meaning of the body motions of politicians and celebrities. To my knowledge, there is no published scientifically verified basis for the application of Bowden's notions. Bowden has, however, apparently self-published his ideas in five books, available from Amazon.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesex_University
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
This is what another military interrogator, Jason Waller, had to say about body language:
Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer known the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.
Body language can tell us a lot....but so much of it is subjective. Does the viewer known the person well enough to interpret them correctly? For example, my sister has what's know as a 'resting bitch face'. She was always being asked if she was OK at work when she was just fine because her 'resting face' was misinterpreted by new people as her being upset. Did the viewer have enough time to get a baseline to compare the normal facial expressions and other gestures the subject makes so they don't mistake those with signs of lying or discomfort? For these four men to take this one video and think they can sit there in an echo chamber and do a cold analysis of Knox's behavior is such arrogance.
Last edited:
- Status