Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Why wouldn't they trust their own correspondant?

Not well enough to give a name evidently. If they have 140k cases pending on 31 December and yours is the first case filed on 1 January 2011 at the rate of roughly 40k per year, assuming they stay pretty much in order, they will get to your case in 3 to 4 years. If the BBC expects me to believe a correspondent with no name, that correspondent has got to give different numbers for me to believe it.

 

[Kaosium]

I can understand some thinking this is a "gross miscarriage of justice" but that doesn't meet the criteria for being urgent which the ECHR defines as, "where the applicant is said to be in imminent physical danger.

Did I miss a link? I was typing for a while and may not have seen something.

Here's something from Broken_English on Amanda's chances from the Member's Forum of the IIP site. Note that like Machiavelli, Broken_English is familiar with Italian legal practices but not a lawyer, and at least at the outset of his contributions there he was not convinced of Amanda's innocence, but as I believe he put it he thought 'she might be innocent.'

"After the sentence in the first trial Amanda still has 5 chance (plus one) to get out of jail: Process of Appeal, Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, review of the trial (only if, after the final conviction, there will be new evidence/witnesses) , presidential pardon. To these five options should be added: to be freed by a U.S. court after her possible transfer to the United States."

From Frank's site we've found out, the last time over the holidays, that Patrick Lumumba has filed a half a million Euro claim against ILE. That case is expected to be heard, and I don't see any indications that he is in mortal danger. That's an awfully odd qualification, one I don't think I've ever seen. Incidentally I can dig up some bizarre statistics on just how disproportionate claims against Italian authorities are in Strasbourg if you like....

 

[Alt+F4]

Not well enough to give a name evidently. If they have 140k cases pending on 31 December and yours is the first case filed on 1 January 2011 at the rate of roughly 40k per year, assuming they stay pretty much in order, they will get to your case in 3 to 4 years. If the BBC expects me to believe a correspondent with no name, that correspondent has got to give different numbers for me to believe it.

The correspondent's name is Imogen Foulkes, she's been with the BBC since 2004. Look directly under 'Urgently required'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8525524.stm

EDIT: Also why do you believe they handle 40K cases a year when their backlog went up 20K cases between 2009 and 2010? They had 120,000 backloged cases at the end of 2009, and 140,000 cases backloged at the end of 2010.

 

[Alt+F4]

Did I miss a link? I was typing for a while and may not have seen something.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/37C26BF0-EE46-437E-B810-EA900D18D49B/0/ENG_QR.pdf

It's on page 5.

From Frank's site we've found out, the last time over the holidays, that Patrick Lumumba has filed a half a million Euro claim against ILE.

In Italian civil court or with the ECHR?

 

[RoseMontague]

The correspondent's name is Imogen Foulkes, she's been with the BBC since 2004. Look directly under 'Urgently required'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8525524.stm

EDIT: Also why do you believe they handle 40K cases a year when their backlog went up 20K cases between 2009 and 2010? They had 120,000 backloged cases at the end of 2009, and 140,000 cases backloged at the end of 2010.

So she was not even commenting from the big meeting? It says she was in Geneva?

Alt+F4. I see this as an appeal for more money. The 46 years is an exaggeration and a big one at that. I will give you credit that you provided a cite for your claim. I don't give you credit for still believing it after all the other information discussed.

ETA 41k cases decided last year

http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2011/01/complaints-to-echr-on-the-rise/

 

[Fine]

I see the court has decided that Sabrina Misseri---suspected of killing her cousin Sarah Scazzi--- ain't goin' nowhere. Corriere

///

 

[RoseMontague]

I see the court has decided that Sabrina Misseri---suspected of killing her cousin Sarah Scazzi--- ain't goin' nowhere. Corriere

///

Thanks for the update. Charlie was right about the mindset here. Sabrina is innocent.

 

[Antony]

AK and RS's alleged "lies"

Amanda's call to Mom and Raffaele pricking Meredith were two I mentioned previously that I believed were lies rather than confusion, forgetfulness, or false memories. Halides1 used the quote recently from To Kill A Mockingbird about being mistaken in their own minds. I don't believe this is the case with all of the contradictions and lack of memory.

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still puzzled. Can you enlarge on these?

From what I can gather, it's established that she made a call at 12:47pm (4:47am Seattle time), but it was Manuela Comodi, in court, who threw a question about a call at midday that was never made. What was Amanda's "lie"? Raffaele was confronted with reports that Meredith's DNA had been found on his kitchen knife, but he knew (as any rational view of the case would conclude) that this was impossible, so he tried to make sense of the reading by speculating about some innocent contact between Meredith and the knife, in a diary not intended to be read by anyone else.

How were these lies, in the sense of being calculated to deceive? How were they not a confused reaction to wrong information, fed by the police and prosecution?

In any case, 2 instances don't make much of a list. What are all the contradictions and claimed failures of memory that previously led you to think they were guilty?

 

[Alt+F4]

So she was not even commenting from the big meeting? It says she was in Geneva?

Ok, so you admit it was not an anonymous source, there was an acutal BBC reporter on this story. The ECHR rarely makes it's meetings open to the public so her not being at this meeting is not unusual. Do you have any evidence that her reporting was incorrect?

The ECHR does release an annual report with all their statistics.

http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/header/reports+and+statistics/reports/annual+reports/

In 2009 only 1625 judgements were delivered by the Court of almost 120,000 cases that were pending. Between 2000 -2009 the Court has given judgement to an average of only 1137 cases a year.

Alt+F4. I see this as an appeal for more money. The 46 years is an exaggeration and a big one at that. I will give you credit that you provided a cite for your claim. I don't give you credit for still believing it after all the other information discussed.

There was no other information discussed except for John saying I made up that number.

 

[Antony]

Ok so using the facts you cited the current backlog is worked off in 5 - 6 years. Did you leave a dash out in your earlier post?
BTW - Did you (or CoulsdonUK) notice in LJ's cite that certain cases can be given priority and pulled forward to be heard sooner.?

Maybe Alt-4 heard someone reporting verbally that the backlog was "four to six years" and misheard it as "forty-six years".

 

[Alt+F4]

ETA 41k cases decided last year

http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2011/01/complaints-to-echr-on-the-rise/

In 2010, the Court delivered 1,499 judgments concerning 2,607 applications. A total of 41,183 applications were decided in 2010.

41k cases were not decided in 2010, 41k cases were thrown out. 1,499 cases were decided.

 

[Alt+F4]

Maybe Alt-4 heard someone reporting verbally that the backlog was "four to six years" and misheard it as "forty-six years".

Why don't you just read the BBC article and explain to us why it's wrong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8525524.stm

 

[Antony]

Why don't you just read the BBC article and explain to us why it's wrong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8525524.stm

The report contains this paragraph:

But it now has a backlog of some 120,000 cases - if it continues to work at its present pace, it would take 46 years to clear them, our correspondent says.

... which is rather more equivocal than your original citing of it.

 

[RoseMontague]

41k cases were not decided in 2010, 41k cases were thrown out. 1,499 cases were decided.

Ok that would be 42k-43k cases dealt with. They have 140,000 cases at the end of the year 2010. Again, at the rate of now 42,000 per year, if the case were first in line starting 2011 and things go pretty much in order, I need to lower my 3-4 years by a few weeks or so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

when they first spoke after Amanda was placed into custody

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still puzzled. Can you enlarge on these?

From what I can gather, it's established that she made a call at 12:47pm (4:47am Seattle time), but it was Manuela Comodi, in court, who threw a question about a call at midday that was never made. What was Amanda's "lie"? Raffaele was confronted with reports that Meredith's DNA had been found on his kitchen knife, but he knew (as any rational view of the case would conclude) that this was impossible, so he tried to make sense of the reading by speculating about some innocent contact between Meredith and the knife, in a diary not intended to be read by anyone else.

How were these lies, in the sense of being calculated to deceive? How were they not a confused reaction to wrong information, fed by the police and prosecution?

In any case, 2 instances don't make much of a list. What are all the contradictions and claimed failures of memory that previously led you to think they were guilty?

antony,

The original lie could have been to her mother, when she visited her in prison and asked her about the first call (around November 10th or so). However, I am not aware of any compelling reason to think that Amanda must have lied to her on this occasion. She did remember the other two calls.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ok that would be 42k-43k cases dealt with. The have 140,000 cases at the end of the year 2010. Again, at the rate of now 42,000 per year, if the case were first in line starting 2011 and things go pretty much in order, I need to lower my 3-4 years by a few weeks or so.

They have 140,000 pending cases that they want to decide. Your number of 41k is the cases they don't want to hear, the average number they throw out each year. Between 2000 and 2009 they averaged 1137 decisions a year (of the cases they believe have validity). So at that rate how long will it take them to hear the cases pending at the end of 2010?

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for the reply, but I'm still puzzled. Can you enlarge on these?

From what I can gather, it's established that she made a call at 12:47pm (4:47am Seattle time), but it was Manuela Comodi, in court, who threw a question about a call at midday that was never made. What was Amanda's "lie"? Raffaele was confronted with reports that Meredith's DNA had been found on his kitchen knife, but he knew (as any rational view of the case would conclude) that this was impossible, so he tried to make sense of the reading by speculating about some innocent contact between Meredith and the knife, in a diary not intended to be read by anyone else.

How were these lies, in the sense of being calculated to deceive? How were they not a confused reaction to wrong information, fed by the police and prosecution?

In any case, 2 instances don't make much of a list. What are all the contradictions and claimed failures of memory that previously led you to think they were guilty?

No she told the cops she couldn't remember her call to her Mom before Comodi tried to make it look more incriminating by moving the time back to noon. She even told her Mom she couldn't remember calling her. At the time that I was leaning towards guilt I felt she may have said something to her Mom that would give away advance knowledge of the murder scene. Later, I came to realize that she may have just told the cops that because she was tired and didn't want her Mom questioned and she didn't want to answer any more questions over and over again on a new subject either.

I still feel she gave the cops the story on Patrick knowing it was not true but my reason for that has changed. If you have a chance you can look at my early posts at View From Wilmington on the case for other reasons I was leaning for guilt. I don't really have the heart to defend a position I have moved away from at this point in time.

 

[Alt+F4]

No she told the cops she couldn't remember her call to her Mom before Comodi tried to make it look more incriminating by moving the time back to noon. She even told her Mom she couldn't remember calling her.

On this point I do believe her. She probably didn't remember what time she called her mother. All evidence indicates that she called her mother frequently anyway and no matter what one thinks about her guilty or innocence she was under much stress that day.

 

[RoseMontague]

They have 140,000 pending cases that they want to decide. Your number of 41k is the cases they don't want to hear, the average number they throw out each year. Between 2000 and 2009 they averaged 1137 decisions a year (of the cases they believe have validity). So at that rate how long will it take them to hear the cases pending at the end of 2010?

The present number of cases they hear based on last years numbers is 7%. If you can provide a cite saying they have already reviewed and made a decision to hear those 140,000 cases, I will agree with you.

 

[Onofarar]

Onofarar

I asked a question, which was did you read the document. I made no comment other than that.

Yes I scanned it - that is how I knew they have a procedure to prioritize certain cases. I now have a "To Do" from Alt to explain why AK & RS might get that treatment - when and if they file a case. So I will be rereading the cite in depth.