[Continuation] The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

I’ve told you explicitly, including within the past 24 hours, that this wasn’t a scenario in which the police/PM were targeting two people whom they knew/suspected of being innocent. I even took the trouble - though, clearly, god knows why - of explaining to you in patient detail that by 5th November the police/PM genuinely thought (albeit based on deeply erroneous “reasoning”, tunnel vision, and confirmation bias) that Knox was deeply involved in the murder, and that (at the very least) Sollecito was also committing a serious criminal offence by supporting Knox’s “lie” that the two of them had spent the entire evening/night of the murder together alone in Sollecito’s apartment.
Did you even actually read that post of mine (and, for that matter, several other related posts by me and others)? Why do you keep on with the nonsense that the only alternative narrative to yours is one where the police/PM set out to frame two people whom they knew/suspected to be innocent (then proceed to attack this straw man of yours)/

I've said the same thing to her several times.

 

[Stacyhs]

AHAHAHAHAHAH!!

Quennell’s “reality” about this case is on such a wildly different plane from actual reality that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgustingly risible.

Anyone want to take bets on Quennell’s “100% certainty” actually coming to pass in 2023…?

It will happen shorty after Sollecito's and Gumbel's public admission they lied and apology to Mignini. And when

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs, thanks for setting me on the right track to understanding this case!

You have been told.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have not seen any convincing argument that the police treated Knox and Sollecito any differently from anybody else.

That's because the police chose not to videotape what they, at the very least, suspected would be a crucial interrogation. Why else call Sollecito in at 10:00 PM unless it was unusually important to them and not wait until the next day?

 

[Bill Williams]

That's because the police chose not to videotape what they, at the very least, suspected would be a crucial interrogation. Why else call Sollecito in at 10:00 PM unless it was unusually important to them and not wait until the next day?

I cannot remember from where, but the cops were also concerned that Edda Mellas, Knox's mother, was due in Perugia on the 6th (or 7th). The cops thought that with Mellas in town, she'd insist on Knox 'lawyering up', and they'd lose her for their 'investigation'. From this vantage point, that speaks volumes as to the confidence the cops had in their case.

Remember how Mignini reacted when Knox finally had lawyers, who she met at the very first hearing? Acc. to John Follain, a Mignini-friendly tabloid hack, Follain wrote in 'A Death in Italy' that when Mignini saw Knox talking animatedly with her own lawyers, that he (Mignini), "had lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him". Follain wrote that Mignini noted that Amanda , "avoided the prosecutor's gaze."

Why that was important is anyone's guess, but it was a little creepy that Follain thought it important enough to include. And that it was somehow complimentary to Mignini, that Mignini felt somewhat hurt by Knox ignoring him.

Remember, Follain was a Mignini shill at that point, depending on Mignini sometimes for the very thoughts of investigators as the case plodded along, and as Follain planned to monetize things through his book.

 

[Stacyhs]

I cannot remember from where, but the cops were also concerned that Edda Mellas, Knox's mother, was due in Perugia on the 6th (or 7th). The cops thought that with Mellas in town, she'd insist on Knox 'lawyering up', and they'd lose her for their 'investigation'. From this vantage point, that speaks volumes as to the confidence the cops had in their case.

Remember how Mignini reacted when Knox finally had lawyers, who she met at the very first hearing? Acc. to John Follain, a Mignini-friendly tabloid hack, Follain wrote in 'A Death in Italy' that when Mignini saw Knox talking animatedly with her own lawyers, that he (Mignini), "had lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him". Follain wrote that Mignini noted that Amanda , "avoided the prosecutor's gaze."

Why that was important is anyone's guess, but it was a little creepy that Follain thought it important enough to include. And that it was somehow complimentary to Mignini, that Mignini felt somewhat hurt by Knox ignoring him.

Remember, Follain was a Mignini shill at that point, depending on Mignini sometimes for the very thoughts of investigators as the case plodded along, and as Follain planned to monetize things through his book.

They knew Edda Mellas was flying in on Nov. 6 from the wiretapping of Amanda's phone as AK writes in her book. AK writes that Judge Matteini was afraid Edda would take AK back to the US so she had to be arrested before that could happen. Therefore, the police brought in Raffaele the night before in order to get him to withdraw his claim Knox was with him. Once they got him to say she'd gone out, they had enough to arrest her. Of course, all this will be denied.

 

[Bill Williams]

They knew Edda Mellas was flying in on Nov. 6 from the wiretapping of Amanda's phone as AK writes in her book. AK writes that Judge Matteini was afraid Edda would take AK back to the US so she had to be arrested before that could happen. Therefore, the police brought in Raffaele the night before in order to get him to withdraw his claim Knox was with him. Once they got him to say she'd gone out, they had enough to arrest her. Of course, all this will be denied.

And even then, John Follain wrote that Marco Chiacchiara, lead detective Napolenoi's superior, suggested at the end of the interrogation, even with the 'signed confessions' that Knox and Sollecito be let go and monitored. Mignini suggested otherwise, and Napoleoni ordered the pair detained, to go in front of Matteini for preventative detention.

What strikes me from reading Follain's book, the one most friendly to Mignini, was how unsure the cops actually were early on - about anything.

 

[whoanellie]

Knox and Sollecito were anxious to point out to the police that there had been an intruder.

Given that there had been an intruder and that one of the inhabitants was murdered I would hope so.

 

[Numbers]

Well, he may have a point, but maybe not for the reasons he's hoping for. The ECHR judgement does offer a reopening of "unfair court proceedings" as "just satisfaction" for the injured party, namely Amanda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UybuIA5rSo&t=95s

So we might get a just resolution to the calunnia next year, who knows.

Hoots

TomG, thanks for posting a link to this YouTube video on the supervision of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers. IIRC the link has been posted here previously. The link to the video and much other information is available on the website of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR, an agency of the Council of Europe that assists the CoM in its day-to-day work.

See: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution

The ECHR and CoM use the term "just satisfaction" to refer to the (usually token, that is, small) money award for the violation of the rights of an individual (or company). The ECHR and CoM use the term "individual measures" to refer to the measures taken by the respondent state to redress the violation of rights: this term includes the "just satisfaction" (which in some cases is not awarded) and any other measures intended to restore the individual to his/her status prior to the violation. The ECHR and CoM use the term "general measures" to include the measures taken by the respondent state to prevent, insofar as possible, a repetition of the violation in the future.

Italy provided a preliminary communication (a letter) 10 January 2020 to the CoM agreeing that it had violated Knox's rights as found by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy. This letter stated that the just satisfaction had been paid and that certain basic general measures (largely, translation of the judgment to Italian and posting it to several relevant Italian judicial and government websites). It did not include the required Action Plan, which the CoM continues to await.

See: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

 

[Stacyhs]

Given that there had been an intruder and that one of the inhabitants was murdered I would hope so.

Given that, if AK and RS had been in on the crime, they'd have known that MK's money, credit cards, and cell phones had been or would be taken, so why the need to stage a break-in and then declare nothing had been taken? Just take the objects and leave the door open, which AK knew the roommates would verify had a broken latch. A staged a break-in was entirely superfuous. Just another bit of illogic by the prosecution that the PGP swallow.

 

[LondonJohn]

Given that, if AK and RS had been in on the crime, they'd have known that MK's money, credit cards, and cell phones had been or would be taken, so why the need to stage a break-in and then declare nothing had been taken? Just take the objects and leave the door open, which AK knew the roommates would verify had a broken latch. A staged a break-in was entirely superfuous. Just another bit of illogic by the prosecution that the PGP swallow.

Plus of course it’s one of the many examples of grossly improper investigative technique by the police/PM, and grossly unlawful acceptance of the prosecution narrative by the incompetent lower courts - all of which has been explained in great detail within these threads for over a decade now (including a time well before the Marasca SC said exactly this en route to acquittal).

And this in turn leads to a deliciously satisfying little meta vignette, in which the PGP have thrown in their own trademark brand of illogic and arse/elbow “reasoning”. It goes like this:

1) Pro-innocence commentators and lawyers for Knox/Sollecito claim that the “staged break-in” theory is illogical & fundamentally ill-conceived, that there’s no credible evidence to support the theory, and that Knox/Sollecito should never have been convicted of the staging charge by any competent court acting lawfully.

2) The Italian Supreme Court states that the “staged break-in” theory is illogical & fundamentally ill-conceived, that there’s no credible evidence to support the theory, and that Knox/Sollecito should never have been convicted of the staging charge by any competent court acting lawfully. The SC acquits the pair on this charge.

Therefore………. (In the twisted logic and cognitive dissonance that’s prevalent among pro-guilt commentators)……….

3) This is a clear indication that the Italian Supreme Court was improperly influenced/bullied/corrupted by Knox’s/Sollecito’s lawyers and/or non-legal advocates.

 

[TomG]

TomG, thanks for posting a link to this YouTube video on the supervision of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers. IIRC the link has been posted here previously. The link to the video and much other information is available on the website of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR, an agency of the Council of Europe that assists the CoM in its day-to-day work.

See: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution

The ECHR and CoM use the term "just satisfaction" to refer to the (usually token, that is, small) money award for the violation of the rights of an individual (or company). The ECHR and CoM use the term "individual measures" to refer to the measures taken by the respondent state to redress the violation of rights: this term includes the "just satisfaction" (which in some cases is not awarded) and any other measures intended to restore the individual to his/her status prior to the violation. The ECHR and CoM use the term "general measures" to include the measures taken by the respondent state to prevent, insofar as possible, a repetition of the violation in the future.

Italy provided a preliminary communication (a letter) 10 January 2020 to the CoM agreeing that it had violated Knox's rights as found by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy. This letter stated that the just satisfaction had been paid and that certain basic general measures (largely, translation of the judgment to Italian and posting it to several relevant Italian judicial and government websites). It did not include the required Action Plan, which the CoM continues to await.

See: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

It's the only reason I can think of that would prompt a reopening of procedures as PQ claims. I asked him what he would expect from a reopening of the case. He responded:

Confirmation of the Nencini verdict. Italy cannot last in this nasty limbo forever. It has one of the best police & judicial systems in the world, and hosts THREE UN centers of excellence. All the lawyers thought RS & AK did it. Open secret in Perugia. RS lawyers both implied at trial AK led the pack. RS & AK have fought like dogs almost ever since, we list 35 incidents in a very funny post. RS's book title is a jab at Knox. Both Knox & RS books were huge mistakes, in sustaining an open wound. RS lost badly at diffamazione trial (also Gumbel) to GM, for false claims, and had to pay huge damages. AK can still be sued for her book, GM just met her and gave her a chance to withdraw. Knox was actually pretty happy in prison, her mental condition (probably caused by her dad) was coming right. Now, she barely knows up from down - as GM just saw."

I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Is there any precedent? What follows is just another rambling tirade of bitterness that doesn't support his aspirations.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

Given that there had been an intruder and that one of the inhabitants was murdered I would hope so.

You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."

 

[whoanellie]

You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."

How many trials have there been? Do Knox and Sollecito stand convicted of murder?

(That whooshing sound you keep hearing is the sound of points flying over your head.)

 

[whoanellie]

"Would, could, should" - we could 'what-if?' all day long.

That is precisely the problem with your post about K and S being anxious to inform police that there was an intruder.

 

[Vixen]

That is precisely the problem with your post about K and S being anxious to inform police that there was an intruder.

I was referencing the head of the Police team, Napoleoni, who said as much.

 

[Vixen]

How many trials have there been? Do Knox and Sollecito stand convicted of murder?

Contrary to the misconception of the US press, there has only been one trial. The second instance court did look at specific issues again, which were allowed on appeal.

After a very lengthy trial with all parties fully represented, there was a gulity verdict, which was upheld by the second instance appeal court.

The final Supreme Court were persuaded by maverick Bongiorno (and pressure via political channels [For example, the US State Department intimating that it would not extradite as Hellmann's court caused a 'double jeopardy' situation according to US law]) to annul and it could only do this by using a little used loophole, the Section 230.2 'insufficient evidence' meaning it was futile to send it back to the lower courts. There was a load of waffle about 'press interference' (in Italy the only part that is sub judice is the police investigation part) and a Lazarus-like arising from the dead of Vecchiotti & Conti's legally debunked claims.

The pair got out of jail but the facts found to date stand, even if Knox washing off Kercher's blood from her hands and being present during the murder, together with covering up for Guede, remain as the facts of the matter, even if it is 'insufficient evidence'.

 

[whoanellie]

Contrary to the misconception of the US press, there has only been one trial. The second instance court did look at specific issues again, which were allowed on appeal.

After a very lengthy trial with all parties fully represented, there was a gulity verdict, which was upheld by the second instance appeal court.

The final Supreme Court were persuaded by maverick Bongiorno (and pressure via political channels [For example, the US State Department intimating that it would not extradite as Hellmann's court caused a 'double jeopardy' situation according to US law]) to annul and it could only do this by using a little used loophole, the Section 230.2 'insufficient evidence' meaning it was futile to send it back to the lower courts. There was a load of waffle about 'press interference' (in Italy the only part that is sub judice is the police investigation part) and a Lazarus-like arising from the dead of Vecchiotti & Conti's legally debunked claims.

The pair got out of jail but the facts found to date stand, even if Knox washing off Kercher's blood from her hands and being present during the murder, together with covering up for Guede, remain as the facts of the matter, even if it is 'insufficient evidence'.

So the Italian Supreme Court would have found them guilty if it weren't for political pressure and little used loopholes? Is one of those facts found to date that the extra Y-chromosome DNA could have come from Meredith's girlfriends. Does that still stand?

"Would, could, should" - we could 'what-if?' all day long.

 

[LondonJohn]

You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."

No, Vixen. Next time, Perugia police should do their job properly and without breaking Italian law and codes.

And in #3,577 in a seemingly interminable series, the unintended irony of your final sentence is clearly entirely lost on you. For it was Mignini and Giobbi who not only employed an “investigative” approach founded in just such bollocks, but who both also bragged about these investigative “gifts” of theirs: their Holmes-esque “powers” of intuition were - both men clearly implied to the media in those triumphalist days of mid-November 2007 - the special sauce which had allowed them to “solve the crime” so quickly and brilliantly

 

[LondonJohn]

"Would, could, should" - we could 'what-if?' all day long.

You mean, as in: “What if there had been even a single piece of credible, reliable evidence indicating the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the Kercher murder?”?

 

[LondonJohn]

I was referencing the head of the Police team, Napoleoni, who said as much.

Ah yes, Napoleoni. Whatever else one might think about her, at least her reputation for honesty, probity, professional integrity and fitness for public office are all good-standard.

Oh, hold on……..

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The pair got out of jail but the facts found to date stand, even if Knox washing off Kercher's blood from her hands and being present during the murder, together with covering up for Guede, remain as the facts of the matter, even if it is 'insufficient evidence'.

The supreme court ruled the pair were not involved in the murder. Which of your precious facts-which-remain-facts matter a damn when the fact is the pair were not involved in the murder?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's hilarious that anyone can argue the pair's not being involved in the murder is getting off on a technicality while simultaneously arguing that the findings of the utterly demolished original trial are technically still facts.

 

[Vixen]

The supreme court ruled the pair were not involved in the murder. Which of your precious facts-which-remain-facts matter a damn when the fact is the pair were not involved in the murder?

'Not guilty due to insufficient evidence. They did not commit the act'

This is an oxymoron, right? This is what happens when a mindless pro-forma is added on (the latter part used routinely for not guilty as the court proforma standard layout).

Insufficient evidence means we don't know one way or the other if they committed the act or not.

In law, any clause that contradicts itself repudiates the whole thing.

 

[Vixen]

Ah yes, Napoleoni. Whatever else one might think about her, at least her reputation for honesty, probity, professional integrity and fitness for public office are all good-standard.

Oh, hold on……..

It proves the system works. It proves that Italy are conscientious about ethics and compliance that it has no hesitation in rooting out rule breakers.

Napoleoni was sacked and jailed because she accessed police records to try and find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case). Nothing to do with her competencies as a criminal law cop (after all the best cops think exactly like the best criminals and thus, stay one step ahead).

So the Italian Disciplinary Committee show no fear or favour in stamping out any signs of unethical behaviour.

 

[Bill Williams]

'Not guilty due to insufficient evidence. They did not commit the act'

This is an oxymoron, right?

I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp. If one did not commit the act, there would also be insufficient evidence existing that they had committed that act!

Remove the 'oxy' and you discover the nature of the claim.

Insufficient evidence means we don't know one way or the other if they committed the act or not.

In law, any clause that contradicts itself repudiates the whole thing.

It would be helpful if you would quote Italian law, case-law or otherwise. That you don't renders this as your own, somewhat suspect opinion. 'Insufficient evidence' means that the pair should never have been convicted...... but what do I know? I'm about as competent in Italian law as you!

No one - not even Stefano Maffei - no one in Italy argues using that as a pillar. Not even Mignini.

Then again, look at what you're arguing. Your concession that, "we don't know one way or the other if they committed the act or not", cannot be replaced by your own ironclad certainty that they did.

Nice try.

 

[LondonJohn]

Insufficient evidence means we don't know one way or the other if they committed the act or not.

I still don’t know whether it’s bias or ignorance on your part, or maybe a bit of both.

It’s been explained to you literally dozens of times now that those words do not mean what you think (or want) them to mean.

You demonstrate a fundamental inability to grasp the most central - and the most simple - concept in criminal law: that there must be proof of guilt BARD in order to convict, and that if the evidence does not meet that burden, the court must convict and the accused must retain the presumption of innocence.

No matter how much you try to spin/twist things with your misinterpretation and misunderstanding, you’re not fooling anyone who actually understands this concept. If there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD, the court has to assume innocence and acquit. And incidentally (and you’ve been told this countless times too), “insufficient evidence” in this context means literally anywhere on the scale from “only just falling short of meeting the BARD test”, all the way down to “a million miles away from meeting the BARD test”.

If it might aid your comprehension, perhaps consider this example: suppose that the minimum height requirement for a person to join the London Metropolitan Police is 175cm. Now suppose that a person has failed the height test because they are of “insufficient height”. That ruling would be made if the person was 174.95cm tall. And that exact same ruling would also be made if the person was 96cm tall. Maybe that’ll help you understand. At this point though, I suspect it’ll have as much chance of enlightenment as if, say, one was trying to explain once again to a Moon-landing-hoax CTer that flags can appear to flutter even in the total absence of gaseous atmosphere…….

 

[LondonJohn]

It proves the system works. It proves that Italy are conscientious about ethics and compliance that it has no hesitation in rooting out rule breakers.

Napoleoni was sacked and jailed because she accessed police records to try and find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case). Nothing to do with her competencies as a criminal law cop (after all the best cops think exactly like the best criminals and thus, stay one step ahead).

So the Italian Disciplinary Committee show no fear or favour in stamping out any signs of unethical behaviour.

No, it proves that Napoleoni was and is a nasty, corrupt, lying, manipulative, bullying PoS who should never have even been in a police force, let alone in a position of authority and seniority. Having trouble grasping this one too, eh?

 

[Bill Williams]

No, it proves that Napoleoni was and is a nasty, corrupt, lying, manipulative, bullying PoS who should never have even been in a police force, let alone in a position of authority and seniority. Having trouble grasping this one too, eh?

It was Napoleoni's FIRST case as lead detective. Even in Follain's police-friendly account, the subtext of what he writes is that Napoleoni became unduly myopic about Sollecito's pleading, at Knox's urging, that someone check the pooh in the other toilet.

For some reason that annoyed Napoleoni. Given that her anxiety level on her first case must have been sky high - being a woman, probably hyper-conscious of the testosterone of the other cops watching her.

So she myopicly focused in on Raffaele, and his demand that they look at the pooh. That was Follain's account. Because RS's girlfriend, a resident of the flat and friend of the victim, kept on with him about it.

It went downhill from there. To the point where 15 years later, anonymous forum posters have trouble with the term 'insufficient evidence'.

Raffaele's insistence about the pooh, was simply insufficient as evidence - at least as it could be used against him! Or against Knox, as Napoleoni zero'ed in on. It's actually beside the point if that insistence leaves us none the wiser as to his alleged participation in the crime.

'Insufficient' with regards to the pooh, means that it is crap evidence.

 

[Numbers]

It's the only reason I can think of that would prompt a reopening of procedures as PQ claims. I asked him what he would expect from a reopening of the case. He responded:



I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Is there any precedent? What follows is just another rambling tirade of bitterness that doesn't support his aspirations.

Hoots

TomG, do you remember vacuum tube TV sets - how the vertical or horizontal hold component would go bad and the picture would be a crazy unintelligible distorted version of the correct TV display? Or have you seen a modern LED display, perhaps on a laptop computer, malfunction so that the display was too distorted to make sense?

If so, you have experienced a visual analogy of the PGP communications you are trying to understand. That is, assuming that the Italian judicial system follows the laws of Italy.

The final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Marasca CSC panel for the murder/rape charges can never be changed under Italian law. Similarly, the final acquittal of Knox by the Bonisegna court for the calunnia against the police and Mignini charges can never be changed under Italian law.

The Committee of Ministers is awaiting a formal response, called an Action Plan, from the Government of Italy, explaining the further individual and general measures that Italy will take to redress the violation of Knox's rights under the Convention.

The individual measures would include, at a minimum, the mention that Knox could seek a revision hearing to reverse her conviction for malicious accusation (calunnia) against Lumumba. Note that under Italian law, a prosecutor can also request a revision hearing to reverse that conviction.

Italian law very specifically says that only a final conviction may be reversed by a revision hearing; no final acquittal may be reversed by a revision hearing nor by any other means under Italian law.

Revision hearings are limited to considering only the matters relevant to the final conviction under review for revision. If there is a favorable revision hearing decision, the verdict is changed to only one of the following: dismissal due to the prosecution should never have begun or continued (CPP Article 529), dismissal due to an acquittal (CPP Article 530), or dismissal due to extinction - time of original conviction exceeded the statute of limitations (CPP Article 531; not relevant in Knox's case).

There is absolutely no time limit for seeking a revision under Italian law. Even if a finally convicted person dies, his heir(s) may seek revision of the conviction.

The finding in a final judgment of the ECHR that a convicted person has had an unfair trial is a reason, under Italian law (Constitutional Court* judgment #113 of 2011), for consideration of an application for a revision hearing.

The Italian laws relevant to revision are listed in CPP Articles 629 - 647, and those relevant to the finality of judgments of acquittal and exceptions to the finality of final judgments of conviction ("res judicata" is the legal jargon for the finality of judgments, BTW) are listed in CPP Articles 648 - 654.

* The Italian Constitutional Court is a body entirely separate from the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC). Cases regarding individuals only come before the Constitutional Court if a regular Italian court forwards the case for consideration; this is quite different from the US practice, where all courts are allowed to make decisions regarding constitutionality - although only the state or federal supreme court decision is final, if there is an appeal.

See:

https://canestrinilex.com/assets/Up...-Code-of-Criminal-Procedure-canestriniLex.pdf
(CPP in English translation)

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-procedura-penale/
(CPP in Italian, and with explanations in Italian)

https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447
(CPP on the CSC website)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

'Not guilty due to insufficient evidence. They did not commit the act'

This is an oxymoron, right? This is what happens when a mindless pro-forma is added on (the latter part used routinely for not guilty as the court proforma standard layout).

Insufficient evidence means we don't know one way or the other if they committed the act or not.

In law, any clause that contradicts itself repudiates the whole thing.

So your view is that the supreme court were so unthinking that they just blurted out that the pair did not commit the act without thinking about why they were saying those particular words.

Have you ever considered the possibility you could be mistaken?

 

[Stacyhs]

It's the only reason I can think of that would prompt a reopening of procedures as PQ claims. I asked him what he would expect from a reopening of the case. He responded:

Quote:
Confirmation of the Nencini verdict. Italy cannot last in this nasty limbo forever. It has one of the best police & judicial systems in the world, and hosts THREE UN centers of excellence. All the lawyers thought RS & AK did it. Open secret in Perugia. RS lawyers both implied at trial AK led the pack. RS & AK have fought like dogs almost ever since, we list 35 incidents in a very funny post. RS's book title is a jab at Knox. Both Knox & RS books were huge mistakes, in sustaining an open wound. RS lost badly at diffamazione trial (also Gumbel) to GM, for false claims, and had to pay huge damages. AK can still be sued for her book, GM just met her and gave her a chance to withdraw. Knox was actually pretty happy in prison, her mental condition (probably caused by her dad) was coming right. Now, she barely knows up from down - as GM just saw."

I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Is there any precedent? What follows is just another rambling tirade of bitterness that doesn't support his aspirations.

Hoots

That post reveals PQ has some severe mental illness issues. He's living in his own delusional fantasy land if he believes all that. He really does need some professional help.

 

[Stacyhs]

You 100% know there had been an intruder and you also know that Knox and Sollecito 'had nothing to do with the murder'.

Who needs a trial, eh?


Next time, Perugia Police should just contact whoanellie with his Oracle.

"Woo, I see shades of something dark moving across my crystal ball...something shrouded in ether...the picture is clearing... I see a burglar..."

That just blew up an entire factory of irony meters.

 

[Stacyhs]

It proves the system works. It proves that Italy are conscientious about ethics and compliance that it has no hesitation in rooting out rule breakers.

Napoleoni was sacked and jailed because she accessed police records to try and find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case). Nothing to do with her competencies as a criminal law cop (after all the best cops think exactly like the best criminals and thus, stay one step ahead).

So the Italian Disciplinary Committee show no fear or favour in stamping out any signs of unethical behaviour.

Since gaslighting us hasn't work, you turned to gaslighting yourself...and succeeded.

 

[Stacyhs]

It proves the system works. It proves that Italy are conscientious about ethics and compliance that it has no hesitation in rooting out rule breakers.

Sometimes...as with Napoleoni and the police/Mignini for breaking the law that suspects must have a lawyer present during questioning. And Varriale, the cop in Rome who lied about his partner and him having their guns on them as required when the partner, Cerciello-Rega, was killed. And his immediate superior, Sandro Ottaviani, who covered up that lie for him. Varriale was also caught lying on the witness stand:
"Elder’s lawyer Renato Borzone told the court yesterday his team had discovered an audio message on Varriale’s mobile phone in which a colleague from his precinct told him to keep quiet about an allegedly falsified police report.

“Andrea, you mustn’t speak to anyone about this report. (Sandro) Ottaviani (the precinct’s chief at the time) knows all about it. Come and see me and we’ll fill it in together. Don’t speak a word,” the colleague said in the audio, heard by AFP. "

Then there's this report from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture:

In a report on its March 2019 visit, the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) stated that at Viterbo Prison it heard a considerable number of allegations of physical mistreatment of prisoners by staff, mainly with slaps, punches, and kicks. There was a specific allegation of blows with metal cell keys on an inmate’s head. At Saluzzo Prison the CPT delegation heard additional allegations of physical mistreatment of inmates by staff consisting of punches and kicks. At Biella and Milan Opera Prisons, it received a few allegations of physical mistreatment, consisting mainly of excessive use of force by staff on inmates.
On July 22, authorities closed a police station in Piacenza and arrested 11 Carabinieri officers suspected of involvement in a criminal gang that made illegitimate arrests, tortured arrestees, trafficked narcotics, and carried out extortion from 2017 to 2020. On July 20, prosecutors in Turin opened an investigation into the director and chief of prison guards of the Turin prison for abetting the mistreatment of detainees in at least 10 cases in 2018 and 2019 and for failing to report those guards responsible to authorities.
According to the daily Domani, on April 6, approximately 300 corrections officers rounded up and beat a group of prisoners in the Santa Maria Capua Vetere prison who had protested for more masks, gloves, and sanitizer to protect against the COVID-19. According to testimony given to the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Associazione Antigone, several of the inmates were stripped naked, insulted, and beaten. Prosecutors reportedly opened investigations into 57 corrections officers for torture and abuse of power

.
Italy is pretty good about prosecuting this kind of ilegal and abusive behavior by police and prison staff but it does seem there is plenty to prosecute. One has to wonder how many are not caught or prosecuted? There is no doubt in my mind that Knox's and Sollecito's descriptions of their interrogations are true and that the police lied to cover it up and protect themselves from prosecution. Why else not record them or allow lawyers to be present?

Napoleoni was sacked and jailed because she accessed police records to try and find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case). Nothing to do with her competencies as a criminal law cop (after all the best cops think exactly like the best criminals and thus, stay one step ahead).

So the Italian Disciplinary Committee show no fear or favour in stamping out any signs of unethical behaviour.

Napoleoni was not convicted of accessing the records "in order to find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case)". She was convicted of accessing the records to illegally initiate investigations of a court psychologist who had recommended Napoleoni's ex-husband be given custody of their son. One has to wonder what it takes for a psychologist to advise a father, instead of a mother, be given custody of a young child?

 

[Numbers]

That post reveals PQ has some severe mental illness issues. He's living in his own delusional fantasy land if he believes all that. He really does need some professional help.

It could (also) just be a pack of entertaining lies to provide humor to his base while attempting to enrage or provoke passing PIPs. That is, it's possibly an attempt at "owning the PIPs" similar in concept to "owning the libs".

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owning_the_libs

 

[Numbers]

....

Then there's this report from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture:

Italy is pretty good about prosecuting this kind of ilegal and abusive behavior by police and prison staff but it does seem there is plenty to prosecute. One has to wonder how many are not caught or prosecuted? There is no doubt in my mind that Knox's and Sollecito's descriptions of their interrogations are true and that the police lied to cover it up and protect themselves from prosecution. Why else not record them or allow lawyers to be present?


Napoleoni was not convicted of accessing the records "in order to find dirt on her husband in an acrimonious divorce (civil case)". She was convicted of accessing the records to illegally initiate investigations of a court psychologist who had recommended Napoleoni's ex-husband be given custody of their son. One has to wonder what it takes for a psychologist to advise a father, instead of a mother, be given custody of a young child?

Here's a 2016 CPT report of Italian police mistreatment of arrested persons when they were under police control, by punching, kicking, and beating with batons. Italy was discussing enacting a law against torture at the relevant time. The Minister of the Interior made a public statement that the law would place the police under "psychological distress"; the CPT objected to the Interior Minister's statement.

The credibility of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is undermined each time officials responsible for such offences are not held to account for their actions. If the emergence of information indicative of ill-treatment is not followed by a prompt and effective response, those minded to ill-treat persons deprived of their liberty will quickly come to believe – and with very good reason – that they can do so with impunity. This can only undermine the numerous efforts to promote human rights principles through the professional training of police officers. In this context, the recent statements of the Minister of the Interior to the effect that the introduction of the crime of torture in the Italian legislation would create “psychological distress” for law enforcement officials when performing their duties are certainly not in line with the above-mentioned precepts.
The CPT recommends that the Italian authorities at the highest political level deliver a formal statement to law enforcement officials, reminding them that the rights of persons in their custody must be respected and that the ill-treatment of such persons will be prosecuted and sanctioned accordingly.

Source: https://hudoc.cpt.coe.int/eng?i=p-ita-20160408-en-10
(bold emphasis in the original text)

Italy in 2017 passed a law against torture, including by public officials:

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2017-09-20/italy-new-law-making-torture-a-crime/

However, this law fails to meet European or international standards:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/11/italys-new-law-torture-fails-meet-international-standards

The ECHR final judgment in the case Cestaro v. Italy and others helped motivate Italy to enact a law against torture. Cestaro v. Italy remains a pending Leading case before the Committee of Ministers:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28298

 

[Stacyhs]

A law against torture? What next? A law against a man beating his wife in need of 'correction'? A law against child labor? What will these libs think of next?

 

[Stacyhs]

It could (also) just be a pack of entertaining lies to provide humor to his base while attempting to enrage or provoke passing PIPs. That is, it's possibly an attempt at "owning the PIPs" similar in concept to "owning the libs".

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owning_the_libs

Could be, but in PQ's case...I'd go with mental illness. Extreme narcissism with the inability to ever admit being wrong seems to run pretty strongly through the PQ troops.

 

[Numbers]

A law against torture? What next? A law against a man beating his wife in need of 'correction'? A law against child labor? What will these libs think of next?

Of course, there are laws and then there are practices.

Here's an article about a US case where allegedly a police officer violated laws, including by "setting up" one or more persons under false allegations of crime, including murder, for that officer's own reasons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/25/kansas-city-cop-golubski/

For the Knox - Sollecito case, it seems clear that the 5/6 interrogations were planned to allow for potential violations of defense rights. Gx iobbi, in his testimony before the Massei court, stated that the police intended to bring Knox and Sollecito in for special questioning and that he (and other police?) suspected them prior to the 5/6 November interrogations. Of course, Sollecito was the one called in for questioning and Knox happened to accompany him on her own volition. But if Sollecito was already a suspect, he should have been told he was a suspect, received the warnings listed in CPP Article 64, and been told that he was entitled to bring a lawyer to the questioning. Since none of the provisions of CPP Article 64 were met by the authorities, CPP Article 63 applied, and Sollecito's statements could not be lawfully used against him. But this conduct by the authorities, as well as their conduct during Knox's interrogation without a lawyer, shows that the police were "setting up" Knox and Sollecito. Whether or not the police suspected them (or "knew that they were guilty"*) is irrelevant to the concept of their being set up or framed. Under Italian law, the person who is a suspect or an accused is to be assumed innocent (not guilty), which implies that they are provided the defense rights provided under that law (CPP Articles 60 and 61; Italian Constitution, Articles 24 and 27).

* The police and/or prosecutor cannot under Italian law "know" someone is guilty of a crime if that person has not been finally convicted, according to the Italian Constitution, Article 27. One could argue that the police or prosecutor who witnessed a person committing a crime would "know" that person had committed the crime, but otherwise, the police or prosecutor only suspect or infer that the person has committed a crime.