Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

That was my link. And as you may recall, the CPJ as taking the lead by Doug Preston issued a complaint about Mignini issuing a warning about Seattle Free Herald trying to subvert justice.



.

1. Vixen, you cited no link in your earlier post. The information in your post was false.

2. Your post above is also false.

Mignini, according to news reports, filed a defamation complaint against the West Seattle Herald in an Italian court. He claimed that the paper reported that supporters of Knox stated he was considered mentally unbalanced (unstable) by some Italians. It's not clear to me that he ever filed a lawsuit in the US.

Here's part of Andrea Vogt's report:

PERUGIA, Italy -- Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini said Friday that he has filed defamation charges against the West Seattle Herald to protect his own reputation in Italy, not to influence media coverage in the U.S.

The controversial prosecutor is pressing murder charges against American Amanda Knox for the November 2007 slaying of Briton Meredith Kercher. Knox's support group in Seattle, the Friends of Amanda, have charged that the prosecutor is not only mistaken and prosecuting a flawed case, but also "mentally unstable" as reported in the West Seattle Herald on Jan. 30.

Mignini said Friday that he filed the charges in the Florence jurisdiction as a matter of principle, to protect his own reputation as a magistrate, because the allegations had been translated and repeated throughout the Italian media.

See:

Italian prosecutor filed lawsuit to defend reputation, he says

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini said Friday that he has filed defamation charges against the...

www.seattlepi.com

Knox prosecutor sues area paper

According to a BBC report filed Thursday, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini told reporters that...

www.seattlepi.com

noxarchives.blogspot.com/2009/09/giuliano-mignini-sues-again.html

 

[Numbers]

Status of Execution:

Bilateral contacts are ongoing to obtain the submission of an action plan or report.

The authorities submitted a preliminary communication on 10 January 2020, informing on the payment of just satisfaction and of the dissemination of the judgment.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

No one has so far ventured a guess or estimate of when Italy will provide an Action Plan or Action Report to the DEJ/CoM. Anyone who's guess or estimate is correct to +/- 2 months will be eligible to self-award a magnificent title, which would be GGOIAPRDDAT: Greatest Guesser of Italian Action Plan or Report Delivery Date of All Time. Oh, and there's extra credit if there's a reason given for the guess or estimate.

Now, for my guess, I am going long. I think that Italy won't deliver an AP/AR for Knox v. Italy, because the Italian government has been left speechless by the audacity of the Italian courts in solving the Knox v. Italy problem by annulling the first conviction for calunnia but cleverly instituting a wrongful re-conviction which will delay Knox any mechanism, under current Italian law, for compensation for either wrongful conviction until the ECHR finds a violation of the right to a fair trial in an anticipated Knox v. Italy (No. 2) case. That could take perhaps 4 or 5 years or more, depending on ECHR case loads and the priority the ECHR gives to the (anticipated) case. Italy will deliver an AP for Knox v. Italy (No. 2) if and when the ECHR final judgment in that anticipated case requires one.

 

[TruthCalls]

Welshman said #3,210



It's possible he wasn't lying per se, more in his eagerness to be helpful he imagined things that he thought could be the answer.

In respect of the two mobbile phones stolen from Mez, on one day he testified under oath he saw the mobile phones on the kitchen table, this after having sworn to be telling the truth and nothing but. The next day, he completely recanted and said it wasn't the mobile phones he saw but a piece of paper with the two numbers on it. So you see, Altieri was NOT a reliable witness. He either imagined things, perhaps because he wanted to appear a font of knowledge, he was eager to ingratiate himself to whomever was asking or he wanted to help out a couple of contemporaries/ peers he perceived to be [unfairly] in trouble with the police.

In any case, it was a police officer Knox first claimed to have got the 'slit' throat info from, when nobody but a pathologist could know what caused death, after a post mortem, not Altieri. Altieri was a later claim, thanks to his volunteering to provide that info to her although why he should be the recipient of the information and nobody else is anybody's guess. He had to make up a cock and bull story about seeing a doctor make a cut throat gesture.

"LG:

And you got into the car of Filomena's two friends, Paola and...?

AK:

Yes, it was really really cold. First, Raffaele gave me his jacket, but then the others saw that I was cold, really in shock, so they said come, come, let's get in the car and get warm. And inside that car, we talked more about... we kept on saying "But what did you see? Who was there?" So in the car, heh, still using Raffaele a bit like an interpreter, they explained to me that they heard from someone, from someone else, from one of the officers who were talking, that she...

LG:

Meredith

AK:

...that Meredith had had her throat slit, and at that point I became a bit...uh [sigh]...I closed myself off a bit inside...I cried a bit because I kept thinking but...how is it possible? No...[slightly desperate laugh], it was too much, so [sigh, voice trembling], and then, we went to the Questura.

LG:

To the Questura. After the Questura...there followed all these phases, you were heard, then they took photographs, and you did cartwheels and splits? Are those things true? How did they happen? And where did they happen?"
.

So, yes, it was Knox who made the claim she heard it from a cop.


.

I find this post odd...

You quote an exchange involving Amanda where she says;

"So in the car, heh, still using Raffaele a bit like an interpreter, they explained to me that they heard from someone, from someone else, from one of the officers who were talking, that she..."

This is her literally stating she heard it from Raffaele from Altieri who supposedly heard one of the officers.

You conclude by saying "So, yes, it was Knox who made the claim she heard it from a cop." Well, clearly the exchange you quoted doesn't support this conclusion. I know you made the claim before quoting the exchange, but the exchange does not support your argument so why did you quote it?

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, Knox claimed under formal early police questioning - with her lawyers present - that her knowledge that Mez had her throat 'slit' probably came from a police officer named Fabio D''Astolto but he denied having any such knowledge.

Notice the word "probably". There was a lot of confusion going on at the time and Knox was in shock. She wasn't sure where she had first head it. She wasn't the only one.

Unfortunately, Altieri was not considered a reliable witness because of his claims about a couple of mobile phones. I am sure he meant well but it wasn't helpful.

Bull. Being mistaken about the phones is NOT equivalent to his telling RS and AK that MK's throat had been cut. He was not deemed unreliable by any court when it came to that conversation. That's your spin.

Altieri claims he came by the knowledge the throat was cut because he happened to glance at a medic at the scene who made a cut throat gesture (he claims). That cannot be true as the scene was preserved for the arrival of Lalli, who was the person who removed the duvet covering the body.

This is Altieri's testimony:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - Look, when you were there, you mean you went out, after discovering the body you knew how this girl died, that is what, what she had suffered?

WITNESS - So, no, after a while...

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - did someone say that?

WITNESS - Yes, yes, yes, after a while, you know, after a Red Cross car had arrived, the forensic team arrived, the Carabinieri, all of them, after a while one of the two doctors, I think, from this Red Cross patrol car, it wasn't an ambulance, came out of the inspection, let's say, inside the house, turning to one of the Carabinieri who was outside he described to him a little what had happened, saying referring both to the fact that her throat had been cut and the fact that she had also fought, let's say, and so from there I learned this thing.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - you learned it, do you know if the others knew it too? In particular...

WITNESS - Yes, Paola was next to me who heard it.

Marco Zaroli testified that the rumor was going around at the scene and he wasn't sure from whom he'd heard it, either.

LAWYER - that you heard, you heard that someone, actually someone from 118, had told Battistelli…

WITNESS - I repeat, it was a round of rumours that she had been… that she had died in that way, to which I don't know the origin, substantially.

LAWYER - this is the transcript, I'll tell you right away, December 20, 2007 and it's a transcript. Public Prosecutor Mignini: "I wanted to understand one thing, had you understood how the girl died, did you know how she died at that moment? Did anyone tell you anything?" Zaroli: "yes, we knew that her throat had been cut", PM Mignini: "when did you find out about this?", Zaroli: "it's hard to remember", Zugarini: "the evening you were at the police station or after, subsequently?", Zaroli: "no, when we were out there, after we discovered the body, yes, outside the house there was already talk of a similar death", "and so she had been cut in the throat?", "yes, there was talk of something similar", "who said this?", "it seems to me Battistelli, I honestly don't know, but someone said it, I heard it, Luca or maybe Battistelli”. Then he continues and…

WITNESS – yes. How…

LAWYER – then he comes out. Do you remember this passage from his interrogation?

WITNESS – yes, yes, Lucca maybe Battistelli, in fact I think it's indicative that even then I didn't know how to give a certain origin to this voice.

Fabio Marsi also testified:

LAWYER - As regards... You said before that you had seen the cut of the throat. I did not understand when but you had seen the...
WITNESS - yes.
LAWYER - When did you see him?
ANSWER - I saw her when the staff of 118 arrived and noted the death by lifting the duvet. I was in front of the entrance to the room, I saw just this one, they uncovered poor Meredith and put her body on her back with their feet facing us and you could see this cut with some cold blood that was...

So Marsi and Zaroli also heard that her throat had been cut. Like Knox, Zaroli was not sure who he heard it from. Do you now want to also claim Zaroli, who had never met RS or AK, also "meant well" and was just trying to help them out? Or was he just "bent"? Maybe "paid off"? "Mafia" connection?

Napoleoni and Mignini had had a glimpse earlier as the crime investigators, and yes, a medic was called in in case the victim could be resuscitated. But do you really believe a medic would make such a crass and disgusting gesture at a bunch of sundry people hanging around outside the cottage?

The personal incredulity fallacy.

And what does a cut throat gesture mean anyway, other than amongst freemasons, where it means, ''Help!' so a mason defendant might make that gesture to a judge, who is also a mason, and with a wink and a nudge will get him off the charge (is the idea behind such a gesture between masons). So I highly doubt the early medic made any such crass gesture at Altieri.

Oh, good God. It doesn't mean "Help!"

The sign of the Entered Apprentice alludes to the penalty of the Entered Apprentice's obligation. The sign is made by drawing the right hand rapidly across the neck as shown on the left. The penalty that the sign alludes to is, "having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my Entered Apprentice obligation."

How does it explain Knox yelling at Mez' friends, words to the effect of, 'of course she suffered, she had her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ throat slashed',

Knox didn't "yell". Your habitual use of obvious hyperbole is irritating.

when Lalli did not examine the body at the scene until sometime around midnight, long after the party left for the Questura?

Because three people testified they heard her throat had been cut while still at the cottage!

All you have are non-sequitur type logical fallacies.

LOL! I've provided quoted and cited testimony while you've resorted to the personal incredulity fallacy and a false claim regarding a Masonic sign.

 

[Stacyhs]

As for your claim of being a conspiracy theorist please substantiate your claim.

Conspiracy theories you've put forth:

Hellmann was paid off.
Raffaele's family are closely related to the Rocco Sollecito crime family.
Raffaele met with the mafia in the D.R.
Multiple defense experts were 'bent' or 'incompetent'.
Altieri lied.
Popovic lied.
Marasca was illegal and will be annulled.
Gill is dishonest.
Conti and Vecchiotti are dishonest.

Those are just off the top of my head.

ETA: Just saw this one: "For Gill, Vecchiotti & Conti and Hellmann to intervene and subvert it - thanks to Sollecito's contacts via Bongiorno - " That's a conspiracy allegation, Vixen.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't put words in my mouth. At no point have I said, "But, no, to you, this is incontrovertible evidence that Knox is guilty. "

You haven't said it verbatim but you've certainly strongly implied it.

I followed the trial and the evidence and AFAIAC the verdict of the trial (merits) court and Nencini Appeal were sound. Of course, not every small detail is going to be correct but IMV it was a fair trial with a level playing field.

We also followed the trial and evidence. Whether YOU think Massei and Nencini were 'sound' doesn't mean a damn thing. Hellmann and Marasca disagreed with you.

The idea that the pair were only found guilty because of Mignini is preposterous. He wasn't even involved after Massei and was one of two prosecutors (as seems to be the custom in Italy) leading the case. Crini was equally a prosecutor, as was Commodi. I believe in the rule of law and I could see justice had been done.

NO one is saying the pair were only found guilty because of Mignini. But Marasca's scathing indictment of how the investigation was conducted and the unreliable forensics said it best.

For Gill, Vecchiotti & Conti and Hellmann to intervene and subvert it - thanks to Sollecito's contacts via Bongiorno - is a disgraceful hijacking of justice for Meredith Kercher and sadly, her parents, who died without seeing it apart from for Guede. Italy is a highly advanced country, contrary to the belief of ignorant pigs like Trump. Yes, like many modern day countries it is not perfect, thanks to the unfair influence of the rich and the powerful having the advantage of the best legal professionals.

Nah, you don't spew conspiracy theories. Nah...

What you are trying to do by insisting the pair are innocent in the face of all evidence to the contrary is to deny the real victim and her family any justice.

LOL! What you are doing is smearing the characters of two people exonerated by the highest court in Italy by promoting lies and disinformation.

The pair having got off on a technicality of 'insufficient evidence' are now trying to cash in as much as possible by going for spurious claims of compensation because stupid people like Trump have convinced them Italy is a third world banana republic.

Ahem...Acquitting someone because the evidence does not support guilt BARD is NOT a "technicality". It's the very foundation of the legal concept of "innocent unless proved guilty". Claiming it's a technicality is disinformation.
I detest Trump as much as you, but he had virtually no influence on how anyone thought about this case as he had NO political influence at the time. He called for a boycott. Did it happen? No.

You are welcome to believe the sentimental nonsense which you wish to believe, - and of course you will! - but me, I'll look at the grim reality full in the face, thanks.

Altieri did not see a medic making a cut throat gesture thus concluding that was the cause of death, which he passed on to Knox.

This is just another unsupported claim of yours.

Knox knew the cause of death because, as has been revealed time and again, 'I cannot lie. I was there' and to which all evidence points, circumstantial, forensic, directly and indirectly.

As has been repeated time and time again, NO COURT accepted she was referring to the cottage but, per usual, you just keep repeating the same disinformation.

She was hyped up at the Questura because she was still on an adrenaline rush. That is why her behaviour was conspicuous to all. But that is not why she was convicted. It was one red flag of very many of them, which when added up made a whole.

Rubbish. Take of the guilt colored glasses and face reality.

Even Marasca & Bruno conclude she was involved at some level.


How is that not sinking in?

Not in the murder.
How is that not sinking in?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Any alleged 'conviction' for abuse of office has absolutely nothing to do with this case. As I said, there was a procedural technicality wherein his office staff omitted to give Sollecito's counsel the usual printed version of his rights on one interview occasion.

There's nothing "alleged," or questionable that justifies your use of scare quotes. It's just your usual attempt to belittle or handwave away facts that inconveniently contradict the guilter narrative. I first linked the article from the Seattle PI, which you clearly didn't bother to read, and then I quoted the relevant sections, which you still didn't bother to read. Mignini was convicted of illegally wiretapping both journalists and police officers. And the fact that Mignini abused his office and otherwise harassed and intimidated journalists in other cases establishes that he was willing to use unethical and even illegal methods in order to attempt to obtain convictions and silence his critics.

Knox made a very extensive application to the ECHR claiming for example she had been falsely told she had HIV.

No. There's your extremely poor reading comprehension again, Vixen. The complaint states that the list of her sex partners that she gave to the prison doctor after the HIV test was leaked to the media, but there is no request for redress from the ECHR, because she'd already sued and won in an Italian court.

And that she had been tortured.

There are two possibilities: You're either lying about what the complaint says, or you believe that being hit on the back of the head twice qualifies as "torture." Neither of those reflects well on you.

The only grounds on which she won out of many claims was under Article 6, right to a fair trial in that, as an official suspect/defendant she should have had a lawyer when she accused Lumumba and a procedural point under Article 3.

No. First, as discussed, and as you keep ignoring, there were not "many" claims. From Knox's complaint (translated from the French with Google Translate):

GRIEFS​

​

1. The applicant raises several complaints concerning the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings at the end of which she was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for malicious denunciation.​

​

(a)Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was not informed promptly and in an understandable language of the nature and grounds of the accusation against her.​

.​

(b) Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), she further complains that she was not assisted by a lawyer during the interrogations on 6 November 2007.​

​

(c) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 e), the applicant also complains that she was not assisted by a professional and independent interpreter during her interrogation and that the police officer who assisted her during the interrogations on 6 November 2007 performed the functions of a " mediator " and thus suggested hypotheses about the sequence of events.​

​

2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the blows to the head to which she was subjected ( scappellotti ) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.​

​

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she complains of a violation of her right to respect for her private and family life, on the grounds that, on 6 November 2007, she was forced to answer questions concerning MDL while lacking judgment and will ( incapacità di intendere e volere ) and under psychological pressure.​

Second, you keep omitting the fact that the ECHR also ruled that Italy violated her right to a fair interpreter. Why is that, Vixen?

Third, and this is most important, you keep attempting to explain away the failure to investigate Points 2 and 3 as "a procedural point," as if that's no big deal. Well, it is a big deal, and it frankly strongly implies that the Italian authorities either didn't want to know the truth, or they did know it and didn't want it to come out. And the ECHR also didn't buy your bogus "Her attorneys didn't file a formal complaint" explanation. So, as I have mentioned, and you have incorrectly disputed, the only point that was actually dismissed was the hilited above.

As we know, the statements she made as of that time were not allowable in court anyway.

They shouldn't have been allowed in for the murder/rape trial, but they were allowed in for Patrick's simultaneous civil trial, grossly prejudicing the criminal case. This is one of the major problems with the Italian justice system that you are always so eager to promote.

The statement she made in private written of her own volition with nobody present but herself and which she insisted on giving to the police was allowable evidence. It was proven she showed criminal intent - mens rea - in giving Lumumba's name to the police as the rapist/killer.

No. It was an attempt to retract a coerced confession.

So no, I was not wrong when I said Knox had almost all of her ECHR complaints rejected.

Yes, you were. I just posted them all, and explained, yet again, why only one was completely rejected. Will you finally admit that you were wrong about something?

Note she was only awarded €10.4K , which gives you some insight into just how minor the impact of the breaches were weighted by the ECHR.

No. As has been discussed in the past, and, as is virtually always the case, you ignore, ECHR just satisfaction awards are generally small; the court frequently considering that the ruling itself is the "just satisfaction."

As for your claim of being a conspiracy theorist please substantiate your claim..

I'll recap, because you're obviously having your usual problems with reading comprehension. You claimed, falsely, that I'd said anyone who thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty is a conspiracy theorist. I then linked to two posts demonstrating that I hadn't said any such thing. I then went on to state that what I actually believe is that anyone who thinks the pair were let off due to Mafia influence/corruption/improper State Department pressure is a conspiracy theorist, because there is no credible evidence that any of those had any influence whatsoever on the appeals process. So, to the extent that you still claim any of those things, that makes you a conspiracy theorist, and the lack of credible evidence for any of them provides the substantiation.

Not to mention there's also your promotion of obvious conspiracy theories about the sinking of the MS Estonia and the Luton Airport carpark fire, your denials notwithstanding.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Conspiracy theories you've put forth:

Hellmann was paid off.
Raffaele's family are closely related to the Rocco Sollecito crime family.
Raffaele met with the mafia in the D.R.
Multiple defense experts were 'bent' or 'incompetent'.
Altieri lied.
Popovic lied.
Marasca was illegal and will be annulled.
Gill is dishonest.
Conti and Vecchiotti are dishonest.

Those are just off the top of my head.

ETA: Just saw this one: "For Gill, Vecchiotti & Conti and Hellmann to intervene and subvert it - thanks to Sollecito's contacts via Bongiorno - " That's a conspiracy allegation, Vixen.

Freemasons exert a malignant influence on Italian society.
The Estonia was transporting stolen Russian military equipment.
The Estonia's bow visor was blown off with explosives.
The Estonia's bow visor was melted off by radioactive waste.
The Estonia was torpedoed by a Russian submarine.
The Estonia was rammed by a Swedish submarine.
Several of the Estonia's senior officers survived the sinking, but were "disappeared" by the CIA, with the aid or acquiescence of Sweden.
The Luton Airport carpark fire was started by an electric vehicle, but Rishi Sunak covered this up to protect his family's business interests.

 

[Numbers]

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

No one has so far ventured a guess or estimate of when Italy will provide an Action Plan or Action Report to the DEJ/CoM. Anyone who's whose guess or estimate is correct to +/- 2 months will be eligible to self-award a magnificent title, which would be GGOIAPRDDAT: Greatest Guesser of Italian Action Plan or Report Delivery Date of All Time. Oh, and there's extra credit if there's a reason given for the guess or estimate.

Now, for my guess, I am going long. I think that Italy won't deliver an AP/AR for Knox v. Italy, because the Italian government has been left speechless by the audacity of the Italian courts in solving the Knox v. Italy problem by annulling the first conviction for calunnia but cleverly instituting a wrongful re-conviction which will delay Knox any mechanism, under current Italian law, for compensation for either wrongful conviction until the ECHR finds a violation of the right to a fair trial in an anticipated Knox v. Italy (No. 2) case. That could take perhaps 4 or 5 years or more, depending on ECHR case loads and the priority the ECHR gives to the (anticipated) case. Italy will deliver an AP for Knox v. Italy (No. 2) if and when the ECHR final judgment in that anticipated case requires one.

Let's consider some other issues regarding the actions of the Italian judicial system in the Knox - Sollecito case.

For example:

Are the Italian courts that denied Sollecito compensation for unjust detention on the grounds that he was negligent and somehow not really innocent and that annulled Knox's conviction for calunnia but then re-convicted her based on her confused and contradictory retractions written in English sincere in their judgments or are those courts intentionally acting unlawfully to 1. preserve the reputation of the police, prosecutors, and judiciary and/or 2. prevent or delay the expenditure of potentially significant funds of the Italian government for compensation to redress unjust detention and wrongful conviction?

One possibility is that the judicial philosophy of the judges making the questioned judgments is so deeply influenced by Italy's former fully inquisitorial judicial system - which was transformed by the 1988 CPP reforms into an adversarial judicial retaining some adversarial features that they sincerely believe that relying on their personal opinions and biases in evaluating the alleged evidence, rather than striving for a neutral objective evaluation, is lawful under Italian law and that international law (the Convention and ECHR case law) is irrelevant.

One sign that possibly the Italian government and judiciary believed that they were right and that the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy was wrong was that Italy requested a second review of the case by the Grand Chamber; neither the reason for Italy's request nor the reason for its rejection by a panel of ECHR judges is public information, as is ECHR standard procedure for all such requests. Again, another possibility is that this was simply another delaying tactic by Italy.

From the viewpoint of the ECHR and the DEJ/CoM, the motivation of the authorities acting contrary to the Convention or ECHR case law in a way that violates the human rights of an individual applicant is not of immediate concern. The role of the ECHR is to declare violations of the Convention if established by the evidence and the role of the DEJ/CoM is to supervise the respondent state in its redress of the violation and its adoption of measures to prevent any similar future violation. The issue of motivation may be of concern to the respondent state as it designs measures - specifying changes to laws or practices - to prevent a future violation, or if the state considers that an action of the authorities was a violation of the state's law at the relevant time. Of course, as observers of the case, posters here may form opinions as to whether or not the Convention and/or domestic law violations committed by the authorities were "framing", "official misconduct", or "mistakes".

 

[Vixen]

Notice the word "probably". There was a lot of confusion going on at the time and Knox was in shock. She wasn't sure where she had first head it. She wasn't the only one.

Bull. Being mistaken about the phones is NOT equivalent to his telling RS and AK that MK's throat had been cut. He was not deemed unreliable by any court when it came to that conversation. That's your spin.


This is Altieri's testimony:

Marco Zaroli testified that the rumor was going around at the scene and he wasn't sure from whom he'd heard it, either.

Fabio Marsi also testified:


So Marsi and Zaroli also heard that her throat had been cut. Like Knox, Zaroli was not sure who he heard it from. Do you now want to also claim Zaroli, who had never met RS or AK, also "meant well" and was just trying to help them out? Or was he just "bent"? Maybe "paid off"? "Mafia" connection?

The personal incredulity fallacy.


Oh, good God. It doesn't mean "Help!"



Knox didn't "yell". Your habitual use of obvious hyperbole is irritating.


Because three people testified they heard her throat had been cut while still at the cottage!

LOL! I've provided quoted and cited testimony while you've resorted to the personal incredulity fallacy and a false claim regarding a Masonic sign.

Goodness me. Don't you recognise the meaning of 'I heard a rumour'? Hearing a rumour is not considered evidence in a court of law. Shee-eesh! So over a year later a guy claims he overheard that 'Mez' throat had been cut and that she had fought' and another claims it 'might' have been from Battistelli.

Complete and utter rot! Firstly, a doctor would know the difference between the throat and the neck. Batistelli as a trained police officer would also and no way would he say any such thing to the people hanging around the cottage at the time.

As for Marsi's claim: "ANSWER - I saw her when the staff of 118 arrived and noted the death by lifting the duvet. I was in front of the entrance to the room, I saw just this one, they uncovered poor Meredith and put her body on her back with their feet facing us and you could see this cut with some cold blood that was..."

Only authorised personnel were present when Lalli turned the body over, including Mignini and Napoleoni (sometime around midnight as I recall) so Knox, Paola and Luca were most definitely and certainly NOT present. You are lying by omission in implying this happened whilst they were still at the cottage. As for knowing she died of a 'cut throat' and that she had fought - there is no way anyone - including Dr. Lalli, pathologist - would know this until after a post-mortem

Mez did NOT die of a 'cut throat' and she did not fight back as there were only a couple of defence wounds present; on her hand. Her arms had been forced back in restraint (rather like the Atkins woman in the Manson murders) whilst other/s present jabbed Mez with a knife point for fun. Mez had also been strangled, so again, there is no way of knowing that as of the time, other than by looking into her eyes and seeing the tell-tale pink eyelids and digit prints around her mouth and neck. No way could Luca and Paolo or any medic at the scene ascertain all of this without having turned Mez' head around, which was lying left cheek against the floor. Stop lying.

The throat - thoracic region - is quite different from the neck region where Mez was actually STABBED not 'cut'. Only an ignorant 20-year-old who was at the scene would claim Mez 'had her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ throat cut' not knowing the difference between aiming for the carotid or jugular and applying a gangster-style 'permanent grin'.

What is more, Mez had her hyoid bone broken (which is in the NECK not the throat) and that happens through strangulation or blunt force of a weapon (such as a knife), so any medic most certainly could not claim to know the cause of death to pass on to a few youths at the scene. Incidentally, if the main vein or artery had been severed, death would have been quick, yet Knox knew she had '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ suffered' because having missed these points, Mez then died a long agonising death via inhaling her own blood. She actually died of drowning as her lungs filled with blood. That is the actual cause of death.


So I call BS at your bollocks claim that everybody knew immediately at the scene how she died.



.

.

 

[Vixen]

1. Vixen, you cited no link in your earlier post. The information in your post was false.

2. Your post above is also false.

Mignini, according to news reports, filed a defamation complaint against the West Seattle Herald in an Italian court. He claimed that the paper reported that supporters of Knox stated he was considered mentally unbalanced (unstable) by some Italians. It's not clear to me that he ever filed a lawsuit in the US.

Here's part of Andrea Vogt's report:



See:

Italian prosecutor filed lawsuit to defend reputation, he says

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini said Friday that he has filed defamation charges against the...

www.seattlepi.com

Knox prosecutor sues area paper

According to a BBC report filed Thursday, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini told reporters that...

www.seattlepi.com

noxarchives.blogspot.com/2009/09/giuliano-mignini-sues-again.html

Can I ask you a question?

Do you think it ethical for Knox' friends and family to get newspapers to claim the prosecutor of Knox was 'mentally unbalanced' during a live case? A simple yes or no will suffice.


To help concentrate the mind. As a corollary, do you think it would be similarly ethical for friends of say, Bryan Kohberger, to get friends or relatives of his who are newspaper proprietors to run articles claiming Judge Hippler is insane? Would you blame Judge Hippler for issuing a contempt of court indictment were that to happen?

Or do you think trying a serious murder/rape case - as in the Kercher case - outside of court via tabloid newspapers and PR agencies upholds the principle of the rule of law - i.e., in a criminal court of law only, and by means of a fair trial?


.

 

[Vixen]

Freemasons exert a malignant influence on Italian society.
The Estonia was transporting stolen Russian military equipment.
The Estonia's bow visor was blown off with explosives.
The Estonia's bow visor was melted off by radioactive waste.
The Estonia was torpedoed by a Russian submarine.
The Estonia was rammed by a Swedish submarine.
Several of the Estonia's senior officers survived the sinking, but were "disappeared" by the CIA, with the aid or acquiescence of Sweden.
The Luton Airport carpark fire was started by an electric vehicle, but Rishi Sunak covered this up to protect his family's business interests.

None of this is conspiracy theory, this is a current news affair in which cited sources were making these claims. This news item took place recently. Not a theory but a factual event. With actual authorised qualified investigators investigating it. Please learn the difference.


.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Goodness me. Don't you recognise the meaning of 'I heard a rumour'? Hearing a rumour is not considered evidence in a court of law. Shee-eesh!

But it's fully admissible in the court of Vixen. Knox said that particular cop told her and the cop denies it. That is a fully established Vixen fact in good standing.

 

[Vixen]

Conspiracy theories you've put forth:

Hellmann was paid off.
Raffaele's family are closely related to the Rocco Sollecito crime family.
Raffaele met with the mafia in the D.R.
Multiple defense experts were 'bent' or 'incompetent'.
Altieri lied.
Popovic lied.
Marasca was illegal and will be annulled.
Gill is dishonest.
Conti and Vecchiotti are dishonest.

Those are just off the top of my head.

ETA: Just saw this one: "For Gill, Vecchiotti & Conti and Hellmann to intervene and subvert it - thanks to Sollecito's contacts via Bongiorno - " That's a conspiracy allegation, Vixen.

These are quite factual and/or reasonable belief. It is a legal fact that Conti & Vecchiotti were called dishonest by the Chieffi Supreme Court. It is a fact that Italian mafioso like to holiday in the D.R. and that Sollecito was photographed by mafia-sympathetic OGGI as lying in the sunshine with one of them after the Great Hellmann Escape.

Given that Gill used the dishonest report of Conti & Vecchiotti for his own report and he must have known they were excoriated and expunged with a more reputable scientist taking over at the Nencini appeal court, plus his claims were never tested in a court of law at trial, I would say, yes he is dishonest as his own literature says that secondary transfer of DNA is unlikely to happen more than 24 hours later, yet pretends it's possible there was tertiary transfer of a full DNA profile of Sollecito six weeks later, and without explaining exactly what path such an amazing feat could happen.

It is a legal opinion that Marasca-Bruno in reinstating Conti & Vecchiotti to accommodate Gill and Bongiorno for Sollecito did breach legal protocol as their rank is no higher than Chieffi's and they had no legal right to overturn Chieffi's final verdict in this matter. Nencini's experts were sovereign here.


I didn't say Altieri and Popovic lied, I simply suggested they came to the assistance of a friend/peer in trouble for well-intentioned but misguided reasons. It back fired on Sollecito when he tried to claim millions in compensation because the court used Popovic's own words against him and his own father's who had claimed - to help his son - that Sollecito's dinner and flood happened before 8:30pm.

I don't think you know what a conspiracy theory is.




.

 

[Vixen]

There's nothing "alleged," or questionable that justifies your use of scare quotes. It's just your usual attempt to belittle or handwave away facts that inconveniently contradict the guilter narrative. I first linked the article from the Seattle PI, which you clearly didn't bother to read, and then I quoted the relevant sections, which you still didn't bother to read. Mignini was convicted of illegally wiretapping both journalists and police officers. And the fact that Mignini abused his office and otherwise harassed and intimidated journalists in other cases establishes that he was willing to use unethical and even illegal methods in order to attempt to obtain convictions and silence his critics.


No. There's your extremely poor reading comprehension again, Vixen. The complaint states that the list of her sex partners that she gave to the prison doctor after the HIV test was leaked to the media, but there is no request for redress from the ECHR, because she'd already sued and won in an Italian court.


There are two possibilities: You're either lying about what the complaint says, or you believe that being hit on the back of the head twice qualifies as "torture." Neither of those reflects well on you.


No. First, as discussed, and as you keep ignoring, there were not "many" claims. From Knox's complaint (translated from the French with Google Translate):

GRIEFS​

​

1. The applicant raises several complaints concerning the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings at the end of which she was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for malicious denunciation.​

​

(a)Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was not informed promptly and in an understandable language of the nature and grounds of the accusation against her.​

.​

(b) Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), she further complains that she was not assisted by a lawyer during the interrogations on 6 November 2007.​

​

(c) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 e), the applicant also complains that she was not assisted by a professional and independent interpreter during her interrogation and that the police officer who assisted her during the interrogations on 6 November 2007 performed the functions of a " mediator " and thus suggested hypotheses about the sequence of events.​

​

2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the blows to the head to which she was subjected ( scappellotti ) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.​

​

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she complains of a violation of her right to respect for her private and family life, on the grounds that, on 6 November 2007, she was forced to answer questions concerning MDL while lacking judgment and will ( incapacità di intendere e volere ) and under psychological pressure.​

Second, you keep omitting the fact that the ECHR also ruled that Italy violated her right to a fair interpreter. Why is that, Vixen?

Third, and this is most important, you keep attempting to explain away the failure to investigate Points 2 and 3 as "a procedural point," as if that's no big deal. Well, it is a big deal, and it frankly strongly implies that the Italian authorities either didn't want to know the truth, or they did know it and didn't want it to come out. And the ECHR also didn't buy your bogus "Her attorneys didn't file a formal complaint" explanation. So, as I have mentioned, and you have incorrectly disputed, the only point that was actually dismissed was the hilited above.


They shouldn't have been allowed in for the murder/rape trial, but they were allowed in for Patrick's simultaneous civil trial, grossly prejudicing the criminal case. This is one of the major problems with the Italian justice system that you are always so eager to promote.



No. It was an attempt to retract a coerced confession.


Yes, you were. I just posted them all, and explained, yet again, why only one was completely rejected. Will you finally admit that you were wrong about something?


No. As has been discussed in the past, and, as is virtually always the case, you ignore, ECHR just satisfaction awards are generally small; the court frequently considering that the ruling itself is the "just satisfaction."


I'll recap, because you're obviously having your usual problems with reading comprehension. You claimed, falsely, that I'd said anyone who thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty is a conspiracy theorist. I then linked to two posts demonstrating that I hadn't said any such thing. I then went on to state that what I actually believe is that anyone who thinks the pair were let off due to Mafia influence/corruption/improper State Department pressure is a conspiracy theorist, because there is no credible evidence that any of those had any influence whatsoever on the appeals process. So, to the extent that you still claim any of those things, that makes you a conspiracy theorist, and the lack of credible evidence for any of them provides the substantiation.

Not to mention there's also your promotion of obvious conspiracy theories about the sinking of the MS Estonia and the Luton Airport carpark fire, your denials notwithstanding.

Really? "ECHR just satisfaction awards are generally small; the court frequently considering that the ruling itself is the "just satisfaction." So explain why Knox put in a claim for millions of Euros. I'll sit back and await your theory with amusement.

As for your other ridiculous efforts in discrediting proper debate, we are yet to know what Sunak's interests are so your frivolous claim there are none does not make it a conspiracy theory as there are plenty of facts which support what is known. In addition, it is well-known that the Italian judiciary is plagued by a mafia influence. They actually have an active anti-mafia department, of which Mignini was part of one of them, two of the judges assassinated by the mafia, known to him as friends or colleagues. So again, there is nothing imaginary about this. The fact you have never heard of this or are unaware reflects on you, not myself. You didn't know about the recent news about Estonia being reinvestigated? Well, well. Shame on you, not me. Perhaps it is because Americans don't get to see news outside of the USA that they are so ignorant as to what goes on in current affairs in Europe. Not your fault but perhaps read and view more broadly before claiming stuff never happens.

..
.

 

[TruthCalls]

Can I ask you a question?

Do you think it ethical for Knox' friends and family to get newspapers to claim the prosecutor of Knox was 'mentally unbalanced' during a live case? A simple yes or no will suffice.


To help concentrate the mind. As a corollary, do you think it would be similarly ethical for friends of say, Bryan Kohberger, to get friends or relatives of his who are newspaper proprietors to run articles claiming Judge Hippler is insane? Would you blame Judge Hippler for issuing a contempt of court indictment were that to happen?

Or do you think trying a serious murder/rape case - as in the Kercher case - outside of court via tabloid newspapers and PR agencies upholds the principle of the rule of law - i.e., in a criminal court of law only, and by means of a fair trial?

.

I'm curious, why have you never expressed outrage at the prosecution feeding the media lies and half-truths for the first two years of the case that were harmful to Amanda and Raffaele?

I mean, you're not wrong when you point out a case should not be influenced by the media, yet I've never heard you once complain about how the media did exactly that to Amanda. Why is that?

 

[TruthCalls]

Really? "ECHR just satisfaction awards are generally small; the court frequently considering that the ruling itself is the "just satisfaction." So explain why Knox put in a claim for millions of Euros. I'll sit back and await your theory with amusement.

As for your other ridiculous efforts in discrediting proper debate, we are yet to know what Sunak's interests are so your frivolous claim there are none does not make it a conspiracy theory as there are plenty of facts which support what is known. In addition, it is well-known that the Italian judiciary is plagued by a mafia influence. They actually have an active anti-mafia department, of which Mignini was part of one of them, two of the judges assassinated by the mafia, known to him as friends or colleagues. So again, there is nothing imaginary about this. The fact you have never heard of this or are unaware reflects on you, not myself. You didn't know about the recent news about Estonia being reinvestigated? Well, well. Shame on you, not me. Perhaps it is because Americans don't get to see news outside of the USA that they are so ignorant as to what goes on in current affairs in Europe. Not your fault but perhaps read and view more broadly before claiming stuff never happens.

..
.

I know I'm getting old, and I'll admit it's possible I missed or forgot this, but could you please clarify when Amanda put in a claim for millions of Euros???

 

[Numbers]

I know I'm getting old, and I'll admit it's possible I missed or forgot this, but could you please clarify when Amanda put in a claim for millions of Euros???

A. Dommage
190. La requérante réclame 500 000 euros (EUR) au titre du préjudice moral qu’elle estime avoir subi.
....
B. Frais et dépens

193. La requérante demande également 30 000 EUR pour les frais et dépens qu’elle dit avoir engagés devant la Cour ainsi que 2 186 643 EUR correspondant aux frais et dépens exposés par ses parents pour la procédure interne.

Google translation:

A. Damages

190. The applicant claims 500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage she claims to have suffered.
.....
B. Costs and Expenses

193. The applicant also claims EUR 30,000 for the costs and expenses she claims to have incurred before the Court, as well as EUR 2,186,643 corresponding to the costs and expenses incurred by her parents in the domestic proceedings.

Knox and her lawyers may have hoped that the ECHR would award compensation for the costs she and her family had sustained throughout the trials. However, the Just Satisfaction provided by the ECHR generally only consists of a token amount; full compensation depends firstly upon the laws and courts of the respondent state. It's also important to recall that the ECHR restricted the case it considered, insofar as possible, to the calunnia against Lumumba case. It mentioned and detailed the other cases - the murder/rape case and the calunnia against the police case etc. as required by their relevance to the calunnia against Lumumba case.

When one recognizes the large amounts Knox and her family expended in her defense, one can understand why the Italian government and Italian courts may be motivated to delay and insofar as possible deny her right to access the courts to ask for compensation. There is a similar argument to be made for the unfair treatment of Sollecito's request for compensation for unfair detention.

The actual amounts awarded by the ECHR were 10, 400 EUR for damages and 8,000 EUR for costs and expenses.

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

 

[Vixen]

I'm curious, why have you never expressed outrage at the prosecution feeding the media lies and half-truths for the first two years of the case that were harmful to Amanda and Raffaele?

I mean, you're not wrong when you point out a case should not be influenced by the media, yet I've never heard you once complain about how the media did exactly that to Amanda. Why is that?

Can you give a specific example?



.

 

[Vixen]

Google translation:



Knox and her lawyers may have hoped that the ECHR would award compensation for the costs she and her family had sustained throughout the trials. However, the Just Satisfaction provided by the ECHR generally only consists of a token amount; full compensation depends firstly upon the laws and courts of the respondent state. It's also important to recall that the ECHR restricted the case it considered, insofar as possible, to the calunnia against Lumumba case. It mentioned and detailed the other cases - the murder/rape case and the calunnia against the police case etc. as required by their relevance to the calunnia against Lumumba case.

When one recognizes the large amounts Knox and her family expended in her defense, one can understand why the Italian government and Italian courts may be motivated to delay and insofar as possible deny her right to access the courts to ask for compensation. There is a similar argument to be made for the unfair treatment of Sollecito's request for compensation for unfair detention.

The actual amounts awarded by the ECHR were 10, 400 EUR for damages and 8,000 EUR for costs and expenses.

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

Thanks for providing the information. As you know, the ECHR will only cover costs (reasonable costs) that are specific to that court case in question. The fact that Knox' parents chose to hire an expensive PR agency cannot be attributed to Italy.


.