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

[Stacyhs]

No random guy on the internet 'owns' me, thanks.


.

Wanna bet? You've been owned many times.

 

[Stacyhs]

The fact you can't tell the difference between the rule of law and a country's constitution from an opportunistic politician whose only requirement for election to POTUS is to be born in the USA indicates why you are having so much trouble grappling with the implications of various legal issues, which have nothing to do with individuals - such as policemen, judges or prosecutors - but are written into Statute and the Constitution. So, when you blame Mignini for prosecuting Knox and Sollecito you fail to grasp that Mignini was just the representative of the State and it could have been any Luigi, Alessandro or Massimo who issued the charges.

I'll ignore the word salad.

I have never "blamed" Mignini for prosecuting Knox and Sollecito. I have blamed him for directing a tunnel-visioned, myopic, subject-centered, and poor investigation which resulted in their being charged. And I'm not the only one as the Marasca SC so scathingly pointed out.

An objectively wavering process, the oscillations of which are the result of glaring failures or investigative “amnesias” and of culpable omissions in [24] investigating activities, which, had they been carried out, would have, probably, allowed from the start the outline a framework, if not of certainty, at least of reassuring reliability, in direction of either the guilt or the non-involvement of the current appellants. Such scenario, intrinsically contradictory, constitutes a first, eloquent, representation of an evidential set of anything but “beyond reasonable doubt”.

 

[Numbers]

Problem is, the ECHR doesn't try criminal law. The way Italy dealt with it was to vacate the conviction and send it back to retrial. Remember, Knox isn't the only party here. Lumumba is also a party.

The issue went to Italy's highest echelons and legal professionals as to how to treat this and that was its solution.

My advice would be to stop going to court. The only people getting rich are the lawyers. Just get on with life. You tried to pin a horrible crime on your boss so own up and take it on the chin.

Matthew 5:25 New Living Translation (NLT)“When you are on the way to court with your adversary, settle your differences quickly. Otherwise, your accuser may hand you over to the judge, who will hand you over to an officer, and you will be thrown into prison.

Vixen, the first problem with your post is that it fails to recognize the remit of the ECHR. It tries alleged violations of human rights, which under the European Convention on Human RIghts, includes allegations of unfair criminal trials (Convention Article 6 including each of its paragraphs) and allegations of mistreatment by police officers which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Convention Article 3).*

By agreeing to the Convention - and Italy was in fact one of the founders of the Council of Europe and the Convention - Italy has obligated itself to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR. Thus, the ECHR final judgments take on a Constitutional role in Italy (and other CoE states), so the Italian courts must follow the conclusions and spirit of the ECHR final judgments.

The re-conviction of Knox for calunnia obviously did not follow the conclusion and spirit of the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy. That is why, after for all appearances ignoring this case for 5 years, the DEJ/CoM is now seeking an Action Plan or Report from Italy through bilateral contacts.**

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.

* https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG

** See:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

Status of Execution (under View tab)

 

[Stacyhs]

Problem is, the ECHR doesn't try criminal law. The way Italy dealt with it was to vacate the conviction and send it back to retrial. Remember, Knox isn't the only party here. Lumumba is also a party.

The issue went to Italy's highest echelons and legal professionals as to how to treat this and that was its solution.

My advice would be to stop going to court. The only people getting rich are the lawyers. Just get on with life. You tried to pin a horrible crime on your boss so own up and take it on the chin.

Matthew 5:25 New Living Translation (NLT)“When you are on the way to court with your adversary, settle your differences quickly. Otherwise, your accuser may hand you over to the judge, who will hand you over to an officer, and you will be thrown into prison.





.

I'm sure Knox will give your advice the due attention it deserves.

 

[Stacyhs]

By the way, Vixen, it's been several days and several requests, but you still have failed to provide any evidence of your claims below:

"A cop who looked in on the scene said the fact the body had been placed on a sheet and moved eighteen inches towards the closet.."
(#2880)

You have still not provided the name of the "seasoned detective" who proved the climbing video was "heavily doctored by the defense" (#3035 and #3086)

Why is that? Could it be because neither is true?

 

[Numbers]

I'm sure Knox will give your advice the due attention it deserves.

A good question, at least to my limited knowledge: if Knox and her lawyers did not file an application with the ECHR against the calunnia re-conviction and its trial, could it withstand the supervision of Italy's violations as found in the first ECHR judgment by the DEJ/CoM? If the first trial for calunnia ending in a final conviction was "irretrievably impaired", could the second trial resulting in a final reconviction be consistent with the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy? If it is not consistent, then in theory, Knox would not need to launch a second application to have it questioned by the DEJ/CoM. However, under the Convention, IIUC, the CoM would not have the authority to declare the final re-conviction a violation of rights. Only the ECHR would have that authority.

What would be required by the Convention would be for the CoM to refer the case to the ECHR as either a problem in the interpretation of the final judgment requiring the ECHR to provide clarification (following Convention Article 46.3) or as an alleged refusal of the state to abide by the final judgment of the ECHR, a violation of Convention Article 46.1 (following Convention Article 46. 4). In the latter case, if the ECHR finds that the state violated Convention Article 46.1, it returns the case to the CoM for that body to decide on the next steps. If the ECHR finds that there was no violation, it returns the case to the CoM to close its examination of the case. (These last two alternatives are those allowed under Convention Article 46.5.)

In my view, based on the above considerations, I would think that if Knox wished to regain redress - including her status as a person not convicted of calunnia - she and her lawyers would submit a second application to the ECHR in parallel to the ongoing efforts of the DEJ/CoM.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, the first problem with your post is that it fails to recognize the remit of the ECHR. It tries alleged violations of human rights, which under the European Convention on Human RIghts, includes allegations of unfair criminal trials (Convention Article 6 including each of its paragraphs) and allegations of mistreatment by police officers which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Convention Article 3).*

By agreeing to the Convention - and Italy was in fact one of the founders of the Council of Europe and the Convention - Italy has obligated itself to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR. Thus, the ECHR final judgments take on a Constitutional role in Italy (and other CoE states), so the Italian courts must follow the conclusions and spirit of the ECHR final judgments.

The re-conviction of Knox for calunnia obviously did not follow the conclusion and spirit of the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy. That is why, after for all appearances ignoring this case for 5 years, the DEJ/CoM is now seeking an Action Plan or Report from Italy through bilateral contacts.**



* https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG

** See:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

Status of Execution (under View tab)

I follow that but the ECHR didn't have to consider Lumumba's human rights. Italy had to ensure Lumumba's right to justice, hence a key reason it went back to trial.




.

 

[Vixen]

I'm sure Knox will give your advice the due attention it deserves.

Oh I am sure she will. Cooking series on Netflix next and the launch of own brand waffles.




.

 

[Vixen]

By the way, Vixen, it's been several days and several requests, but you still have failed to provide any evidence of your claims below:

"A cop who looked in on the scene said the fact the body had been placed on a sheet and moved eighteen inches towards the closet.."
(#2880)

You have still not provided the name of the "seasoned detective" who proved the climbing video was "heavily doctored by the defense" (#3035 and #3086)

Why is that? Could it be because neither is true?

I don't recall saying what your second claim states. What is important is what the court determined. Your claim anyone athletic could do it is a meaningless argument. It's a non sequitur.

As for the first, I told you the opinion of a seasoned detective that in his opinion, the sheet was intended to be used to move the body, as in dispose of it elsewhere.

As for the legally determined facts, the body was moved about eighteen inches away from the closet and IIRC someone tried to drag Mez by the hair.



.

.

 

[Numbers]

I follow that but the ECHR didn't have to consider Lumumba's human rights. Italy had to ensure Lumumba's right to justice, hence a key reason it went back to trial.
.

Lumumba didn't apply to the ECHR for any violation of his rights. He did receive some monetary compensation from Italy for unjust detention. However, it was Italy that violated his rights by arresting him and detaining him based on statements coerced from Amanda Knox. She cannot be legally responsible for being coerced into making a statement against him that she promptly retracted. When the CSC annulled Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, they automatically - under Italian law - annulled her responsibility for any payment to him. The re-conviction cannot be lawful because it is contrary to the ECHR ruling in Knox v. Italy that the proceedings were "irretrievably impaired" - meaning, there was no way for Italy to fix or repair them. If Italy believed it had not sufficiently compensated Lumumba, it should have made an effort to provide him more compensation from Italian government resources.

 

[Vixen]

A good question, at least to my limited knowledge: if Knox and her lawyers did not file an application with the ECHR against the calunnia re-conviction and its trial, could it withstand the supervision of Italy's violations as found in the first ECHR judgment by the DEJ/CoM? If the first trial for calunnia ending in a final conviction was "irretrievably impaired", could the second trial resulting in a final reconviction be consistent with the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy? If it is not consistent, then in theory, Knox would not need to launch a second application to have it questioned by the DEJ/CoM. However, under the Convention, IIUC, the CoM would not have the authority to declare the final re-conviction a violation of rights. Only the ECHR would have that authority.

What would be required by the Convention would be for the CoM to refer the case to the ECHR as either a problem in the interpretation of the final judgment requiring the ECHR to provide clarification (following Convention Article 46.3) or as an alleged refusal of the state to abide by the final judgment of the ECHR, a violation of Convention Article 46.1 (following Convention Article 46. 4). In the latter case, if the ECHR finds that the state violated Convention Article 46.1, it returns the case to the CoM for that body to decide on the next steps. If the ECHR finds that there was no violation, it returns the case to the CoM to close its examination of the case. (These last two alternatives are those allowed under Convention Article 46.5.)

In my view, based on the above considerations, I would think that if Knox wished to regain redress - including her status as a person not convicted of calunnia - she and her lawyers would submit a second application to the ECHR in parallel to the ongoing efforts of the DEJ/CoM.

Any solution or remedy has to be proportionate. The Italian top legal personnel decided a retrial was the fairest solution. As an example of proportionality, in the Lee Rigby murder, the defendant claimed police kicked his teeth in. Now that would be a clear breach of his human rights, probably under Article 3 right not to be tortured. But if the ECHR finds in his favour, does that really mean he should get off his life sentence for murder? Obviously, no. The UK courts were still entitled to find him guilty of a hideous crime notwithstanding whether his claim of a jaw injury from the police is true.


.

 

[Vixen]

Lumumba didn't apply to the ECHR for any violation of his rights. He did receive some monetary compensation from Italy for unjust detention. However, it was Italy that violated his rights by arresting him and detaining him based on statements coerced from Amanda Knox. She cannot be legally responsible for being coerced into making a statement against him that she promptly retracted.

But that is not what the courts found. You can say that Knox was forced to accuse Lumumba but that wasn't proven. Boninsegna said the cops were too nice to her and that was obviously a training gap rather than anything malicious. Although I can see Donino was a 'spy' cop, with all her additional phone tapping duties!



.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh I am sure she will. Cooking series on Netflix next and the launch of own brand waffles.




.

That's better than writing crappy articles on a website no one reads any more.

 

[Numbers]

But that is not what the courts found. You can say that Knox was forced to accuse Lumumba but that wasn't proven. Boninsegna said the cops were too nice to her and that was obviously a training gap rather than anything malicious. Although I can see Donino was a 'spy' cop, with all her additional phone tapping duties!

Based on your post, it looks like you haven't read and comprehended the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.

 

[Numbers]

But that is not what the courts found. You can say that Knox was forced to accuse Lumumba but that wasn't proven. Boninsegna said the cops were too nice to her and that was obviously a training gap rather than anything malicious. Although I can see Donino was a 'spy' cop, with all her additional phone tapping duties!

Based on your post, it looks like you haven't read and comprehended the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.

 

[Vixen]

Based on your post, it looks like you haven't read and comprehended the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.

The ECHR cannot order a court as to what verdict under criminal law it can make. It said the trial was irretrievably unfair (under the mistaken belief Knox was a defendant or the accused) Italy took it on board, vacated the conviction and sent it back down to be tried again. There is a third party in this, Lumumba. I know this will sound 'woke' to some, but Lumumba also is entitled to legal redress arising from the serious crime of calunnia.



.

.

 

[Numbers]

The ECHR cannot order a court as to what verdict under criminal law it can make. It said the trial was irretrievably unfair (under the mistaken belief Knox was a defendant or the accused) Italy took it on board, vacated the conviction and sent it back down to be tried again. There is a third party in this, Lumumba. I know this will sound 'woke' to some, but Lumumba also is entitled to legal redress arising from the serious crime of calunnia.

The ECHR can rule that a court verdict made in a criminal or civil case is unfair. It is then a matter for the respondent state, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to take action to overcome that unfairness. That is why Italy passed a new law that is codified in CPP Article 628 bis. Previous to the new CPP article, Italy relied on the revision law, CPP Article 630, with Italian Constitutional Court judgment #113 of 2011, to effect such changes in verdicts as required by ECHR final judgments.

Lumumba was accused in the arrest warrant filled out by Mignini. That arrest warrant was based on false information from Knox that had been obtained under coercion; Knox repudiated her accusations soon after she had made them. She indicated in writing that she doubted they were true.

Mignini knew that Knox had made her accusations against Lumumba in an interrogation without a lawyer and without being warned that she was a suspect and she had the right to remain silent and of her obligation not to commit a false accusation (CPP Article 64).

So was Mignini guilty of calunnia against Lumumba? Did Mignini have reasonable suspicion to arrest Lumumba, considering that the police had obtained the false information against him by coercion, without telling Knox she needed a lawyer, and thus in violation of Italian and ECHR law? Certainly the Italian state acknowledged it had unjustly arrested and detained Lumumba and compensated him. Was the compensation sufficient? Lumumba could have filed an application with the ECHR against Italy claiming that his rights had been violated under Convention Article 5, paragraphs 1c and 5, seeking additional compensation, but did not do so. If Lumumba sincerely believed that Knox was responsible for his arrest by her coerced statements and that she should compensate him, he would have filed a lawsuit against her in the US. Italy has no authority to have her pay him compensation because she is a US resident (and citizen).

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't recall saying what your second claim states.

"I don't recall"...the favorite response used by those who don't want to answer a question. I provided the comment numbers for a reason: #3035 and #3086). Read them if you need your memory refreshed.

What is important is what the court determined. Your claim anyone athletic could do it is a meaningless argument. It's a non sequitur.

It's not "my claim"; it was the climber's opinion. I don't see Marasca specifically addressing if Guede could scale the wall. If you can quote and cite from the MR otherwise, please do so.

As for the first, I told you the opinion of a season detective that in his opinion, the sheet was intended to be used to move the body, as in dispose of it elsewhere.

Ummm...no. Your claim about the "seasoned detective" had nothing to do with Kercher's body being on a sheet and moved. It was in regards to the Chan. 5 climbing documentary. I know, it's difficult to keep false claims straight.

As for the legally determined facts, the body was moved about eighteen inches away from the closet and IIRC someone tried to drag Mez by the hair.

Yes, her body was moved but not on a sheet as you claimed. Why can't you admit even that fact?
Meredith had a chunk of hair pulled out but there's no evidence it was in order to drag her or simply to control her at the beginning of the attack.

 

[Vixen]

The ECHR can rule that a court verdict made in a criminal or civil case is unfair. It is then a matter for the respondent state, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to take action to overcome that unfairness. That is why Italy passed a new law that is codified in CPP Article 628 bis. Previous to the new CPP article, Italy relied on the revision law, CPP Article 630, with Italian Constitutional Court judgment #113 of 2011, to effect such changes in verdicts as required by ECHR final judgments.

Lumumba was accused in the arrest warrant filled out by Mignini. That arrest warrant was based on false information from Knox that had been obtained under coercion; Knox repudiated her accusations soon after she had made them. She indicated in writing that she doubted they were true.

Mignini knew that Knox had made her accusations against Lumumba in an interrogation without a lawyer and without being warned that she was a suspect and she had the right to remain silent and of her obligation not to commit a false accusation (CPP Article 64).

So was Mignini guilty of calunnia against Lumumba? Did Mignini have reasonable suspicion to arrest Lumumba, considering that the police had obtained the false information against him by coercion, without telling Knox she needed a lawyer, and thus in violation of Italian and ECHR law? Certainly the Italian state acknowledged it had unjustly arrested and detained Lumumba and compensated him. Was the compensation sufficient? Lumumba could have filed an application with the ECHR against Italy claiming that his rights had been violated under Convention Article 5, paragraphs 1c and 5, seeking additional compensation, but did not do so. If Lumumba sincerely believed that Knox was responsible for his arrest by her coerced statements and that she should compensate him, he would have filed a lawsuit against her in the US. Italy has no authority to have her pay him compensation because she is a US resident (and citizen).

We mustn't lose sight of the perspective. A very horrible and atrocious murder was committed. Prosecutors prosecute on behalf of the state for the victim (where there is one). Anyone giving false information to the police is understandably seen to be wasting police time. Literally dozens and dozens of people were also interviewed, some a t inconvenient times. Sophie Purton, for example, had been expecting to fly home with her parents who immediately flew to Perugia to collect her. Police made her stay. They tapped her phone, as she was a friend of IIRC 'Shaky' whom Knox had loudly named as suspicious to Sollecito in a wiretapped police waiting room. You do have to understand police were suspicious of numerous people. It is their job and might indeed come across as aggressive and unfriendly. IMV the idea that Knox was somehow singled out for special attention is ridiculous.




.

 

[Vixen]

"I don't recall"...the favorite response used by those who don't want to answer a question. I provided the comment numbers for a reason: #3035 and #3086). Read them if you need your memory refreshed.


It's not "my claim"; it was the climber's opinion. I don't see Marasca specifically addressing if Guede could scale the wall. If you can quote and cite from the MR otherwise, please do so.

Ummm...no. Your claim about the "seasoned detective" had nothing to do with Kercher's body being on a sheet and moved. It was in regards to the Chan. 5 climbing documentary. I know, it's difficult to keep false claims straight.

Yes, her body was moved but not on a sheet as you claimed. Why can't you admit even that fact?
Meredith had a chunk of hair pulled out but there's no evidence it was in order to drag her or simply to control her at the beginning of the attack.

Please cite the sentence in which I mentioned a seasoned detective in respect of the wall.

The seasoned detective made the comment about the sheet. I can confirm I saw that comment made.


.



.