The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Guss]

I was actually referring to Bar Standards, not the criminal code. An attorney has certain professional standards and reporting misconduct towards a client of his or hers (by the police or court officials) is his or her duty to report in a timely and proper manner to the right person or office.

Amanda was very confident about being struck in the head, but the opposite about Lumumba's guilt, yet you worship the latter.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is true that Italy has a reputation for far right politics, for example, the Lega Nord and the current Meloni of the Italian Social Movement based on Mussolini-style fascism (= as in the true meaning of the word). Yes, it has strict anti-immigrant laws, and this is partly because of (a) the political parties in power, and (b) the fact that Italy being located where it is, is literally the first stop for many thousands of economic migrants and asylum seekers from Africa. However, it is still an EU country and has to abide by EU directives. For example, in the Equality Act.

In other words, Italy is supposed to abide by the EU directives, but in reality, racism is rampant in Italy. As in, according to Lumumba, “They (the police) hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'." (I Fired Foxy Knoxy...which he didn't)

The issue in respect of the US-based Friends of Amanda Knox and associated campaigners is what starkly highlights the attitude towards Guede and Lumumba (for example, this includes West Seattle Herald free newspaper, whose editor, Ken Robinson, who is the cousin of Knox' husband Chris (_?); the owner of a whole stable of newspaper titles was their grandfather: it regularly wrote articles smearing Mignini and the Italian police).

What exactly are the "attitudes" by "associated campaigners" toward them, Vix? What do articles allegedly "smearing Mignini and the Italian police" have to do with attitudes towards Guede and Lumumba? Do you have examples of these or are these just more accusations for which you have no evidence?

Whilst Knox herself isn't/wasn't what we'd call racist per se, there is the heavy bias of the FOAK-ers group think, even it it is 'unconscious bias'. This reveals itself in the fact Knox is an American citizen. She was the 'foreigner', as it were. Guede was the Italian (albeit having only on a resident's permit). Lumumba had arrived in Perugia in 1980 to study Italy and Political Sciences, and was also some kind of a jazz musician who played drums and bongos. Yet to the group think of the FOAK-ers, the attitude was that Knox should be treated with privilege, whilst Lumumba and Guede were entirely dispensible. Some of the rhetoric about Lumumba has been quite shocking considering he was arrested under false pretences, thanks to the subverting of justice by Knox.

Yet more unsupported accusations. How about some examples of that "shocking rhetoric"?

As an example of this type of the remnants of the feelings of entitlement based on race ('white supremacy' - horrible phrase but that is what racism is built on), there are the guys who wrote the short tract, 'The Forgotten Killer', putting forward a theory that Guede was the sole killer. As I recall, an independent witness said some Arabic-looking guy had run past her on the steps, possibly a suspect running away after the crime. In the aforesaid book, this description changes to, 'The police should look for a Sub-Saharan African'. Completely ignoring any evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

So now the seven co-authors of The Forgotten Killer are racists, too, because they believe that Guede was the sole killer?
Your 'very good memory' again fails your the "Arabic looking guy": Alessandra Formica said a "man of color" ran past her, not an "Arabic looking guy".

Mentre scendevo quelle scalette il mio ragazzo è stato urtato violentemente da un uomo di colore che correva in maniera velocissima verso via Pinturicchi0.

(Formica Deposition)

Likewise, Nina Burleigh, revels in describing the poverty of life in the Ivory Coast and the fact many of the children there are born out of wedlock and the Muslim-practising men have more than one wife. Completely ignoring the history of French colonisation that helped create those conditions in the first place. So the FOAK brigade demanded that Knox be freed because it was obvious that it was Guede who did it alone. Unfortunately, the Italian detectives - the wretched racists Numbers tries to paint them as - really didn't see that Knox and Sollecito were innocent at all.

I'm really trying to follow your logic here, but WTF?

So on the one hand we have this vociferous clamour that Knox is innocent form the FOAK-ers and all the objective scientific evidence is all fixed in some way or contaminated, whilst none of them could care less that Lumumba still has not received the €42,000 damages Knox was ordered to pay him.

Um.....it's you who keeps claiming that all the acquitting judges and experts are 'bent'.

Note how Lumumba had a whole group of Congolese supporters who demonstrated in protest against his arrest. Nobody came out and demonstrated when Knox and Sollecito were arrested.

So? Are you suggesting that protesters are evidence of someone's innocence? If so, then the Jan. 6 protesters must be evidence that Trump really won the election.

 

[Numbers]

...
Since the lawyers reporting the official mistreatment prior to the beginning of the trial could have resulted in retaliation against Knox by the authorities, the lawyers and Knox were absolutely justified in waiting to make a full disclosure of the mistreatment in open court. This is a standard practice, allowed under ECHR case law, in cases where there is any potential for retaliation by the authorities.

Indeed, the Italian government objected to the ECHR admitting Knox's claim of a violation of Convention Article 3 based on their claim that Knox had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because she had not lodged any complaint with a public prosecutor or other authorities. Here's Italy's objection and the initial ECHR response:



Contradicting the basis of Italy's objection, the ECHR pointed out the following:



....
Source:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422

Those who are not fluent in French, including all of us who didn't do all that well in high school French (like me) may wonder what the ECHR was saying in the quoted text.

Here's a very free summary (editorialized) translation based on a Google translation.

The ECHR said:

The response to address your preliminary objection, Italian government, requires a review of much of the case, so we, the ECHR, are going to discuss a significant portion of the merits to present a response based on a logical analysis of the facts of the proceedings.

124. Knox reported in a text she gave to the police about 1 pm on 6 November 2007, only a few hours after she had made the incriminating statements against Lumumba, that she had been in a state of shock and extreme confusion.

125. She reported in that document that she had been unable to distinguish the real facts, that she had been with Sollecito in his apartment at the relevant time, with an alternative representation, which had her observing Lumumba apparently committing the offense against Kercher. She stated that she had arrived at the alternative representation as a result of the police pressuring her, including through police threats of imprisonment, hitting her on her head, and yelling at her. {The ECHR may count this as at least one (1) report by Knox to the authorities.)

Edited by jimbob: 

snipped for rule 4

138. The ECHR therefore concludes that Knox did not benefit from an investigation capable of clarifying the facts and possible responsibilities in her case. Article 3 of the Convention, in its procedural aspect, has therefore been breached in the present case.
139. Accordingly, the ECHR dismisses the Italian Government's preliminary objection alleging failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

 

[Stacyhs]

Numbers, your post above clearly lays out in detail that Knox did report her mistreatment during the interrogation...you know...the one where she was only a 'witness' and not a 'suspect' as the police and PGP pretend.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, your post above clearly lays out in detail that Knox did report her mistreatment during the interrogation...you know...the one where she was only a 'witness' and not a 'suspect' as the police and PGP pretend.

Perhaps one sentence I should have emphasized more was that the Italian authorities were totally committed to NOT responding to Knox's reports of mistreatment, even when her lawyer asked for a response in the Massei court trial.

136. The ECHR case law cited requires that an effective official investigation should have been carried out in the present case, in order to lead to the identification and punishment of the persons possibly responsible. In this regard, the ECHR can only note that, despite Knox's repeated complaints, the treatment that she complained of was not the subject of any investigation. (Also, the Court of Perugia that transferred the trial of Knox for charges of calunnia against the police from Perugia to Florence on March 22, 2013, noted that the failure of Knox's reports - complaints of mistreatment by the authorities - to result in an official investigation was unlawful under Italian law; paragraph 101 of Knox v. Italy). The ECHR notes in particular that Knox's defense request on 13 March 2009 for transmission of the documents of her testimony to the public prosecutor's office has remained unanswered.

And to this day, Italy has not responded to the EHCR judgment Knox v. Italy with an Action Plan telling the Committee of Ministers how it intends to resolve the violations of Knox's Convention rights, although the "guidance" deadline for the plan is long past. This tardiness is not untypical of Italy when confronted with its violations by the ECHR.

 

[Stacyhs]

Perhaps one sentence I should have emphasized more was that the Italian authorities were totally committed to NOT responding to Knox's reports of mistreatment, even when her lawyer asked for a response in the Massei court trial.

136. The ECHR case law cited requires that an effective official investigation should have been carried out in the present case, in order to lead to the identification and punishment of the persons possibly responsible. In this regard, the ECHR can only note that, despite Knox's repeated complaints, the treatment that she complained of was not the subject of any investigation. (Also, the Court of Perugia that transferred the trial of Knox for charges of calunnia against the police from Perugia to Florence on March 22, 2013, noted that the failure of Knox's reports - complaints of mistreatment by the authorities - to result in an official investigation was unlawful under Italian law; paragraph 101 of Knox v. Italy). The ECHR notes in particular that Knox's defense request on 13 March 2009 for transmission of the documents of her testimony to the public prosecutor's office has remained unanswered.

And to this day, Italy has not responded to the EHCR judgment Knox v. Italy with an Action Plan telling the Committee of Ministers how it intends to resolve the violations of Knox's Convention rights, although the "guidance" deadline for the plan is long past. This tardiness is not untypical of Italy when confronted with its violations by the ECHR.

That's because the ECHR is 'bent'.

 

[Numbers]

That's because the ECHR is 'bent'.

Yes, there is a long history of the ECHR being "bent", if "bent" means doing its assigned task of fairly judging cases alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights that come before it.

The guilters apparently haven't done their homework about the ECHR.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, there is a long history of the ECHR being "bent", if "bent" means doing its assigned task of fairly judging cases alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights that come before it.

The ECHR is bent!

There's no teeth to it. No consequence to member States, which simply ignore the responsibility to comply.

 

[Stacyhs]

The ECHR is bent!

There's no teeth to it. No consequence to member States, which simply ignore the responsibility to comply.

"Bent" means crooked, dishonest not ineffective. Unfortunately, it's given virtually no power to enforce non-compliant member states to comply. That's a flaw.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Bent" means crooked, dishonest not ineffective. Unfortunately, it's given virtually no power to enforce non-compliant member states to comply. That's a flaw.

They're bent-ish.

 

[Numbers]

The ECHR is bent!

There's no teeth to it. No consequence to member States, which simply ignore the responsibility to comply.

"Bent" means crooked, dishonest not ineffective. Unfortunately, it's given virtually no power to enforce non-compliant member states to comply. That's a flaw.

The history of this feature of the ECHR/CoE treaty that a member state must take responsibility to execute the final judgment of the ECHR, rather than be compelled to follow an ECHR ruling as though it came from the highest domestic court may be of interest.

The original proposal for the treaty was for an ECHR ruling to be directive as though the ECHR were the highest domestic court. However, Italy objected to this measure as contrary to the sovereignty of the member states. The other states agreed, so the treaty language was changed to allow each state to implement an ECHR ruling according to its own measures and with its own timing, but subject to the supervision of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.

ETA: I've been looking for a source for the above statement - I remember reading it a few years ago, but haven't located a source so far.

 

[Numbers]

....

The guilters apparently haven't done their homework about the ECHR.

Further comment on the above:

Some guilters have stated online that the ECHR finding no violation of Convention Article 3 in the substantive limb even with the ECHR finding a violation of Article 3 in the procedural (investigative) limb means that the ECHR concluded that Knox had not been subject to any mistreatment.

That logic is false.

Here's an explanation of the ECHR's methods in examining alleged violations of Article 3.

First, the ECHR generally uses a standard of proof equivalent to that in a US civil trial - that is, it judges based on the preponderance of the evidence.

However, for allegations of violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) the ECHR uses a higher standard of proof, finding an allegation of a violation proven only if the evidence convinces it beyond a reasonable doubt. As I understand the ECHR position, it considers finding a violation of Article 2 or 3 so damaging to the reputation of a state that the ECHR desires that there be no reasonable doubt of its finding of such a violation.

On the other hand, alleged violations of Article 2 or 3 may take place in situations essentially totally under the control of state authorities, and the state may act to suppress information for a judgment based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The suppression may take the form of a failure by the state to independently and effectively investigate a credible allegation of a violation of Article 2 or 3. The ECHR considers such independent and effective investigation an obligation of the state under Convention Articles 2 and 3.

Therefore, when the ECHR finds proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a state has failed to conduct an independent and effective investigation of a credible allegation of a violation of Article 2 or 3, it declares the state in violation of that Article and specifies that the violation is on the procedural limb. A finding of a violation on the procedural limb without one on the substantive limb is not to be taken as clearing the state authorities of having been responsible for the alleged acts. It may indicate that the state has been clever enough to suppress enough of the evidence to prevent ECHR proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged acts occurred.

Relevant ECHR case law on this exists in Labita v. Italy 26772/95, a case cited in Knox v. Italy.

121. Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30). To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine).

Edited by Agatha: 

Trimmed for rule 4

Source:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58559

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps one sentence I should have emphasized more was that the Italian authorities were totally committed to NOT responding to Knox's reports of mistreatment, even when her lawyer asked for a response in the Massei court trial.

136. The ECHR case law cited requires that an effective official investigation should have been carried out in the present case, in order to lead to the identification and punishment of the persons possibly responsible. In this regard, the ECHR can only note that, despite Knox's repeated complaints, the treatment that she complained of was not the subject of any investigation. (Also, the Court of Perugia that transferred the trial of Knox for charges of calunnia against the police from Perugia to Florence on March 22, 2013, noted that the failure of Knox's reports - complaints of mistreatment by the authorities - to result in an official investigation was unlawful under Italian law; paragraph 101 of Knox v. Italy). The ECHR notes in particular that Knox's defense request on 13 March 2009 for transmission of the documents of her testimony to the public prosecutor's office has remained unanswered.

And to this day, Italy has not responded to the EHCR judgment Knox v. Italy with an Action Plan telling the Committee of Ministers how it intends to resolve the violations of Knox's Convention rights, although the "guidance" deadline for the plan is long past. This tardiness is not untypical of Italy when confronted with its violations by the ECHR.

Be that as it may, the fact remains Dalla Vedova, Knox' attorney, at no time (a) issued a formal complaint properly worded for his client and to the right person citing the correct sections and paragraphs to which it pertained, and (b) at no point even followed it up, to see how the complaint against the police was coming along and at what stage. It is no good only thinking about it in retrospect, some years after the court hearings have been and gone, and Dalla Vedova was wracking his brains to think of what else to add to the ECHR application, barring the kitchen sink.

Unfortunately, if you have bad service, and instead of complaining to the provider of that bad service, instead you go to your PR agency and the newspapers, that smacks of a publicity stunt and a lack of confidence that your 'complaint' has any merit, that you couldn't bring it up properly with the right people.

As for the claim that if you bring a complaint against the police in Italy, they will do you for criminal calumny, how likely is it that the police could bring a charge against an attorney representing a client? Name me one attorney who has had a Calunnia charged slapped on him or her for issuing a formal complaint about police misconduct?

 

[Numbers]

Perhaps one sentence I should have emphasized more was that the Italian authorities were totally committed to NOT responding to Knox's reports of mistreatment, even when her lawyer asked for a response in the Massei court trial.

136. The ECHR case law cited requires that an effective official investigation should have been carried out in the present case, in order to lead to the identification and punishment of the persons possibly responsible. In this regard, the ECHR can only note that, despite Knox's repeated complaints, the treatment that she complained of was not the subject of any investigation. (Also, the Court of Perugia that transferred the trial of Knox for charges of calunnia against the police from Perugia to Florence on March 22, 2013, noted that the failure of Knox's reports - complaints of mistreatment by the authorities - to result in an official investigation was unlawful under Italian law; paragraph 101 of Knox v. Italy). The ECHR notes in particular that Knox's defense request on 13 March 2009 for transmission of the documents of her testimony to the public prosecutor's office has remained unanswered.

And to this day, Italy has not responded to the EHCR judgment Knox v. Italy with an Action Plan telling the Committee of Ministers how it intends to resolve the violations of Knox's Convention rights, although the "guidance" deadline for the plan is long past. This tardiness is not untypical of Italy when confronted with its violations by the ECHR.

Be that as it may, the fact remains Dalla Vedova, Knox' attorney, at no time (a) issued a formal complaint properly worded for his client and to the right person citing the correct sections and paragraphs to which it pertained, and (b) at no point even followed it up, to see how the complaint against the police was coming along and at what stage. It is no good only thinking about it in retrospect, some years after the court hearings have been and gone, and Dalla Vedova was wracking his brains to think of what else to add to the ECHR application, barring the kitchen sink.

Unfortunately, if you have bad service, and instead of complaining to the provider of that bad service, instead you go to your PR agency and the newspapers, that smacks of a publicity stunt and a lack of confidence that your 'complaint' has any merit, that you couldn't bring it up properly with the right people.

As for the claim that if you bring a complaint against the police in Italy, they will do you for criminal calumny, how likely is it that the police could bring a charge against an attorney representing a client? Name me one attorney who has had a Calunnia charged slapped on him or her for issuing a formal complaint about police misconduct?

Under international law, a treaty signed by Italy that Italy is obliged to follow, the ECHR judgment is the final word on the legitimacy of Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. It is up to Italy to find a way to make the status of that conviction conform to the judgment of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

Reading the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, paragraphs 124 - 139, one will see that the ECHR considers that Knox made officially (ECHR recognized and compliant with Italian law CPP Article 333) complaints at least seven (7) times. Many of these complaints were delivered through her lawyers in official court documents - including appeals and a request for her complaint in court to be transferred for investigation to a prosecutor.

Italy, in its 10 January 2020 communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe accepted the ECHR judgment, stated it had paid the Just Satisfaction to Knox, and indicated some very preliminary measures had been taken, primarily the translation of the ECHR judgment into Italian and posting that translation on relevant government and judicial websites for ECHR judgments concerning Italy.

The ECHR judgment includes the facts that Italy did not follow its legal obligations, including under Italian law and ECHR case law, to independently and effectively investigate Knox's complaints of police mistreatment. By accepting the ECHR judgment in its 10 January 2020 communication, Italy acknowledged this by accepting that it had violated Convention Article 3 under its procedural limb.

Italian law enforcement (police and prosecutors) were obliged under Italian law to investigate the complaints (denuncia or otherwise) they received or became aware of from Knox and/or her lawyers.

Contrary to Italian law CPP Articles 330, 331, 347, and 358, and to the Italian Constitution, Article 112*, the police and prosecutor did not conduct an effective investigation of Knox's complaints of police mistreatment and did not prosecute any individuals who allegedly committed the mistreatment.

* Article 112 states:

The public prosecutor shall have the obligation to initiate criminal proceedings.

Sources:

https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_statici/costituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/
CPP with explanations (in Italian)

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2020)27F
Italy's Communication to the CoM 10 Jan 2020 (in French)

 

[Numbers]

Deleted - duplicate

 

[Vixen]

Under international law, a treaty signed by Italy that Italy is obliged to follow, the ECHR judgment is the final word on the legitimacy of Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. It is up to Italy to find a way to make the status of that conviction conform to the judgment of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

Reading the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, paragraphs 124 - 139, one will see that the ECHR considers that Knox made officially (ECHR recognized and compliant with Italian law CPP Article 333) complaints at least seven (7) times. Many of these complaints were delivered through her lawyers in official court documents - including appeals and a request for her complaint in court to be transferred for investigation to a prosecutor.

Italy, in its 10 January 2020 communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe accepted the ECHR judgment, stated it had paid the Just Satisfaction to Knox, and indicated some very preliminary measures had been taken, primarily the translation of the ECHR judgment into Italian and posting that translation on relevant government and judicial websites for ECHR judgments concerning Italy.

The ECHR judgment includes the facts that Italy did not follow its legal obligations, including under Italian law and ECHR case law, to independently and effectively investigate Knox's complaints of police mistreatment. By accepting the ECHR judgment in its 10 January 2020 communication, Italy acknowledged this by accepting that it had violated Convention Article 3 under its procedural limb.

Italian law enforcement (police and prosecutors) were obliged under Italian law to investigate the complaints (denuncia or otherwise) they received or became aware of from Knox and/or her lawyers.

Contrary to Italian law CPP Articles 330, 331, 347, and 358, and to the Italian Constitution, Article 112*, the police and prosecutor did not conduct an effective investigation of Knox's complaints of police mistreatment and did not prosecute any individuals who allegedly committed the mistreatment.

* Article 112 states:

The public prosecutor shall have the obligation to initiate criminal proceedings.

Sources:

https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_statici/costituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/
CPP with explanations (in Italian)

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2020)27F
Italy's Communication to the CoM 10 Jan 2020

The sting in the tale is that in the Boninsegna case, which Knox and Dalla Vedova relied heavily on, Knox was acquitted on the grounds not that the police had slapped her head (as claimed by Knox) but because they had been too nice to her. Comforting her and squeezing her hand in sympathy.

That is a unique form of torture, I have to say.

 

[TomG]

Amanda was very confident about being struck in the head, but the opposite about Lumumba's guilt, yet you worship the latter.

The alleged slaps that Amanda received from Ficarra are more likely to be true than false. Amanda reported the slaps in writing very early in the proceedings in her November 6th memoriale. She would have had no inkling that audio-visual recordings that could have easily proved her wrong, were not being complied with at that time; however, she would have known that to falsely implicate the police in such an action would have serious consequences for her. Amanda would have had time for reflecting on that before putting pen to paper. The resulting charge brought against Amanda by the allegedly slandered cops was thrown out by the Boninsegna court:

"It [the investigation] was characterized by rushed, as well as inefficient, investigative strategies, which, clearly, generated more mistakes than reliable and technically usable results. There is not, hence, sufficient evidence that the events did not occur as Knox reported, as regards the police."

So, they don't confirm the slaps but they don't rule them out either.

Hoots

 

[Bill Williams]

The sting in the tale is that in the Boninsegna case, which Knox and Dalla Vedova relied heavily on, Knox was acquitted on the grounds not that the police had slapped her head (as claimed by Knox) but because they had been too nice to her. Comforting her and squeezing her hand in sympathy.

That is a unique form of torture, I have to say.

This post is in line with what John Follain wrote in 'A Death in Italy'. He claimed Knox 'broke' because she'd had too many biscuits and chamomile tea.

He doesn't even mention Anna Doninno's, the translator's, intervention - the one where she encouraged Knox to speculate what may have happened. Because, as Donino testified, she thought Knox had traumatic amnesia.

So, it's clear you believe it's up to an accused to prove their innocence. I get that.

 

[Numbers]

The sting in the tale is that in the Boninsegna case, which Knox and Dalla Vedova relied heavily on, Knox was acquitted on the grounds not that the police had slapped her head (as claimed by Knox) but because they had been too nice to her. Comforting her and squeezing her hand in sympathy.
That is a unique form of torture, I have to say.

Please provide direct quotes from the Boninsegna motivation report that support your statement.

A quote from that MR that better summarizes the Boninsegna court judgment is the following:

It can be, therefore, concluded that the chosen investigative practices induced in the defendant the conviction, or the reasonable doubt, that she was being subjected to a planned, oppressive and unfair investigative action - this also takes into account Knox’s definitive acquittal in the main criminal trial because she did not commit the crime of murder - in light of the overall way in which her interrogation was performed.

There is, therefore, an absence of the evidence to place beyond a reasonable
doubt that the events did not indeed occur as the girl related and that she was fully aware of the non-involvement of the Prosecutor in the way the investigations concerning her were performed

Source:

http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/boninsegna-motivations.pdf

p. 28

 

[NewtonTrino]

I gotta admit I'm gobsmacked ya'll are still talking about this. The rest of the world has moved on...