Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Diocletus]

Regardless of any appeal that might be pending with the ECHR (and frankly I think they will toss it out as being beneath consideration - but I could be wrong) her plain duty is to have paid Lumumba until such time as the court award is made null and void (i.e. likely never). As I've said, failure to do so just makes any weasel-worded apology from Knox absolutely meaningless.

I have no idea why anyone thinks that she should be paying money to Lumumba at this point. She has a live appeal pending to the ECHR that may eviscerate the basis for the Lumumba judgment. She has no "duty" to voluntarily satisfy the judgment under those circumstances.

Lumumba is not without rights: if he really thinks that she should be paying now, he can take his judgment to where Knox has her assets and attempt to enforce it. Why hasn't he done that? I'll tell you why: he knows that the judgment would be unenforceable in a different country because it is based on a coerced statement.

It's certainly possible that the ECtHR appeal could be tossed. That said, there are plenty of cases that the ECHR has decided amount to a HR violation on facts that are not as compelling as the facts in this case.

FWIW, I think that the ECHR will hear this case and will find that there was an HR violation, but that the final determination of that will not come for about 4 years. I wonder what happens in the meantime, and what happens afterwards. I mean, it's clear that the convictions would have to be annulled in order to cure the HR violation, but would Italy bother to retry the case?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

constraints

Funny... I don't think Patrick could look like more of an ass in my opinion. He went through it. He was called racist names by a corrupt police force. Yet he can't understand how someone would cave to that pressure? I wouldn't pay that idiot a dime.

Caper,

In the fall of 2011 (right before or right after the acquittal) Patrick complained that Amanda never apologized to him in person. This strongly implies two things. One is that Patrick never visited Amanda in Capanne. Two is something that each reader of this comment will have to figure out for himself or herself owing to the constraints imposed by the membership agreement.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have no idea why anyone thinks that she should be paying money to Lumumba at this point. She has a live appeal pending to the ECHR that may eviscerate the basis for the Lumumba judgment. She has no "duty" to voluntarily satisfy the judgment under those circumstances.

Lumumba is not without rights: if he really thinks that she should be paying now, he can take his judgment to where Knox has her assets and attempt to enforce it. Why hasn't he done that? I'll tell you why: he knows that the judgment would be unenforceable in a different country because it is based on a coerced statement.

It's certainly possible that the ECtHR appeal could be tossed. That said, there are plenty of cases that the ECHR has decided amount to a HR violation on facts that are not as compelling as the facts in this case.

FWIW, I think that the ECHR will hear this case and will find that there was an HR violation, but that the final determination of that will not come for about 4 years. I wonder what happens in the meantime, and what happens afterwards. I mean, it's clear that the convictions would have to be annulled in order to cure the HR violation, but would Italy bother to retry the case?

You would have to cure the unfairness tainting the current process before you could have a retrial. I don't see how that would be possible because if, say, Stefanoni were forced to cough up the EDFs and/or controls the likeliest result will be that she has to stand trial rather than Knox or Sollecito. She should be facing enquiries now. So should many of them.

How would they fix the problems arising from destroyed evidence? In the case of Nyki Kish the trial court had to face this problem because the cops 'lost' two CCTV films of the fight in which she supposedly murdered Ross Hammond. The judge there solved it by deciding it didn't matter before proceeding to convict* but the missing evidence pales into insignificance compared to the stuff that's gone walkies here.

* appeal decision imminent

 

[Strozzi]

Supercalifragilistic, I see that you joined this site today. Welcome.

I read with interest the reason you provided for your view on the damage award which Knox may owe to Lumumba once the case which is now on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is resolved. I look forward to reading your posts.

Can you recommend any other sites that discuss this case?

 

[Diocletus]

You would have to cure the unfairness tainting the current process before you could have a retrial. I don't see how that would be possible because if, say, Stefanoni were forced to cough up the EDFs and/or controls the likeliest result will be that she has to stand trial rather than Knox or Sollecito. She should be facing enquiries now. So should many of them.

How would they fix the problems arising from destroyed evidence? In the case of Nyki Kish the trial court had to face this problem because the cops 'lost' two CCTV films of the fight in which she supposedly murdered Ross Hammond. The judge there solved it by deciding it didn't matter before proceeding to convict* but the missing evidence pales into insignificance compared to the stuff that's gone walkies here.

* appeal decision imminent

Well, procedurally, this whole thing is kind of a mess.

Remember that the pending appeal is limited to the Callunnia conviction and/or civil judgment. So, in a situation where the ECtHR finds a HR violation, presumably that court's judgment would go only to the callunia. Obviously, the remedy would be to annul the conviction and judgment, and it's difficult to see how there could be a retrial with the statements that underlie the callunia conviction/judgment now being held to be the result of an HR violation. In addition, if we're talking 4 years from now, the time for further proceedings likely would have expired.

It also seems that the principal criminal convictions would be infirm if the interrogation is ruled illegal, in part because the callunnia and principal proceedings were joined and in part because the ISC seems to have decided that the callunia should be used to show involvement in the murder. So, the principal criminal convictions would be de facto dead, yet, a presumptive ECHR appeal of a final judgment from those convictions might still be pending. This appeal would presumably raise more issues than just the illegality of the interrogation, e.g., the unfairness of using the Guede conviction against these defendants, violation of equality of arms (transparency), etc.

So in theory, 4 years down the road, we have a dead callunnia conviction/judgment, and a moribund rape/murder conviction, and yet, we still have a pending ECtHR appeal raising numerous issues about the rape/murder proceedings.

It may be that Knox's lawyers have a plan to speed up the proceedings on the callunia matter (e.g., through a request for intermediate relief) and/or bring the rape/murder appeal into the callunnia questions.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, procedurally, this whole thing is kind of a mess.

Remember that the pending appeal is limited to the Callunnia conviction and/or civil judgment. So, in a situation where the ECtHR finds a HR violation, presumably that court's judgment would go only to the callunia. Obviously, the remedy would be to annul the conviction and judgment, and it's difficult to see how there could be a retrial with the statements that underlie the callunia conviction/judgment now being held to be the result of an HR violation. In addition, if we're talking 4 years from now, the time for further proceedings likely would have expired.

It also seems that the principal criminal convictions would be infirm if the interrogation is ruled illegal, in part because the callunnia and principal proceedings were joined and in part because the ISC seems to have decided that the callunia should be used to show involvement in the murder. So, the principal criminal convictions would be de facto dead, yet, a presumptive ECHR appeal of a final judgment from those convictions might still be pending. This appeal would presumably raise more issues than just the illegality of the interrogation, e.g., the unfairness of using the Guede conviction against these defendants, violation of equality of arms (transparency), etc.

So in theory, 4 years down the road, we have a dead callunnia conviction/judgment, and a moribund rape/murder conviction, and yet, we still have a pending ECtHR appeal raising numerous issues about the rape/murder proceedings.

It may be that Knox's lawyers have a plan to speed up the proceedings on the callunia matter (e.g., through a request for intermediate relief) and/or bring the rape/murder appeal into the callunnia questions.

Agree with all of this. I was laughed at on the nutter sites for suggesting that Florence might stay their process pending a determination of the callunia appeal to the ECHR precisely because this highly dubious verdict was being used to lever a murder conviction (as Mach foreshadowed when exulting about its significance) which would be undermined if the ECHR agreed that callunia could not stand. Realistically, the Italians would never countenance the idea that their fascistic practices were not beyond reproach but I don't see what harm an application could have done - like many other things that weren't tried by the defence (e.g. showing the climb).

 

[Dan O.]

I think it's possible Raffaele did something so the screensaver wasn't activated, dozed off for a few minute, woke up and does something else so the screensaver isn't activated again and a couple minutes later Amanda comes back into the room and he infers she's been there all the time.

I believe that's possible, although highly unlikely, but possible.

The screensaver evidence is that the screensaver did activate throuout the night but never for longer than 6 minutes. The defense unfortunately did not present this data because it is of a technical nature and difficult to understand but they did asked for an independent review which Hellmann denied as it wasn't necessary in Hellmann's view to find the pair innocent. Nancini doesn't seem to have even considered it.

And as far as getting everything done before he left to get rid of the phones, You maybe right, but there's still a possibility (maybe not probable) he left to get rid of the phones while Meredith was dying, then when coming off his adrenalin high, decided he needed to do a better search for money or drugs, went back, saw no lights or any movement or activity at all, went in, and while he is in searching through Meredith's room, Amanda comes home for just that one thing,

According to Rudy's statements, he was still thinking that Meredith could be alive while he was dancing that night. Is he comming back to the cottage after leaving the disco when other students that were out partying late would be comming home or already home? He would need to throw another rock through another window to make sure nobody had come home and fell asleep without noticing the broken window.

What one thing does Amanda need that can't wait for morning? Her cell phone charger perhaps, that is sitting right inside her bedroom door where she could grab it before noticing any any disturbing sounds comming from Meredith's room. And what sound would be so disturbing? Two people having sex behind a closed door? (or 1 person having sex with a corpse) Even if Rudy was doing his vampire imitation ”I want to suck your blood” while raping the dead body, this wouldn't frighten Amanda. If she was there and heard or saw anything she would have told the police every detail as she would believe this would help the police catch who murdered her friend.

ETA I believe it's more probable that Rudy would come back to search for more cash rather than cleaning up, but that's me

Maybe you need to read Rudy's diary again. The sight of all that blood really disturbed him. He's not going back inside.

 

[Dan O.]

give me a cite.

put in jimmy a door or lock into google and read the results or go read a dictionary.


ETA: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jimmied-up

 

[Diocletus]

Agree with all of this. I was laughed at on the nutter sites for suggesting that Florence might stay their process pending a determination of the callunia appeal to the ECHR precisely because this highly dubious verdict was being used to lever a murder conviction (as Mach foreshadowed when exulting about its significance) which would be undermined if the ECHR agreed that callunia could not stand. Realistically, the Italians would never countenance the idea that their fascistic practices were not beyond reproach but I don't see what harm an application could have done - like many other things that weren't tried by the defence (e.g. showing the climb).

I feel that there is going to be significant pressure on the next ISC panel when these issues are presented. I am sure that they will recognize that there are serious problems with they way that the ISC has handled this thing from day one. If they want to save face, I think that they are going to have to reinvent some facts. And, we all know that saving face is more important than justice to these people. So, get ready for a heaping portion of BS, Italian-style, with a healthy side dish of goalpost-moving.

 

[Grinder]

It's almost never about concrete evidence. It's almost always...reading tea leaves.

Yes. But I must say that in the picture of the chief of police when he made his famous case closed announcement (which the PGP will not attempt to explain) he looked very tired, which clearly means he spent the night beating Amanda.

Maybe the kids were up most of the night having sex but told the police they were sleeping as they were embarrassed and then didn't want to change their story because they would be accused of yet another lie.

If they had murdered Meredith and spent the night awake, they would have been self-conscious about how they looked and would have covered their appearances with a lie about making love all night.

 

[anglolawyer]

I feel that there is going to be significant pressure on the next ISC panel when these issues are presented. I am sure that they will recognize that there are serious problems with they way that the ISC has handled this thing from day one. If they want to save face, I think that they are going to have to reinvent some facts. And, we all know that saving face is more important than justice to these people. So, get ready for a heaping portion of BS, Italian-style, with a healthy side dish of goalpost-moving.

All of that couched in pages and pages of meaningless, pseudo-intellectual legalese the value of which will be in inverse proportion to Peter Quennell's obsequious admiration for it.

 

[Grinder]

So just simply give her a break. . . .
Don't just anything based on her emotional response.

Base your judgement on the actual physical evidence.
That evidence points to Guede as being the only perpetrator.

For that matter, She could be a spoiled brat and hated Meredeth.
Does not matter as long as she did not kill her.

It is a strict policy of the PGP not to spend more than 10% of their writing on actual evidence.

While the kids' behavior may, I said may, have legitimately attracted the attention of the PLE but the proof is in the eating of the pudding and there isn't any there. Certainly not enough for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When something like the digestion is brought up here the PGP don't deliver a reasonable explanation as to why the TOD doesn't fit with a before 10 pm time, instead they argue that we must be wrong here because the defense team didn't focus on it.

 

[Paninaro]

Regardless of any appeal that might be pending with the ECHR (and frankly I think they will toss it out as being beneath consideration - but I could be wrong) her plain duty is to have paid Lumumba until such time as the court award is made null and void (i.e. likely never). As I've said, failure to do so just makes any weasel-worded apology from Knox absolutely meaningless.

Knox statement was coerced. There was nothing voluntary and spontaneous about it and that is a fact whether or not she is guilty of murder or not.

The Italian justice system can simply not be accepted on the point of the Calunnia conviction regardless of the circumstances and regardless of what theri supreme court says. A false accusation with intent is not what happened here. The Italian justice system needs to reconsider the legality of what they're doing with respect to human rights.

An innocent Knox is not guilty of Calunnia. Knox can't pay Lumumba and still maintain she´s innocent. That she hasn't paid him has very little to do with him and all to do with the flawed italian justice system.

 

[Dan O.]

This case points out that there is a need for foreign students studying in Italy and elsewhere, and all travelers for that matter, to have immediate access to a local attorney who is fully capable of handling the preliminary aspects of a criminal matter and accident, and who speaks English.

Just as there is health insurance and travel insurance, there should be some sort of legal insurance that a student or other traveler purchases. Everyone traveling abroad should carry a wallet card in the local language and in their language which they present to the police which invokes their legal rights and protections, provides a 24 hour local legal number, and immediate phone access to a lawyer. The presentation of the card should stop all police questioning until the lawyer is present.

$10 or $20 per month might cover the service. Universities should insist their students have it when studying abroad.

Just to get that call, they would pay you to carry their card. But $10/year would be enough to make it a contract that the cops couldn't refuse.

 

[Dan O.]

That's true.... but she need to go to the US Consulate. That's what you do abroad. I'm really curious if the police can stop you from leaving without some kind of court order? Anyone know? Anglo??

According to Raffaele, they stopped him from leaving. Would you have tried to leave in that circumstance?

 

[anglolawyer]

According to Raffaele, they stopped him from leaving. Would you have tried to leave in that circumstance?

I don't know the law but I understand border security most places can and will stop you and leave the courts to figure out whether they did so legally later. I would guess their powers are pretty wide but it's not a subject I know anything about.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't know the law but I understand border security most places can and will stop you and leave the courts to figure out whether they did so legally later. I would guess their powers are pretty wide but it's not a subject I know anything about.

Border security is almost nonexistent between nations of the EU.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Knox statement was coerced. There was nothing voluntary and spontaneous about it and that is a fact whether or not she is guilty of murder or not.

Yes, I fully understand that's what is being said NOW but I'm not aware this was ever raised at the time. It beggars belief that her lawyers wouldn't have raised this in court, or that Knox herself wouldn't have mentioned it to relatives or other visitors in Capanne (this included US Embassy officials I understand). As far as I'm aware no such complaint was made. I'll be happy to be corrected if this isn't the case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When do you mean in regards to stopping him?

According to Raffaele, they stopped him from leaving. Would you have tried to leave in that circumstance?

Dan O.

Do you mean with respect to the interrogation?

 

[anglolawyer]

Border security is almost nonexistent between nations of the EU.

That depends, but certainly you can drive across some borders without any checks at all, as I have done many times. Flying and sailing are not quite so simple.