• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sherlock Holmes said:
So, if Rudy says he wasn't wearing a coat, then he wasn't wearing a coat, but if he says that Amanda was there, then she wasn't there, I fully understand PIP logic.
Click to expand...


O rly? What about when Rudy said Amanda wasn't there? You know, like he did - clearly and unambiguously - in his very first comments about the murder on Skype.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
So, if Rudy says he wasn't wearing a coat, then he wasn't wearing a coat, but if he says that Amanda was there, then she wasn't there, I fully understand PIP logic.
Click to expand...

But don't you see Sherlock that this is the point. You can't really believe anything Rudy has ever said so why believe Amanda was involved when there is no evidence of her being there. Also no credible motive.
 
Numbers said:
kwill said:
The police led her to believe something false. Her mistake was to trust them.

  • They had Patrick's name
  • They knew she'd seen him in the plaza
  • They were bugging his bar
  • They saw the famous See You Later, Have a Good Night message
  • They thought it meant she'd been there
  • The translator encouraged her to imagine what had happened
  • The translator told her it was normal to block the memory of a traumatic event

Even without the smack to the back of her head or the threats that she'd never see her family again, they clearly thought they'd gotten her to tell them what they already believed had happened. She didn't objectively know. It wasn't a false accusation, much less a confession. It was just a young woman getting rolled.
Click to expand...

These are all sound points. From an ECHR view, the failure to warn her of her right to remain silent, the police compelling her to speak under threat and acts of violence (slaps) as she has alleged, and the failure of the police to provide her with a lawyer are all significant reasons why her statements may not be used to convict her of a crime related to those statements.

Anglo and I are looking at whether there are some other, possibly more technical or more difficult to define, reasons why her conviction for calunnia was unfair as judged under the ECHR.
Click to expand...
.
It seems to me it is just one more thing that someone else did, the interrogators in this instance, that Amanda got blamed for.

The police lied and told her they knew and had proof she was at the cottage, they bullied her and convinced her she had temporary amnesia in order to get her to accept their version, they wrote the statement for her, they get her to sign it, and then later they blamed her, in fact charged her with calunnia for making an incorrect statement.

The statement was the interrogator's, not Amanda's. Had they simply accepted what she said in the first place, there never would have been a false statement made that accused Lumumba.

Cody
.
 
NancyS said:
And I'd forgotten all about your poop theories, I'd love to know how you are so knowledgeable on poo smells? Have you been experimenting at home and leaving your poo for 14 hours, or do you live someone that does regular floaters? :D

I'm now picturing you as Gillian McKeith :) - and she is definitely a doctor in the Stefanoni style
Click to expand...

There is a real truth about poop. Sometimes it stinks very bad and sometimes it can hardly be smelled at all. This depends on what we eat and our health . Sherlock 's insistence that the smell must of been overwhelming is really not based in reality .
 
Machiavelli said:
Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I love Italian legal logic; the legal system must have been derived from Lewis Carrol. Calunnia is the crime of falsely denouncing someone, but the denouncing is not sufficiently bureaucratic to initiate an investigation into whether the denunciation is true. So Mignini will just argue we this is an untrue claim because Knox failed to complete the police abuse form in triplicate. Is a claim of truth a defence against calunnia? Presumably the prosecution will have to prove it is untrue? Or is this another case where the burden of proof is put on the defendant?
 
Machiavelli said:
Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.
Click to expand...

Italy should get written up for that, too, just like it got written up by the Committee on Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment for 1) not providing suspects with lawyers, and 2) not investigating police assaults on people who only suffer injuries healable within 20 days.
 
NancyS said:
And I'd forgotten all about your poop theories, I'd love to know how you are so knowledgeable on poo smells? Have you been experimenting at home and leaving your poo for 14 hours, or do you live someone that does regular floaters? :D

I'm now picturing you as Gillian McKeith :) - and she is definitely a doctor in the Stefanoni style
Click to expand...

I have a dog.
 
Machiavelli said:
Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.
Click to expand...


Hi Machiavelli,
Nice tweeting today, thanks!


From what I recall, Amanda's parents were sued for libel.
Here's a quick link to an old article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/amanda-knox-parents-italian-police

Was not Mignini a part of this lawsuit
or was it only the cops who interrogated Amanda Knox that night?
RW
 
Planigale said:
Sometimes I love Italian legal logic; the legal system must have been derived from Lewis Carrol. Calunnia is the crime of falsely denouncing someone, but the denouncing is not sufficiently bureaucratic to initiate an investigation into whether the denunciation is true. So Mignini will just argue we this is an untrue claim because Knox failed to complete the police abuse form in triplicate. Is a claim of truth a defence against calunnia? Presumably the prosecution will have to prove it is untrue? Or is this another case where the burden of proof is put on the defendant?
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, someone should remind him that Italy is in a financial crisis and not to waste money on pursuing a victimless crime. It is not as if they wasted anytime on investigating the allegation, suspended any police officers etc. They just ignored it until Mignini decides to waste money on it. What is the public interest here? All it does it make Mignini look petty and corrupt to the rest of the world. How good is it when the police present then are asked if they ever abused their position of authority? Dubious officers as your witnesses that they 'never touched a hair of her head m'lud'.
 
CNN's Chris Cuomo is the one US journalist who really put it to Amanda Knox, I'll give him that. His assessment after browbeating her on national TV was that she was probably innocent.

But listen to what he says to Steve Moore in this CNN piece. Cuomo believes that Knox is probably innocent, but could be held accountable for inexplicably telegraphing to (apparently hapless) seasoned invesitgators that she was guilty....

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/25/newday-panel-amanda-knox-italy-supreme-court.cnn

The thesis of Chris Cuomo's question about Amanda's behaviour is that she, while innocent, actually set out to confuse seasoned investigators. Does Cuomo really believe that is a criticism of Knox?, or of the investigators who could be duped by an innocent who telegraphed guilt, but while actually innocent? The thesis makes no sense, and thank you Steve Moore, for pointing that out to Cuomo!

Out of all the bizarre things that happened today, Chris Cuomo provided the bizarriest.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
CNN's Chris Cuomo is the one US journalist who really put it to Amanda Knox, I'll give him that. His assessment after browbeating her on national TV was that she was probably innocent.

But listen to what he says to Steve Moore in this CNN piece. Cuomo believes that Knox is probably innocent, but could be held accountable for inexplicably telegraphing to (apparently hapless) seasoned invesitgators that she was guilty....

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/25/newday-panel-amanda-knox-italy-supreme-court.cnn

The thesis of Chris Cuomo's question about Amanda's behaviour is that she, while innocent, actually set out to confuse seasoned investigators. Does Cuomo really believe that is a criticism of Knox?, or of the investigators who could be duped by an innocent who telegraphed guilt, but while actually innocent? The thesis makes no sense, and thank you Steve Moore, for pointing that out to Cuomo!

Out of all the bizarre things that happened today, Chris Cuomo provided the bizarriest.
Click to expand...


Burleigh called him out too, between the two of them they put Cuomo in his place. He looked like an idiot.
 
lonepinealex said:
Burleigh called him out too, between the two of them they put Cuomo in his place. He looked like an idiot.
Click to expand...

I agree. And he's on OUR SIDE! He just believes that Amanda perhaps consciously set out to confuse the cops that she might be guilty with her.......

........ are you ready for it?

Behaviour.

I now like Machiavelli better than Cuomo! And that's saying something.
 
Bill Williams said:
I agree. And he's on OUR SIDE! He just believes that Amanda perhaps consciously set out to confuse the cops that she might be guilty with her.......

........ are you ready for it?

Behaviour.

I now like Machiavelli better than Cuomo! And that's saying something.
Click to expand...


Actually I think Cuomo was lamely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to make the show look less one-sided, and uphold his reputation as a hard-case interviewer. You could tell by the way he brought up his tough interview of Amanda when he tried to defend himself against Moore and Burleigh's scorn. Cuomo knows Amanda is innocent, he just doesn't want to sacrifice his notion of journalistic impartiality.
 
Bill Williams said:
I agree. And he's on OUR SIDE! He just believes that Amanda perhaps consciously set out to confuse the cops that she might be guilty with her.......

........ are you ready for it?

Behaviour.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he meant at all. I think he was saying that Amanda acting in a way some found weird and then her and Raffaele signing those statements made things worse. The real onus ought to be on the police and prosecutor for having them there signing statements in the middle of the night without lawyers but being a former prosecutor himself he likely would prefer to believe they must have had a good reason.

Oddly enough there were reasons to be suspicious of Amanda, they just weren't any of the stupid reasons they gave in court or the myths flying about early in the case. However being as they were things like Amanda forgetting about Patrick's text shortly before the murder, Patrick calling the Questura for Amanda the day of the discovery and then Patrick meeting with her on the fifth (before they went to the police station) the police and prosecution don't want to remind people that they had 'evidence' against Patrick too as they've been so successful convincing people that it was all Amanda's fault Patrick was arrested.
 
Last edited:
lonepinealex said:
Actually I think Cuomo was lamely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to make the show look less one-sided, and uphold his reputation as a hard-case interviewer. You could tell by the way he brought up his tough interview of Amanda when he tried to defend himself against Moore and Burleigh's scorn. Cuomo knows Amanda is innocent, he just doesn't want to sacrifice his notion of journalistic impartiality.
Click to expand...

Yes, Cuomo is a special kind of stupid. Thank god his father was governor, lord knows what that imbecile would be doing otherwise.
 
lonepinealex said:
Actually I think Cuomo was lamely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to make the show look less one-sided, and uphold his reputation as a hard-case interviewer. You could tell by the way he brought up his tough interview of Amanda when he tried to defend himself against Moore and Burleigh's scorn. Cuomo knows Amanda is innocent, he just doesn't want to sacrifice his notion of journalistic impartiality.
Click to expand...

I think this is probably it, though I suspect Cuomo has spent some time at PMF and despite his protestations to the contrary it was obvious he doesn't know the case all that well.

As soon as he claimed how well he knew the case I would have asked him this question: 'We know why Amanda and Raffaele were arrested, they went before Matteini on November 8th and the police presented their case. That Report has been available online for five years at least, can you name one piece of evidence from it that hasn't been proven mistaken or irrelevant in court?'

That would reveal his ignorance and pound home the fact that not even the prosecution believes much of anything they arrested them for is valid now, the only real exception being Nencini resurrecting the claim regarding the 112 call that even Massei dismissed in a parenthetical aside.
 
Last edited:
NancyS said:
Then use a pooper scooper, don't leave it around your house for 14-hours :eek:

I think this song may be the musical equivalent of your poop theories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2JUssu_x5E
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand, I don't have any poop theories, it's the PIP's that seem to. Amanda didn't smell it, she has never said she did, she does say she saw it though, and from where she pointed out that she saw it, it is not possible, now if any PIP's want to explain that, then it is their theory. This is exactly why trying to reason with almost anyone on here is not possible, they can only see thing through Amanda's innocent eyes.
 
anglolawyer said:
No, you are right, Hellman does not cite the specific evidential basis for his findings but it cannot be inferred that those findings are not grounded in evidence. Where else, aside from the defence expert, can he have got all that stuff about her mental state? After setting it all out, he says:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

I am guessing questions about her mental capacity were put to her expert and that he was not able to go so far as to say she lacked the ability to form criminal intent. We need a transcript of his evidence.
Click to expand...

Another take on your highlighted clause. Hellmann is subtly referring to any violation of CPP Articles 188 and 64 para. 2. He's saying that even if the police violated these laws, Amanda Knox must be responsible for her speech under their interrogation (and immediately afterwards). These procedural laws prohibit altering the "moral freedom" of self-determination of a person. IMO, the highlighted statement by Hellmann is a clear reference to this alteration of a person's self-determination, in which the person is made to say something against his or her own wishes or intent. Also to be noted, in CPP Art. 64, para. 3, the warnings not given to Amanda during her questioning. In CPP Art. 64, para. 3-bis, it is disclosed that statements made under questioning may not be used if the witness is not warned. Thus, if the Italians obeyed their own laws, but acknowledged that they had failed to give these warnings, since Amanda was not warned, the statement she allegedly gave naming Lumumba could not itself be used against Lumumba!

CPP Article 188 Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering

1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

CPP Article 64 General rules for questioning

2. {Same text as Article 188}

3. Prior to the questioning, the person must be warned that:
a) his statements can always be used against him;
b) {except for identification information} he has the right to silence, but the proceedings will in any case continue their course;
c) if he makes any statement on facts concerning the liability of others, he will become a witness in relation to those facts {unless the other is a co-accused}.

3-bis. If the provisions of para. 3 (a) and (b) are not fulfilled, the statements made by the person questioned shall be excluded. If the person questioned is not warned according to para. 3 (c), the statements that he may have made on the facts regarding the liability of others shall not be used against them, and he shall not become a witness in relation to those specific facts.
 
Last edited:
The Daily Mail reports:

However, it has now been revealed Knox's lawyers have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to stop the final ratification of her conviction for murder.
They have asked for the case to be suspended, pending the acceptance of her appeal to the European Court against a conviction for slander.

I already suggested that about a year ago. If the ECHR upheld her application that her calumny conviction was unfair then it could not be used to buttress the murder charge and would also mean, probably, that the whole process was fatally tainted by unfairness.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What you don't seem to understand, I don't have any poop theories, it's the PIP's that seem to. Amanda didn't smell it, she has never said she did, she does say she saw it though, and from where she pointed out that she saw it, it is not possible, now if any PIP's want to explain that, then it is their theory. This is exactly why trying to reason with almost anyone on here is not possible, they can only see thing through Amanda's innocent eyes.
Click to expand...

This is what is utter madness - how on earth can you know exactly where Amansa would need to stand to see the poo? And I doubt whether Amanda would be able to remember exactly where she was standing either, especially years later! Getting fixated on this kind of nonsense and thinking this is evidence of anything, is just very bizarre:confused:
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What you don't seem to understand, I don't have any poop theories, it's the PIP's that seem to. Amanda didn't smell it, she has never said she did, she does say she saw it though, and from where she pointed out that she saw it, it is not possible, now if any PIP's want to explain that, then it is their theory. This is exactly why trying to reason with almost anyone on here is not possible, they can only see thing through Amanda's innocent eyes.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that Amanda being aware of the dump in the toilet is either proof or evidence that she was involved as otherwise you cannot find it believable that she would have noticed? Is that a fair assessment of your position?

That claim, and your inability to understand why innocentisti don't take it seriously is just a reminder that you're a victim in this case as well, which goes for all the guilters actually. Not as much as some because you've not spent as much time on the case or taken as extreme a position, but anyone who dismisses ex-FBI agents and forensic scientists of the caliber of Bruce Budowle and Peter Gill but thinks the utter crap they dream up has validity as evidence have had their cognitive abilities damaged by this case.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
The Daily Mail reports:

However, it has now been revealed Knox's lawyers have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to stop the final ratification of her conviction for murder.
They have asked for the case to be suspended, pending the acceptance of her appeal to the European Court against a conviction for slander.

I already suggested that about a year ago. If the ECHR upheld her application that her calumny conviction was unfair then it could not be used to buttress the murder charge and would also mean, probably, that the whole process was fatally tainted by unfairness.
Click to expand...

That is quite interesting. The DM language is not fully clear, I assume the lawyers are asking the CSC to delay a decision until the ECHR moves on the application relating to calunnia.
 
anglolawyer said:
The Daily Mail reports:

However, it has now been revealed Knox's lawyers have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to stop the final ratification of her conviction for murder.
They have asked for the case to be suspended, pending the acceptance of her appeal to the European Court against a conviction for slander.

I already suggested that about a year ago. If the ECHR upheld her application that her calumny conviction was unfair then it could not be used to buttress the murder charge and would also mean, probably, that the whole process was fatally tainted by unfairness.
Click to expand...


Verrrrrrrry interesting indeed.

Did this request (from Dalla Vedova?) came in the Knox defence arguments before the SC today? Or in a written submission? The article leaves it very unclear.

And is it fair to say that if this request has been made, then does that in turn suggest that Knox's legal team might have received some level of indication from the ECHR regarding the admissibility of the application?
 
anglolawyer said:
The Daily Mail reports:

However, it has now been revealed Knox's lawyers have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to stop the final ratification of her conviction for murder.
They have asked for the case to be suspended, pending the acceptance of her appeal to the European Court against a conviction for slander.

I already suggested that about a year ago. If the ECHR upheld her application that her calumny conviction was unfair then it could not be used to buttress the murder charge and would also mean, probably, that the whole process was fatally tainted by unfairness.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link? I cannot quite understand what that excerpt means. Are they asking the ECHR to intervene, or the ISC to delay judgement until there's a judgement on that by the ECHR?

Would this be a positive sign for the likelihood of the acceptance of that case by the ECHR?
 
NancyS said:
This is what is utter madness - how on earth can you know exactly where Amansa would need to stand to see the poo? And I doubt whether Amanda would be able to remember exactly where she was standing either, especially years later! Getting fixated on this kind of nonsense and thinking this is evidence of anything, is just very bizarre:confused:
Click to expand...

What you do not seem to understand, is she pointed out exactly where she was standing to the Prosecutor when asked before her first trial, a picture was taken from that same spot, and guess what, you can't even come close to seeing it, not to mention, the person taking the picture was probably quite a bit taller than Amanda's 5 foot, 4 inch stature.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What you do not seem to understand, is she pointed out exactly where she was standing to the Prosecutor when asked before her first trial, a picture was taken from that same spot, and guess what, you can't even come close to seeing it, not to mention, the person taking the picture was probably quite a bit taller than Amanda's 5 foot, 4 inch stature.
Click to expand...


Good grief. Is this it for your argument?


...I had just typed out a list of counter-arguments but it's all so stupid that I can't even. Deleted 'em. Life's too short.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What you do not seem to understand, is she pointed out exactly where she was standing to the Prosecutor when asked before her first trial, a picture was taken from that same spot, and guess what, you can't even come close to seeing it, not to mention, the person taking the picture was probably quite a bit taller than Amanda's 5 foot, 4 inch stature.
Click to expand...

This is your case? Ok, I asked for evidence..... and you gave it. Thanks for that at least. You are now head and shoulders above many.
 
Numbers said:
That is quite interesting. The DM language is not fully clear, I assume the lawyers are asking the CSC to delay a decision until the ECHR moves on the application relating to calunnia.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like they might have applied for Interim Measures directly to the echr, but you're right, it isn't clear.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What you do not seem to understand, is she pointed out exactly where she was standing to the Prosecutor when asked before her first trial, a picture was taken from that same spot, and guess what, you can't even come close to seeing it, not to mention, the person taking the picture was probably quite a bit taller than Amanda's 5 foot, 4 inch stature.
Click to expand...

You ignore the scientists and experts and this is your argument - are you going to argue that you can always remember exactly where you were standing when you smell your dogs poop? Do you mark the spot? Has your dog done a poop in Perugia so that you can test out your poop theory? Thanks for the laugh though :D
 
Diocletus said:
Italy should get written up for that, too, just like it got written up by the Committee on Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment for 1) not providing suspects with lawyers, and 2) not investigating police assaults on people who only suffer injuries healable within 20 days.
Click to expand...
.
She should also have been examined by a doctor.

Cuffs to the back of the head are essentially rabbit punches and can cause severe injury. That is why they are outlawed in virtually all combat sports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_punch

Cody
.
 
anglolawyer said:
The Daily Mail reports:

However, it has now been revealed Knox's lawyers have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to stop the final ratification of her conviction for murder.
They have asked for the case to be suspended, pending the acceptance of her appeal to the European Court against a conviction for slander.

I already suggested that about a year ago. If the ECHR upheld her application that her calumny conviction was unfair then it could not be used to buttress the murder charge and would also mean, probably, that the whole process was fatally tainted by unfairness.
Click to expand...

Wtf!!! This is a major development if it's true.

And Anglo - your reasoning is sound. A fair few of us have argued this.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What you don't seem to understand, I don't have any poop theories, it's the PIP's that seem to. Amanda didn't smell it, she has never said she did, she does say she saw it though, and from where she pointed out that she saw it, it is not possible, now if any PIP's want to explain that, then it is their theory. This is exactly why trying to reason with almost anyone on here is not possible, they can only see thing through Amanda's innocent eyes.
Click to expand...


Yes, toy do have a theory on the poop. But you are only presenting your conclusion and not permitting an evaluation of the evidence. We have as a fact that Amanda knew of the existence of the poo. We have Amanda's earliest statements attesting to the existence of the poo which we see in her email home and presume that this is a recap of what she had been telling the police. In that statement, Amanda says:
After I got dressed I went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that Filomena and Laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my hair and it was after I was putting back the dryer that I noticed the **** that was left in the toilet, something that definitely no one in out house would do.​

A key word in that statement is "noticed". Amanda doesn't say she saw the **** in the toilet. From where the hair driers were kept on the counter just outside the door, there wouldn't be anything visible. I even showed with photos that at normal eye height from in front of the sink it is not visible. But a little higher or a little closer and Rudy's **** is in full view. Amanda would not see the **** left in the toilet but as she moves closer to the door, her long hair freshly dried warming the suspended particles near her face, she could definitely notice the smell and move closer to investigate and see.

On the other side, how is any of this an indication of guilt?
 
ECHR

More from the Mail:

Suggests this has been confirmed by Dalla Vedova.

"As the slander is considered circumstantial evidence in her murder trial, her legal team asked for the murder trial to be suspended, Knox defence lawyer Carlo Della Vedova confirmed.

But the move has left representatives of the Kercher family shocked.
The Kercher's lawyer Vieri Fabiani said: ‘If the Strasbourg court condemns the Italian Republic, what would it change? What could it usefully serve? Absolutely nothing.’"

And look at Fabiani's remarks - another Italian who just doesn't understand the significance of the whole ECHR package.

This is sounding better. But will the court agree, if asked?

So, I think Diocletus is right - this would be for 'interim measures'. What do you think, Numbers?
 
NancyS said:
This is what is utter madness - how on earth can you know exactly where Amansa would need to stand to see the poo? ... :confused:
Click to expand...


Sherlock knows this only because of my dedication to finding the truth. I posted the comparison photos taken by the Spheron camera:

picture.php
 
Kauffer said:
More from the Mail:

Suggests this has been confirmed by Dalla Vedova.

"As the slander is considered circumstantial evidence in her murder trial, her legal team asked for the murder trial to be suspended, Knox defence lawyer Carlo Della Vedova confirmed.

But the move has left representatives of the Kercher family shocked.
The Kercher's lawyer Vieri Fabiani said: ‘If the Strasbourg court condemns the Italian Republic, what would it change? What could it usefully serve? Absolutely nothing.’"

And look at Fabiani's remarks - another Italian who just doesn't understand the significance of the whole ECHR package.

This is sounding better. But will the court agree, if asked?

So, I think Diocletus is right - this would be for 'interim measures'. What do you think, Numbers?
Click to expand...

Is Fabiani a real lawyer? That has to be one if the most obtuse statements I've ever heard. More kercher rubbish.

The filing makes me think that dellavadova had a bad reaction to the proceedings today. I also can't believe that the echr would grant this relief; however, if they do, the case is over.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom