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

[Stacyhs]

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)

Right. Knox wasn't a defendant or the accused! What was she?

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.

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.

Does that include people who finally "buckle" and "admit to facts" they "knew were correct"....only weren't correct facts at all?

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.

Did Mignini and other officers ever admit they suspected Purton from day one?

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.

"Loudly named". And there's the hyperbole we've all come to expect but not admire.

You do have to understand police were suspicious of numerous people.

Of course they were, but only a woman would cover the body and the 'staged' burglary showed it was an inside job. They just had to find a man involved, too, because there was a sexual assault. Ficarra thought she had.

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.

Aggressive and unfriendly? How about scaring a young girl out of her mind until they get what they wanted?IMV the idea that Knox wasn't singled out from day one is pure willful blindness.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

I've already posted the comment numbers for you. But since that's not good enough:

What? He didn't have any shattered window pane shards to cling onto...?
If the video is not heavily doctored, let's see the whole thing and not just highly selected highlights designed by the defence.

So you're still claiming that CH 5 video was 'doctored' by the defense with zero evidence. That somehow, the defense got ahold of a British television production and changed it to make it look like the climber was successful and put THAT version on YT.



I haven't had that good a laugh since your claim that Kercher was laid on top a sheet and was moved on around on it.

Not my claim, the claim of a seasoned detective.


.

What you can "confirm' without evidence is irrelevant.

 

[Stacyhs]

Can you quote and cite Marasca saying Guede could not scale the wall?

 

[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).

The arrest warrant was filled out by Mignini because he was the prosecutor in charge of the Kercher case, with Chiarrcheri [_sp?[ originally. In her privately written memo Knox said she stood by what she said. Anyone can walk into a police station and make an accusation without the police needing to provide a lawyer. When Knox named Lumumba, the interview was correctly terminated. The police say Knox' horrified expression and clear emotional reaction that her response to Lumumba was still on her phone, her having deleted his message, was notable. She likely realised it placed her at or near the cottage via telephone masts. The pair knew about triaging and masts because they both switched off their phones prior to the murder and didn't switch them back on until next morning. Of course Mignini - being in charge of the case - is going to be VERY interested in this development, especially as around the same time Sollecito took away her alibi and said she went out without him and didn't return until about 01:00am.

Knox would claim she was coerced, wouldn't she? Even her lawyers and the US Embassy chap didn't bother lodging a complaint about her claims at the time.




.

.

 

[Vixen]

I've already posted the comment numbers for you. But since that's not good enough:




What you can "confirm' without evidence is irrelevant.

Pathetic. I was referring to the sheet. But then you knew that.

 

[Vixen]

Right. Knox wasn't a defendant or the accused! What was she?





Does that include people who finally "buckle" and "admit to facts" they "knew were correct"....only weren't correct facts at all?



Did Mignini and other officers ever admit they suspected Purton from day one?


"Loudly named". And there's the hyperbole we've all come to expect but not admire.

Of course they were, but only a woman would cover the body and the 'staged' burglary showed it was an inside job. They just had to find a man involved, too, because there was a sexual assault. Ficarra thought she had.

Aggressive and unfriendly? How about scaring a young girl out of her mind until they get what they wanted?IMV the idea that Knox wasn't singled out from day one is pure willful blindness.

Yes Shaky was loudly named because when Sollecito turned up at the Questura demanding to be with Knox, the cops put them in a wired up waiting room. The pair seemed aware they were being tapped as Knox spoke up to declare how dodgy Shaky was. They then spent the time laughing and joking.

Debating with you is rather like this Monty Python sketch.

 

[Numbers]

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, as you may be aware, your post above, in response to my explanation refuting your previous post, is simply a diversionary word salad.

The main topic of the previous posts was the role of the ECHR.

Your earlier post stated:

The ECHR cannot order a court as to what verdict under criminal law it can make.

In response, my post stated:

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.

Your post quoted above can't admit that my post defeated the premise of your post, so you go on to post a word salad not related to the ECHR's authority, under treaty law, to declare, in a final judgment, a criminal or civil trial and conviction or other judgment unfair. That ECHR final judgment then obligates the respondent state to take appropriate action to eliminate the unfairness.

Another topic of these earlier posts was Lumumba's rights regarding his false arrest and unjust detention by the Italian authorities based upon the coerced false statement from Amanda Knox that was obtained by those same authorities, a topic you generously introduced. I pointed out in my response:

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).

As you may be aware, the only material effect of the re-conviction of Knox for calunnia was to prevent her from launching an effort to gain compensation for her own unlawful false imprisonment, attributed by the re-conviction to the calunnia charge, which imprisonment lasted much longer than the detention of Lumumba. The Italian court could not immediately secure any money for an award to Lumumba from Knox, who remains resident in the US.

However, if Lumumba (or the Italian courts) were sincere and serious about seeking the money awarded from Knox to Lumumba, there are legal processes they could use to obtain it. These legal mechanisms existed even during the time the first calunnia conviction was in force, so I can only wonder why neither Lumumba nor the Italian courts attempted to use them. Let's look at what is required to enforce a foreign tort (civil) judgment in the US. Here are excerpts from an introduction to this topic* from a firm that provides services to US lawyers:

Foreign nationals do have the right to sue in U.S. courts, supported by constitutional principles, federal statutes, and legal precedents. However, they face practical and legal challenges that can complicate their access to justice. The evolving legal landscape, particularly in areas like human rights and corporate liability, continues to shape the opportunities and limitations for foreign nationals seeking redress in U.S. courts

Before enforcement, a court must issue a final judgment specifying the amount owed or the action required. This judgment can be from a U.S. court or a foreign court that has been recognized by a U.S. court.

When the judgment is from a foreign court, the creditor must first obtain recognition of the foreign judgment in a U.S. court. This typically involves proving that the foreign judgment meets criteria such as fairness, due process, and reciprocity. Many states have adopted the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, which provides a standardized process for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments.

So all the belly-aching about Lumumba's rights - which would simply be his right to collect any money award granted by the Italian court judgment - is really a baseless complaint. All that is required to get the awarded funds is for Lumumba to sue Knox in the US, presenting the Italian court judgment as evidence. Of course, the US court would need to be convinced that the Italian court judgment was fair and met US due process standards. For some reason, Lumumba has not followed this course to date, even though he had plenty of time after the Chieffi CSC panel judgment finalized the first calunnia verdict, when Knox was lawfully in the US after being acquitted of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Court of Appeal.

I forgot to add, if there were such a lawsuit, Knox would be entitled to use the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy in her defense, relating to the fairness and due process of the Italian proceedings, as well as all the Italian court documents - for example, the ones showing that she had claimed to be mistreated - even hit - by the Italian police during the interrogation and that the interpreter had interjected suggestive concepts about temporary amnesia (an act unrelated to her interpretative duties). Does anyone believe a US court would have a different opinion than the ECHR** about those circumstances in relation to whether or not the civil verdict award to Lumumba was consistent with US law?

* https://www.runsensible.com/blog/can-a-foreigner-sue-a-us-citizen/

** Whose judgment was directed only at the criminal aspects and criminal conviction. However, the Italian laws used by Lumumba to join his civil case to Italy's criminal case of calunnia requires that his civil case "sinks or swims" with Italy's criminal case. If the criminal calunnia case against Knox is annulled, the civil case is annulled as well.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, as you may be aware, your post above, in response to my explanation refuting your previous post, is simply a diversionary word salad.

The main topic of the previous posts was the role of the ECHR.

Your earlier post stated:



In response, my post stated:



Your post quoted above can't admit that my post defeated the premise of your post, so you go on to post a word salad not related to the ECHR's authority, under treaty law, to declare, in a final judgment, a criminal or civil trial and conviction or other judgment unfair. That ECHR final judgment then obligates the respondent state to take appropriate action to eliminate the unfairness.

Another topic of these earlier posts was Lumumba's rights regarding his false arrest and unjust detention by the Italian authorities based upon the coerced false statement from Amanda Knox that was obtained by those same authorities, a topic you generously introduced. I pointed out in my response:


As you may be aware, the only material effect of the re-conviction of Knox for calunnia was to prevent her from launching an effort to gain compensation for her own unlawful false imprisonment, attributed by the re-conviction to the calunnia charge, which imprisonment lasted much longer than the detention of Lumumba. The Italian court could not immediately secure any money for an award to Lumumba from Knox, who remains resident in the US.

However, if Lumumba (or the Italian courts) were sincere and serious about seeking the money awarded from Knox to Lumumba, there are legal processes they could use to obtain it. These legal mechanisms existed even during the time the first calunnia conviction was in force, so I can only wonder why neither Lumumba nor the Italian courts attempted to use them. Let's look at what is required to enforce a foreign tort (civil) judgment in the US. Here are excerpts from an introduction to this topic* from a firm that provides services to US lawyers:





So all the belly-aching about Lumumba's rights - which would simply be his right to collect any money award granted by the Italian court judgment - is really a baseless complaint. All that is required to get the awarded funds is for Lumumba to sue Knox in the US, presenting the Italian court judgment as evidence. Of course, the US court would need to be convinced that the Italian court judgment was fair and met US due process standards. For some reason, Lumumba has not followed this course to date, even though he had plenty of time after the Chieffi CSC panel judgment finalized the first calunnia verdict, when Knox was lawfully in the US after being acquitted of the murder/rape charges by the Hellmann Court of Appeal.

I forgot to add, if there were such a lawsuit, Knox would be entitled to use the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy in her defense, relating to the fairness and due process of the Italian proceedings, as well as all the Italian court documents - for example, the ones showing that she had claimed to be mistreated - even hit - by the Italian police during the interrogation and that the interpreter had interjected suggestive concepts about temporary amnesia (an act unrelated to her interpretative duties). Does anyone believe a US court would have a different opinion than the ECHR** about those circumstances in relation to whether or not the civil verdict award to Lumumba was consistent with US law?

* https://www.runsensible.com/blog/can-a-foreigner-sue-a-us-citizen/

** Whose judgment was directed only at the criminal aspects and criminal conviction. However, the Italian laws used by Lumumba to join his civil case to Italy's criminal case of calunnia requires that his civil case "sinks or swims" with Italy's criminal case. If the criminal calunnia case against Knox is annulled, the civil case is annulled as well.

I think what you are missing is that in European (Roman Law) courts, an element of justice is compensating the victim of the crime (and this was not a victimless crime!) along with the sentencing*. The compensation sums - or as applied for by the victim's families, in the case of murder - aren't usually particularly high, for example, here in Finland, the sum awarded based on set out legal protocols is based on the convicted person's income, based on a monthly pay calculation. So, notwithstanding the compo Lumumba already received for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, he is also entitled to claim compo from Knox for her conviction of Calunnia against him. Remember, criminal Calunnia is classed as a serious offence, attracting a prison term of over two years and up to six years.


*Anglo-Saxon law from which UK law (and also US and British Commonwealth) is derived was also based on a 'personal injuries' type method of justice. If someone lost an arm in a fight, his kith and kin could turn up at his door and demand the inflictor hand over his entire flock of sheep as recompense. That was a similar early history system in Finland/Sweden. If someone committed a murder, there were no criminal courts as we know them today - often it was just a board of local magistrates - or simply the family of the victim dealing with it personally by way of demanding just compensation from the other party by turning up at their door. So you see, the system of the victim of crime receiving compensation is well-established and there is nothing egregious in Lumumba asking for it, even if it is no longer an element in the UK/US system.




.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Er, some guy objects to another person having a different opinion from his own . . .

Bull. I just recently quoted a post of mine from last year in which I said you're entitled to your own opinion about Knox and Sollecito's guilt or innocence. What I strongly object to, along with everyone else here, is your attempting to have your own (actual, not "judicial") facts.

. . . or interests different from his own . . .

Non sequitur.

. . . or perhaps it's that Simonton Gulf again where Mr. Man in the Street cannot fathom why anyone would want to watch the news or read a book.

"Anyone who can't see the obvious truth of my conspiracy theory is a blind, incurious sheep."

So anyone who does is relentlessly bullied.

No. You chose not to address the substance of my post, so, in order to have an excuse not to, and for rhetorical effect, you falsely accused me of taking the debate personally and of making ad hominem attacks against you. I then challenged you to either quote any personal attack in my post, or else withdraw the accusation. You can't quote a personal attack, because there aren't any, and you don't want to withdraw the accusation, so now you're accusing me of bullying you for insisting that you either substantiate your accusation or withdraw it. I now renew that insistence.

 

[Vixen]

Bull. I just recently quoted a post of mine from last year in which I said you're entitled to your own opinion about Knox and Sollecito's guilt or innocence. What I strongly object to, along with everyone else here, is your attempting to have your own (actual, not "judicial") facts.


Non sequitur.


"Anyone who can't see the obvious truth of my conspiracy theory is a blind, incurious sheep."


No. You chose not to address the substance of my post, so, in order to have an excuse not to, and for rhetorical effect, you falsely accused me of taking the debate personally and of making ad hominem attacks against you. I then challenged you to either quote any personal attack in my post, or else withdraw the accusation. You can't quote a personal attack, because there aren't any, and you don't want to withdraw the accusation, so now you're accusing me of bullying you for insisting that you either substantiate your accusation or withdraw it. I now renew that insistence.

You did. You launched into a massive personal attack. I am still awaiting your citation I called anyone a misogynist (or a racist) as you described me in hateful terms as 'she' as though 'she' is the cat's mother. You went into a long rant about freemasons because I was sceptical about Altieri's claim he saw a medic make a cut-throat' gesture at the scene of the crime, hence why he knew Mez had 'her throat slit' to pass on the info to Knox in the car. You yourself confirmed that that is a masonic gesture. I was expressing scepticism a medic at a desperately sad murder scene would make any such frivolous disrespectful gesture at youths hanging around the cottage, especially as it is convention and protocol to let the next of kin know first.

Your claim there is no mafia problem in Italy within the judiciary is also incorrect but you prefer to make out it is a conspiracy theory because you yourself are just using the term 'CT-ist' as a form of vile scathing abuse, yet you hypocritically claim the (imagined) terms misogynist or racist are verboten. There was one occasion I asked a poster not to mansplain something to me and you will be gratified to know I was VERY heavily punished by the mods. So the system works: you are free to hurl abuse at me but one is not allowed to call BS on your claim about Guede's arms or ask not to be assumed an airhead bimbo.


Your claims I am a conspiracy theoris is ad hominem because you have nothing to support it other than my interest in a local area shipping disaster and a current affairs official government investigation into it. What else is there, yes the Luton Car Fire was of great interest to many people in the UK which I started as a thread in current affairs. What else was there? Oh yes, someone had never seen the use of primes to denote time durations before so again, I was heavily bullied as I really had no idea anyone one would consider it the slightest bit controversial.

You don't have any tools in your debating tool box which is why you resort to calling me hostile names because you think you are safe couching it in the hateful terms 'conspiracy theorist' because you think you can get away with it without needing to justify your ridiculous and insecure assertions.

.The Direzione Investigativa Antimafia (DIA), also known as the Anti-Mafia Investigation Division, is an Italian multi-force investigation body under the Department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior. Its main task is the fight against the mafia-related organized crime in Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direzione_Investigativa_Antimafia#:~:text=The Direzione Investigativa Antimafia (DIA,related organized crime in Italy.

 

[euroneighbour]

Lumumba didn't apply to the ECHR for any violation of his rights.

He did sometime in 2010 or 2011, but he failed. I dont't know which violations were concerned.

 

[euroneighbour]

Regarding ECHR: I hope that Sollecito's lawyers make use of the recent Cassazione ruling as long as his case isn't yet decided in Strasbourg and vice versa Knox's lawyers thorouchly study Sollecito's application for emphasizing common arguments. At least I remember how in the case of "communication" of Knox's application in 2016 the very fresh "Boninsegna" decision was prominently cited.

 

[Numbers]

He did sometime in 2010 or 2011, but he failed. I dont't know which violations were concerned.

euroneighbour, what is the source for your information? I have searched HUDOC, and I have found no Communication or Decision that has a "Lumumba" except for this one Decision (failed application) from 1994: Patrick Lumumba v. Sweden, Application No. 22696/93. The individual was identified as a man of Kenyan citizenship who was born in 1959 and at the time of application serving a prison sentence in Tidaholm, Sweden. He had been convicted of several crimes over a period of years, the most serious being a 1991 conviction for assault, malicious damage, aggravated arson, and gross negligent manslaughter; the sentence was 10 years imprisonment. Sweden also began proceedings to deport him to Kenya, although he had a former Swedish spouse/partner and a daughter born of that relationship. His application was against his deportation to Kenya based on his relationship to Sweden. See:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-1983

I am assuming that this Patrick Lumumba is NOT the person known as Patrick or Diya Lumumba in the Knox-Sollecito case. I haven't found any other HUDOC reference to a Lumumba.

 

[Numbers]

I think what you are missing is that in European (Roman Law) courts, an element of justice is compensating the victim of the crime (and this was not a victimless crime!) along with the sentencing*. The compensation sums - or as applied for by the victim's families, in the case of murder - aren't usually particularly high, for example, here in Finland, the sum awarded based on set out legal protocols is based on the convicted person's income, based on a monthly pay calculation. So, notwithstanding the compo Lumumba already received for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, he is also entitled to claim compo from Knox for her conviction of Calunnia against him. Remember, criminal Calunnia is classed as a serious offence, attracting a prison term of over two years and up to six years.


*Anglo-Saxon law from which UK law (and also US and British Commonwealth) is derived was also based on a 'personal injuries' type method of justice. If someone lost an arm in a fight, his kith and kin could turn up at his door and demand the inflictor hand over his entire flock of sheep as recompense. That was a similar early history system in Finland/Sweden. If someone committed a murder, there were no criminal courts as we know them today - often it was just a board of local magistrates - or simply the family of the victim dealing with it personally by way of demanding just compensation from the other party by turning up at their door. So you see, the system of the victim of crime receiving compensation is well-established and there is nothing egregious in Lumumba asking for it, even if it is no longer an element in the UK/US system.

Vixen, you are missing the point that if Lumumba wants compensation from Knox, he must now launch a lawsuit in the US to obtain it. It's that simple. There is no automatic transfer of Italian court judgment provisions to the US. There are legal steps that must be followed.

 

[euroneighbour]

Numbers, I just remember Pacelli's announcement about going to the ECHR after Lumumba received "only" € 8.000 for two weeks as compensation. I have no idea if the application was not accepted from the get go, so you cannot find any traces in the hudoc information system. Otherwise I have followed the Avetrana case too and here for some years it has been pronounced that the case so far is admissible. Therefore I waited for the occasion of communication or the decision of inadmissibility on hudoc (preferably on Mondays) too, but in Nov 2024 it was reported in Italian media, that the application was dismissed by the ECHR. Neither with "Sabrina Misseri c. l'Italie" nor with "Cosima Serrano c. l'Italie" I found any numbers or traces or decisions about this equally crazy case. Maybe you have more luck.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you are missing the point that if Lumumba wants compensation from Knox, he must now launch a lawsuit in the US to obtain it. It's that simple. There is no automatic transfer of Italian court judgment provisions to the US. There are legal steps that must be followed.

No, I don't think I am. From Massei's MR, Knox was ordered to pay Lumumba compensation and his legal costs:

Massei's MR shows the following:

--
sentences KNOX Amanda Marie to compensate for damages in dealings constituted by the plaintiff Patrick Diya Lumumba, to be liquidated in another trial and awarding an executive immediate provisioning of 10,000 euro. sentences KNOX Amanda Marie to pay the reimbursement of the legal costs sustained by Patrick Diya Lumumba which liquidates in total to 40,000 euro in addition to a lump-‐‑sum refund, Value Added Tax and CPA as required by law.

This was in Dec 2009. Knox has defiantly never paid Lumumba. There would be even more legal costs added for his having to keep returning to court, Jan 2025 being the failed appeal verdict. Let's assume the period starts from 2010 for ease of calculation and ends Dec 2024 in terms of Statutory Interest applied to the unpaid sum. In the UK, this figure is 8%, or used to be, on outstanding compo awards by public bodies. So let's calculate the amount now owed on the basic 2009 figure, assuming let's say 5% minimum interest, to Dec 2024. So that is compound interest on a principle sum of €50,000 Knox is in debt to Lumumba over a period of 14 years (no, of years interest compounded). So, she now owes Lumumba at least, €100,500, not counting all the extra costs since 2010.

AIUI any costs orders can be paid by the debtor either directly to the awardee or into the court, who then disburses it on to the creditor, so Knox wouldn't need to be contacted by Lumumba for his funds, Lumumba can simply ask the court to pursue it as an unsatisfied debt. I am assuming this is how Italian courts work re people getting their costs and awards.

Up until now, Knox has had the excuse she was appealing but now it is time to pay up what she owes. It is not a good look for her to defiantly refuse to follow court orders.




.

 

[Numbers]

No, I don't think I am. From Massei's MR, Knox was ordered to pay Lumumba compensation and his legal costs:




This was in Dec 2009. Knox has defiantly never paid Lumumba. There would be even more legal costs added for his having to keep returning to court, Jan 2025 being the failed appeal verdict. Let's assume the period starts from 2010 for ease of calculation and ends Dec 2024 in terms of Statutory Interest applied to the unpaid sum. In the UK, this figure is 8%, or used to be, on outstanding compo awards by public bodies. So let's calculate the amount now owed on the basic 2009 figure, assuming let's say 5% minimum interest, to Dec 2024. So that is compound interest on a principle sum of €50,000 Knox is in debt to Lumumba over a period of 14 years (no, of years interest compounded). So, she now owes Lumumba at least, €100,500, not counting all the extra costs since 2010.

AIUI any costs orders can be paid by the debtor either directly to the awardee or into the court, who then disburses it on to the creditor, so Knox wouldn't need to be contacted by Lumumba for his funds, Lumumba can simply ask the court to pursue it as an unsatisfied debt. I am assuming this is how Italian courts work re people getting their costs and awards.

Up until now, Knox has had the excuse she was appealing but now it is time to pay up what she owes. It is not a good look for her to defiantly refuse to follow court orders.

Vixen, you are again missing an important legal point. The Massei court judgment ws a PROVISIONAL judgment, not a final judgment. In Italy, a provisional judgment is one that may be lawfully appealed to an Italian court. Any lower court judgment that is appealed becomes a provisional judgment, but if the lower court judgment is not appealed before the lawful time limit, it becomes final. The Massei court judgment was appealed and the appeal was heard by the Hellmann Court of Appeal. Thus, the Massei court judgment was provisional.

Under Italian law and the Italian Constitution, anyone provisionally convicted remains INNOCENT by presumption. The provisionally convicted person is not obligated to pay any amount awarded in a provisional judgment. The obligation accrues in Italy only after the FINAL conviction. For Knox, the final conviction for calunnia was the judgment of the Chieffi CSC panel, which occurred after she was released by the Hellman Court of Appeal acquittal for the murder/rape charges. She had lawfully left for the US very soon after her release from precautionary detention, and at that point - that is, when she was in the US - Italian law no longer applied. She was no longer under Italian jurisdiction. She was under US and State of Washington jurisdiction, and the proper legal route for Lumumba to gain the money awarded by the Italian court was to sue Knox for those funds in a US State of Washington court.

I hope that this post remedies some of your misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the applicable law. It is rather basic stuff. An Italian court can't by itself fine or imprison a person resident in the US, nor can a US court fine or imprison a person resident in Italy. There are legal procedures that must be followed in the respective jurisdictions.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you are again missing an important legal point. The Massei court judgment was a PROVISIONAL judgment, not a final judgment.

Under Italian law and the Italian Constitution, anyone provisionally convicted remains INNOCENT by presumption. The provisionally convicted person is not obligated to pay any amount awarded in a provisional judgment. The obligation accrues in Italy only after the FINAL conviction. For Knox, the final conviction for calunnia was the judgment of the Chieffi CSC panel, which occurred after she was released by the Hellman Court of Appeal acquittal for the murder/rape charges. She had lawfully left for the US very soon after her release from precautionary detention, and at that point - that is, when she was in the US - Italian law no longer applied. She was no longer under Italian jurisdiction. She was under US and State of Washington jurisdiction, and the proper legal route for Lumumba to gain the money awarded by the Italian court was to sue Knox for those funds in a US State of Washington court.

I hope that this post remedies some of your misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the applicable law. It is rather basic stuff. An Italian court can't by itself fine or imprison a person resident in the US, nor can a US court fine or imprison a person resident in Italy. There are legal procedures that must be followed in the respective jurisdictions.

Well, the latest Boni MR (April 2025) adds another €6,332 - ordered to pay Lumumba. I get she is in the USA but I don't think that necessarily absolves her from paying what Lumumba is due. All Lumumba needs do is find an agent in the USA to serve a writ for what he is owed. Or he could have his agents waiting for her next time she steps foot in Italy or elsewhere in Europe.

ETA It wouldn't be too difficult to pursue it via the State of Washington Courts, as you state. Lumumba might not even need to be there in person.


.

 

[Numbers]

Well, the latest Boni MR (April 2025) adds another €6,332 - ordered to pay Lumumba. I get she is in the USA but I don't think that necessarily absolves her from paying what Lumumba is due. All Lumumba needs do is find an agent in the USA to serve a writ for what he is owed. Or he could have his agents waiting for her next time she steps foot in Italy or elsewhere in Europe.

Vixen, please supply a reference to support this statement that only an agent with a writ is required. The fact is that a US court in the appropriate jurisdiction must agree to the award and enforce it.

This applies to the current re-conviction award to Lumumba as well, historically, to the Chieffi CSC panel award.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, please supply a reference to support this statement that only an agent with a writ is required. The fact is that a US court in the appropriate jurisdiction must agree to the award and enforce it.

This applies to the current re-conviction award to Lumumba as well, historically, to the Chieffi CSC panel award.

See above, which I have acknowledged re: ETA It wouldn't be too difficult to pursue it via the State of Washington Courts, as you state. Lumumba might not even need to be there in person.




.