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

[Numbers]

Readers here and others who follow the Knox - Sollecito case may wonder how the Italian judiciary can reach some of the conclusions it does in violation of long-held principles of law that are indeed actual written Italian laws to be found in the articles of the CPP and/or written in the case law of the ECHR and thus binding on Italy.

For instance, take the assertion in the Chieffi CSC MR that the defense must indicate how contamination of DNA happened in order for the Court to accept that an empirically, scientifically obvious - that is, in at least one control sample, detectable and measurable contamination had occurred, while allowing the prosecution and its prinDNA technician to not present a complete report of the full range of negative and positive control sample and to not provide the fundamental automatically digitally recorded evidence of the DNA quantification and profiling. According to ECHR case law, this is a violation of the presumption of innocence:

406. The presumption of innocence is violated where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence....

In the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia, the ambiguities of Knox's Memoriales written by her in English are not interpreted as initial renunciations of her signed Italian-language statements written by the police or prosecutor, but as independent statements falsely accusing Lumumba while she knew him to be innocent - that is, calunnia. This is a violation of the principle that doubts should benefit the accused:

407. The Court has also held that the in dubio pro reo principle (doubts should benefit the accused) is a specific expression of the presumption of innocence .... An issue from the perspective of this principle may arise if the domestic courts’ decisions finding an applicant guilty are not sufficiently reasoned ..., or if an extreme and unattainable burden of proof was placed on the applicant so that his or her defence does not have even the slightest prospect of success....

In addition, the re-conviction did not remove the effects of the violations of Articles 6.3c or 6.3e on the trial as a whole, meaning that each of those violations resulted in a violation of Article 6.1:

487. .... Where access to a lawyer was delayed, and where the suspect was not notified of the right to legal assistance, the privilege against self-incrimination or the right to remain silent, it will be even more difficult for the Government to show that the proceedings as a whole were fair.... It should also be noted that an issue from the perspective of the privilege against self-incrimination arises not only in case of actual confessions or directly incriminating remarks but also with regard to statements which can be considered as “substantially affecting” the accused’s position ....

The ECHR has developed a non-exhaustive list of considerations that it uses to help determine whether denial of the rights of a suspect/accused during the investigative or initial phase of criminal proceedings has undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, shown in paragraph 489:

1. Whether the applicant was particularly vulnerable, for example, by reason of his age or mental capacity;
2. The legal framework governing the pre-trial proceedings and the admissibility of evidence at trial, and whether it was complied with; where an exclusionary rule applied, it is particularly unlikely that the proceedings as a whole would be considered unfair;
3. Whether the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and oppose its use;
4. The quality of the evidence and whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy, taking into account the degree and nature of any compulsion;
5. Where evidence was obtained unlawfully, the unlawfulness in question and, where it stems from a violation of another Convention Article, the nature of the violation found;
6. In the case of a statement, the nature of the statement and whether it was promptly retracted or modified;
7. The use to which the evidence was put, and in particular whether the evidence formed an integral or significant part of the probative evidence upon which the conviction was based, and the strength of the other evidence in the case ... [for example, an unjustified denial of a defense lawyer at the very beginning of a case overcame an alleged "global sufficiency of evidence" in convincing the ECHR that a trial was unfair in the case of Brus v. Belgium].
8. The weight of the public interest in the investigation and punishment of the particular offence in issue;
9. Other relevant procedural safeguards afforded by domestic law and practice.

Furthermore, the Knox v. Italy case itself represents a cornerstone of the ECHR case law regarding the need for a fair trial to provide a fair interpreter from the very beginning of the investigative phase; allegations of unfair or inadequate interpretation must be objectively examined by the domestic court:

585. The obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation. Thus, a failure of the domestic courts to
examine the allegations of inadequate services of an interpreter may lead to a violation of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention (Knox v. Italy, 2019, §§ 182-187).

All the above suggests that the re-trial of Knox for calunnia with its re-conviction will be viewed as an unfair trial or extension of the original unfair trial by the CoM and, if Knox and her lawyers submit a new application, the ECHR.

Source: Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb)

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

 

[Vixen]

Do people come up to you and say "Mam, how do you know so much about African vs White European arm lengths? Are they big, strong men with tears in their eyes the likes of which the world has never seen?

Do you have an uncle that taught at MIT? It must be in the genes! Great genius genes! People are saying!

You do enjoy being offensive.


.

 

[Vixen]

You are assuming that he had to face the bedroom door with both feet in order to pull it shut and lock it. You're assuming that it couldn't be be done with his left shoe facing down the corridor and his right shoe...for which NO prints were found... facing slightly toward the door allowing him to turn at the waist and lock the door.

(but we know Knox's "bare blood-soaked" footprint was not in blood- as confirmed by the negative TMB test (as used and accepted by police forces the world over).

One of the most egregious denials of scientific fact is the PGP claim that all NINE luminol revealed "blood-soaked" footprints just didn't have enough blood to react to.
Frankly, I think you and the other deniers actually do know just how ridiculous that claim is but just can't admit it.

Ah, yes...the blood-soaked footprint that Knox pointed out to the police. Was this her first attempt to cover for Guede?
But....I thought she was trying to set up Shaky being so "keen" and all to make sure the police heard her in the waiting room she suspected was bugged even after discussing him in detail the day before in her deposition.

Really? Is that why Prof. Vinci ruled out Sollecito? Is that why Hellmann ruled it wasn't Sollecito's? Is that why Marasca failed to assign an identity to it?


OMG. Not a single judge, including Massei and Nencini, ruled it was a woman's shoe but instead found it belonged to Guede.


Tough. I find your blatant spewing of misinformation more than rather unacceptable.

And please, LEARN TO RESIZE YOUR PHOTOS.

Given that the scientific discipline of DNA analysis is difficult for some members of the PIP to accept possibly because they believe the claim of Conti - of Vecchiotti & Conti fame - as espoused on Netflix (for which he was likely handsomely paid) that 'DNA is like talcum powder: we sprinkle it about everywhere we go' and thus it is soooooooooo easy for your DNA to end up on the body of a victim of murder! It could happen to anyone, is the message. But for those who disbelieve the science linking Sollecito clearly to the murder scene with his DNA on the victim's bra clasp found under her body, having been cut, torn or simply having dropped off the bra, after her death. Let's forget about science and DNA, because after, all if Conti, a geneticist expert, thinks DNA analysis is rubbish, what hope for ordinary members of the public?

Let's go back to using the methods of the Ancient Anglo-Saxons (cf Beowulf) or perhaps depending on your sources, the Ancient Romans, who didn't have all of this mumbo-jumbo science but used the tried and tested method of, "seeing is believing". So let's all forget everything we ever knew or were told and let your eyes rest on the following images without making any value judgements.








So the above have been identified by <fx garlic and crucifix> scientists as being Sollecito's. So what are your honest thoughts on Sollecito's footprint soaked in the victim's blood being on the cottage bathmat, bearing in mind how quickly blood dries (= within an hour)? So, select which of the following you believe, using just your eyes to see. Eyes that have evolved over billions of years. Use them!

1. It certainly seems to match Sollecito's
2. "It could be there due to contamination...
   1. ...due to a scientific police officer bringing it in with their latex covered shoes from another room...
   2. ...er, it could have flown under the bathroom door all the way from Sollecito's apartment...
   3. ...err...ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!!!"
3. If one squints one's eyes and looks at it sideways perhaps put a hand over one eye, blur the screen a bit...it could be...
4. ...It could be Guede's if we imagine hard enough, perhaps cross one's eyes and all becomes possible!"
5. It was Mignini! The dastardly evil swine took a brass rubbing of Sollecito's foot, or maybe a stencil, dipped it in Mez's blood and then planted it at the scene for reasons...mumble...er....um.....stands to reason...it was Mignini's fault Sollecito left a 'Raf wuz here!' calling card. Scumbag.

Phew! Fringe reset. Wash rinse repeat. Back to blind faith! Anything is possible! What do the scientists know? Shee-eesh, what a bunch of bastards!!!




.

 

[Disbelief]

Guede's bloody shoeprints as highlighted luminol go straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. He doesn't turn to lock the door. So, no, he didn't lock the door or the shoeprint would face that way (but we know Knox' bare blood-soaked - as highlighted by luminol (used by police forces the world over) - footprints do).

View attachment 60599

Is Guede impaired so he cannot rotate at the waist? Seriously, you cannot think of a way to lock a door without facing directly at it?

 

[Vixen]

Is Guede impaired so he cannot rotate at the waist? Seriously, you cannot think of a way to lock a door without facing directly at it?

Oh right, so Guede is not only motivated by burglary and rape, he is so calculating and devious he wants to return to create a complex theatrical scene and tamper with the laptops. He decides to lock Mez' door having somehow realised there was a key to it somewhere - leaves, then comes back - presumably through the window again - to undress the body a bit, all the while not bothering to hide his DNA. He makes sure his feet do not face Mez' door to create even more mystery and intrigue so that people will pin it on Knox.


.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote

Oh right, so Guede is not only motivated by burglary and rape, he is so calculating and devious he wants to return to create a complex theatrical scene and tamper with the laptops. He decides to lock Mez' door having somehow realised there was a key to it somewhere - leaves, then comes back - presumably through the window again - to undress the body a bit, all the while not bothering to hide his DNA. He makes sure his feet do not face Mez' door to create even more mystery and intrigue so that people will pin it on Knox.

I haven't been around for a while. It's good to know that the guilter case against the pair is based on this kind of hyperbole, rather than the evidence.

It was the evidence which led the final, acquitting court to find that - even if all the hyperbole had been true - none of it makes up for the lack of forensic presence of either AK or RS inside the murderroom. The only thing that the hyperbole suggests (*if* true) is that AK and RS had been on that floor of the cottage, outside of the murderrrom, and at a later time. Given that AK lived there on that floor, had admitted to returning to prepare for a trip with RS, only to find the place in disarray and Filomena's window broken - once again, vary, vary far from the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That is hardly evidence of guilt. And, by the way, no one has ever doubted that AK (and RS) had been there, but at a later time when they called police.

Okay, back to lurking....

 

[Disbelief]

Oh right, so Guede is not only motivated by burglary and rape, he is so calculating and devious he wants to return to create a complex theatrical scene and tamper with the laptops. He decides to lock Mez' door having somehow realised there was a key to it somewhere - leaves, then comes back - presumably through the window again - to undress the body a bit, all the while not bothering to hide his DNA. He makes sure his feet do not face Mez' door to create even more mystery and intrigue so that people will pin it on Knox.


.

More from your fevered imagination. I was pointing out a specific item in your list about how he would have to turn and face the door to lock it, and you are just wrong. Your response is some fever dream of a response and you do not just come out and say that you were wrong.

 

[TruthCalls]

Oh right, so Guede is not only motivated by burglary and rape, he is so calculating and devious he wants to return to create a complex theatrical scene and tamper with the laptops. He decides to lock Mez' door having somehow realised there was a key to it somewhere - leaves, then comes back - presumably through the window again - to undress the body a bit, all the while not bothering to hide his DNA. He makes sure his feet do not face Mez' door to create even more mystery and intrigue so that people will pin it on Knox.


.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Guede didn't lock the door when he first exited. Perhaps he got to the front door and realized he needed the key to open it. Perhaps he returned to Meredith's room w/o stepping in blood, or perhaps Meredith had left her keys on the kitchen table when she entered. Either way, once he grabbed the keys it occurred to him that if he locked the door it would delay discovery of Meredith. But at that point he no longer had blood on the bottom of his shoe. Can you prove this isn't what happened?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Once again, you seem completely devoid of self-awareness.

Non sequitur.

The 'mansplain' comment had NOTHING to do with misogyny . . .

"Mansplaining" clearly implies sexism. Fail.

. . . it was to do with having something carefully explained to me (in this case, eye witness memory) in which I had some detailed academic knowledge having done my dissertation in memory. Nothing to do with being woke. The common assumption which this poster was using, that eye witness accounts are unreliable, is a common misconception and often used to ignore or disregard what eye witnesses to an incident relate. It was attacking the trite stereotyping and generalisation in a one-word nutshell.

You were pushing for certain witness accounts of survivors of the Estonia to be accepted at face value because you believed they would bolster your conspiracy theories. You were attempting, improperly, to apply your asserted general knowledge of memory to the specialized field of accident investigation, in which at least one other poster has extensive knowledge and professional experience. Further, you demonstrated that you were unfamiliar with the work of a leading expert in the field of witness memory. So a careful explanation was certainly in order. And you took umbrage at having your self-proclaimed expertise challenged, as usual. But there was nothing sexist about it.

As I know you are going to dig in your entrenched heels because you can't see that you are a stereotypist without realising it.

Whom or what am I supposedly stereotyping?

Consider the following:

As a simple illustration, let's say we have the following:

2 + 2 = 5

(My apologies for the VERY simplistic example of more complex issues but serves to explain the idea).
Now we can all see and easily calculate, this is not correct.

2 plus 2 does equal 5 in certain cases, but I'll grant that in this case it doesn't.

But imagine it represents a more complex equation which the average person cannot immediately see or calculate as being wrong. Imagine next that the person putting forward this complex (but wrong) equation is being sponsored to mass publish it for clicks in mass circulation media, such as newspapers and broadcasters. This person is perhaps perceived as an establishment expert. So, of course, the average person in the street accepts it, either because they do not understand how the equation has been derived, or because they can't be bothered to critically check it for accuracy, or just because the guy promulgating it is 'a bod'.

Now, I come along. Because I can see or calculate that this equation is incorrect, I point it out.

Along comes you, with your ready 'CT' name-calling and listing all of the people you CLAIM back you up, scrunching your knuckles and glowering over one menacingly, challenging me to 'call the police if you don't like it', browbeating me over the head that:

2 + 2 = 5

Question: Are you able to understand that no amount of name-calling or intimidation will be able to force me to call something that I can see is an error or a lie, as being true?

"Only I can see what all you sheeple can't."

It's called critical thinking.

I'm glad I bought a few extra ones last week when they were on sale.

It should be nothing to do with appealing to the crowd..

And this whole example has nothing to do with the fact that "mansplaining" implies sexism, and no one was behaving in a sexist manner.

 

[Vixen]

More from your fevered imagination. I was pointing out a specific item in your list about how he would have to turn and face the door to lock it, and you are just wrong. Your response is some fever dream of a response and you do not just come out and say that you were wrong.

And how would Guede even know the cottage doors were lockable, given it was probably originally designed for one family. If you look at the door, there is flap [?] over the lock which you WOULD need to face as you need to (a) peer downwards in the dimmed light (b) require both hands to insert the key whilst holding the flap to one side and (c) shutting the door firmly, first. Only one person present had the key anyway or knew where it was kept. It is hardly a detail a fleeing criminal is going to consider.





The idea Guede twisted his body to do this whilst facing towards the exit is laughable and shows your desperation to spin a lie.

Amanda Knox locked Mez' door. She had the key. Which was never found.

 

[Vixen]

Readers here and others who follow the Knox - Sollecito case may wonder how the Italian judiciary can reach some of the conclusions it does in violation of long-held principles of law that are indeed actual written Italian laws to be found in the articles of the CPP and/or written in the case law of the ECHR and thus binding on Italy.

For instance, take the assertion in the Chieffi CSC MR that the defense must indicate how contamination of DNA happened in order for the Court to accept that an empirically, scientifically obvious - that is, in at least one control sample, detectable and measurable contamination had occurred, while allowing the prosecution and its prinDNA technician to not present a complete report of the full range of negative and positive control sample and to not provide the fundamental automatically digitally recorded evidence of the DNA quantification and profiling. According to ECHR case law, this is a violation of the presumption of innocence:



In the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia, the ambiguities of Knox's Memoriales written by her in English are not interpreted as initial renunciations of her signed Italian-language statements written by the police or prosecutor, but as independent statements falsely accusing Lumumba while she knew him to be innocent - that is, calunnia. This is a violation of the principle that doubts should benefit the accused:



In addition, the re-conviction did not remove the effects of the violations of Articles 6.3c or 6.3e on the trial as a whole, meaning that each of those violations resulted in a violation of Article 6.1:



The ECHR has developed a non-exhaustive list of considerations that it uses to help determine whether denial of the rights of a suspect/accused during the investigative or initial phase of criminal proceedings has undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, shown in paragraph 489:



Furthermore, the Knox v. Italy case itself represents a cornerstone of the ECHR case law regarding the need for a fair trial to provide a fair interpreter from the very beginning of the investigative phase; allegations of unfair or inadequate interpretation must be objectively examined by the domestic court:


All the above suggests that the re-trial of Knox for calunnia with its re-conviction will be viewed as an unfair trial or extension of the original unfair trial by the CoM and, if Knox and her lawyers submit a new application, the ECHR.

Source: Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb)

https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_criminal_eng

I very much agree with the aims of the ECHR and the principle of a fair trial and the right to dignity. However, I cannot see that it necessarily renders a verdict unsafe. For example, in the case of Lee Rigby's killer who claimed his teeth were damaged by police, even if he never had a lawyer, say, or was tortured as he claims, does that cancel out his heinous crime? With the finality of Knox' verdict of guilty as charged re the Calunnia crime, it is now established she did that with mens rea - criminal intent - and not because a lawyer or interpreter was not there, although Donnino WAS an interpreter (something else Dalla Vedova citing Boninsegna misled them about) but because despite not having lawyer who COULD have shut her up if present, she needed to come up with a story, being in a sticky spot, with Sollecito taking away her alibi, and being caught out as being in Piazza Grimana, having said she was with Sollecito all evening.

The next implication is that she WAS at the murder scene and knew Lumumba was not there for a fact, so she is not the poor innocent waif she likes to present herself as.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen wrote


I haven't been around for a while. It's good to know that the guilter case against the pair is based on this kind of hyperbole, rather than the evidence.

It was the evidence which led the final, acquitting court to find that - even if all the hyperbole had been true - none of it makes up for the lack of forensic presence of either AK or RS inside the murderroom. The only thing that the hyperbole suggests (*if* true) is that AK and RS had been on that floor of the cottage, outside of the murderrrom, and at a later time. Given that AK lived there on that floor, had admitted to returning to prepare for a trip with RS, only to find the place in disarray and Filomena's window broken - once again, vary, vary far from the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That is hardly evidence of guilt. And, by the way, no one has ever doubted that AK (and RS) had been there, but at a later time when they called police.

Okay, back to lurking....

No, Bill Williams, the reason their sentence was annulled was because of backchanneling outwith the legal chambers.


.

 

[Vixen]

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Guede didn't lock the door when he first exited. Perhaps he got to the front door and realized he needed the key to open it. Perhaps he returned to Meredith's room w/o stepping in blood, or perhaps Meredith had left her keys on the kitchen table when she entered. Either way, once he grabbed the keys it occurred to him that if he locked the door it would delay discovery of Meredith. But at that point he no longer had blood on the bottom of his shoe. Can you prove this isn't what happened?

No because even if there were a bunch of keys on the table, how would he know which door it was for and why would he even care, he was off!

 

[SpitfireIX]

€10,000 is the penal element, €40,000 is the costs element as of 2009, which Numbers disputes as starting from the Chieffi rubber stamp of 2013.

The closest US equivalent is 'Obstruction of Justice' and the UK (E&W) Perverting the Course of Justice, each of which has a similar range of prison sentence. Basically it involves trying to or actually subverting the operations of the police to avert justice.


It is classed as a Serious Offence in all three jurisdictions.


.

The penal portion would certainly not be enforced.

The problem with attempting to use obstruction of justice as an analog to calunnia for dual criminality is that obstruction of justice is a crime committed solely against the state, and never against an individual.

Also, I believe someone posted, or I read somewhere else, that payments to individuals that are actually for crimes against the state will not be enforced, so that could be another potential sticking point.

 

[Numbers]

I very much agree with the aims of the ECHR and the principle of a fair trial and the right to dignity. However, I cannot see that it necessarily renders a verdict unsafe. For example, in the case of Lee Rigby's killer who claimed his teeth were damaged by police, even if he never had a lawyer, say, or was tortured as he claims, does that cancel out his heinous crime? With the finality of Knox' verdict of guilty as charged re the Calunnia crime, it is now established she did that with mens rea - criminal intent - and not because a lawyer or interpreter was not there, although Donnino WAS an interpreter (something else Dalla Vedova citing Boninsegna misled them about) but because despite not having lawyer who COULD have shut her up if present, she needed to come up with a story, being in a sticky spot, with Sollecito taking away her alibi, and being caught out as being in Piazza Grimana, having said she was with Sollecito all evening.

The next implication is that she WAS at the murder scene and knew Lumumba was not there for a fact, so she is not the poor innocent waif she likes to present herself as.

Your post contains one or more false statements.

I have bolded for emphasis what is perhaps the most striking false statement (or collection of statements).

The case is not final because the CoM has not closed its supervision of the case. The Italian government has not yet given the CoM an Action Plan or Action Report, so this case will drag on at least until the CoM is satisfied with an Action Report that satisfies the declarations of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. There may also be a second ECHR case, if Knox chooses to file an application to the ECHR.

 

[TruthCalls]

No because even if there were a bunch of keys on the table, how would he know which door it was for and why would he even care, he was off!

Unless you think Meredith was a janitor at the school, I doubt she would have had many keys on her key chain, and he would care because he still needed to get home and figure out a story, and an early discovery might cause him problems.

Conversely, why would Amanda want to lock the door?

 

[Vixen]

Non sequitur.


"Mansplaining" clearly implies sexism. Fail.


You were pushing for certain witness accounts of survivors of the Estonia to be accepted at face value because you believed they would bolster your conspiracy theories. You were attempting, improperly, to apply your asserted general knowledge of memory to the specialized field of accident investigation, in which at least one other poster has extensive knowledge and professional experience. Further, you demonstrated that you were unfamiliar with the work of a leading expert in the field of witness memory. So a careful explanation was certainly in order. And you took umbrage at having your self-proclaimed expertise challenged, as usual. But there was nothing sexist about it.


Whom or what am I supposedly stereotyping?


2 plus 2 does equal 5 in certain cases, but I'll grant that in this case it doesn't.


"Only I can see what all you sheeple can't."


I'm glad I bought a few extra ones last week when they were on sale.


And this whole example has nothing to do with the fact that "mansplaining" implies sexism, and no one was behaving in a sexist manner.

Whilst mansplaining is an aspect of sexism, it does not follow that a person - male or female - doing that is ipso facto a misogynist. That is the logical fallacy of syllogism. We have all inadvertently explained something to someone without being asked for it, when they already know. Whilst it is a breach of etiquette, it hardly indicates you are a misogynist, unless you are doing it boorishly out of bigoted reasoning. So yes, asking someone not to mansplain is not something that should be heavily punished by the mods.

Eyewitness accounts in incidents where they are the ONLY witnesses to a catastrophic accident is not automatically 'unreliable' and has NOTHING to do with false memory syndrome (as your 'accident expert' tied to assert). So you are possibly indulging in 'mansplaining' here in claiming you know more than me (so report me).

You are a stereotypist in that you are stereotyping someone with different interests from yourself as a 'conspiracy theorist' because you are too lazy to bother to find out what it is they are interested in. It makes you appear pompous and bumptious because you actually do not have any authority over other people's choice of interests yet you really do believe you can go up to their face and call them names.



.

 

[Vixen]

Unless you think Meredith was a janitor at the school, I doubt she would have had many keys on her key chain, and he would care because he still needed to get home and figure out a story, and an early discovery might cause him problems.

Conversely, why would Amanda want to lock the door?

When I am in the UK, I have a whole load of keys: two or three keys for the London address, together with my home keys and the summer cottage keys. I can't imagine a burglar would stop to work out which was which, given criminals tend to leave the crime scene ASAP.

The door was locked because the plan was someone else other than her should find the body. If she found it, she might be suspected, runs the reasoning.



.

 

[SpitfireIX]

For goodness sake, any fule kno' the tale of the defendant and the judge making masonic signs at each other is an urban myth!


Like all urban myths, the story has its roots in various stories that became viral.


.

No. You didn't use any qualifiers such as "supposedly" or "reputedly" in your post. Further, you've previously insinuated that Freemasonry has some sort of unhealthy influence in Italy. You were just conspiracy-mongering as usual, but now that you've learned that my family has extensive Masonic connections, you're trying to weasel out by claiming that no one should have taken your statement seriously. Shame on you.

Also, Masonic is a proper adjective and should be capitalized.

 

[Vixen]

The penal portion would certainly not be enforced.

The problem with attempting to use obstruction of justice as an analog to calunnia for dual criminality is that obstruction of justice is a crime committed solely against the state, and never against an individual.

Also, I believe someone posted, or I read somewhere else, that payments to individuals that are actually for crimes against the state will not be enforced, so that could be another potential sticking point.

You misunderstand. Calunnia as charged by the Italian State against Knox is a criminal offence, and thus committed against the State. In Italy, and Europe in general, although not in the UK, the victim of a crime can bring a civil action at the same time.



.