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

[Bill Williams]

This is what was being said about Hellmann:

Source: Macchiavelli


Let's face it, Hellmann was brought in to fix it.

"Macchiavelli" is your source?

You're joking, right?

 

[Stacyhs]

People in an acrimonious divorce do behave disgracefully and yes, Napoleoni abuse her office by trawling the police records. She must have known she'd be caught surely, as a close relative of mine works for the Home Office and has access to the police records. However, China Walls are inbuilt and anyone using the system to look up anybody else would have every single keystroke logged and reported. All I can think is that Napoleoni must have been emotionally and mentally unsound when she did it.

You're making excuses for a police officer who abused her position and broke the law. Not only that, but she used her position as head of the Flying Squad to involve subordinates in her illegal actions ending in their own convictions including prison sentences. Do you think all those subordinates willingly and freely risked prison in order to help Napoleoni in her own personal vendetta?

Your problem is that you keep claiming that the Italians should have followed American protocol but in Europe, 'record' does not mean 'video transcript' it can mean a straight forward tape recorder, which was the usual method until very recently.

Your problem is that you keep making excuses for illegal actions by the police. Did, in fact, the police record...video or audio... or even make a written transcript of the interrogations? Hint: No. They didn't even note the times the interrogations began and ended as required.

"The police shall record information according to the provisions of Article 373, Recording of acts, including questioning of the suspect, and minutes shall be recorded according to the methods of Article 134, which include use of a stenotype machine or hand written notes accompanied by an audio or audiovisual recording."

In Italy, the requirement for a suspect to have a lawyer during questioning is not a matter of "American protocol" but of Italian law. See CPP 350, paragraphs 2,3, and 7. That they were suspects that night has already been settled by both the Court of Cassation and the ECHR.


Napoleoni is a convicted criminal and intentional liar. Stop making excuses for her.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then it is a great pity that neither of Knox' or Sollecito's ultra-multimillion euro attorneys ever took the trouble to lodge a formal complaint, which would have taken them less than an hour to set out, and as per Italian Bar Standard Rules.

You were saying just 9 minutes earlier.....

Why do you want to keep going over stuff that was already dealt with in court and discussed numerous times already in the thread? If you listened, that might be fair enough, but given your propensity to stonewall and then present the same stuff over and over again, one has to ask whether your questions are in good faith or just time wasting for sport.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you are at the crime scene when police arrive and you lie to the police, then you are likely to become a suspect. Filomena was also strongly suspected merely by dint of also being a resident there and in a nearby vicinity as of the time of the crime.

If you live at the crime scene and call the police when you discover the crime, how is that suspicious? NOT calling them would be suspicious. Knox told no lies; the police and Mignini jumped to erroneous conclusions such as the break-in being staged with zero investigation and covering the body is something only a woman would do.

Filomena was never 'strongly' suspected. What an absurd claim.

 

[LondonJohn]

This was already discussed in 2016. In any case, apart from procedure, Italy's criminal law system is quite similar to the UK's. If you get a guilty verdict at trial and then succeed in getting an appeal on points of law and are still found guilty, you do not suddenly get out of jail with 'insufficient evidence'.

I can guarantee without looking that virtually all of the cases annulled without deferment was where the defendant had been found not guilty at either the merits trial or the appeal court or both. And it would have been the prosecutor doing the appealing as a defendant would not appeal a 'not guilty' verdict.

So in short: no, you have failed to provide even a single piece of evidence to support your claim. I’ll leave it to others to correct you on this one more time (loving your evidence-free “guarantee without looking” though LMAO).

On this and on every single other piece of analysis and interpretation, you’re either partly or wholly incorrect. Many times, breathtakingly so. And your views appear completely impervious to correction or explanation. It seems your opinions are now somehow baked-in, and any incorrectness whatsoever simply isn’t an option for you, full stop. You can’t, for example, even accept making a small and slightly consequential mistake over what reference identifiers the authorities had for Guede on account of his immigration: you seemingly couldn’t even say “my mistake” for that, choosing instead to obfuscate.

It’s clear to me that challenging your (serially-incorrect) views on anything to do with this case - whether of major or minor significance - is a complete waste of time for anyone with the correct understanding…… outside of its use in educating other readers as to 1) why any given view of yours is wrong, and 2) what the correct analysis is. I can’t be bothered to do it any longer.

 

[Stacyhs]

What has that got to do with this thread?

Ummmm...do I have to explain to you why water is wet?

Is 'narcissist' the latest trendy 'hate' label?

No, it's a personality disorder exhibited by a need for admiration and an inability to admit error. PQ continues to write/publish extremely biased and inaccurate diatribes and then comments on them when no one else does. He even posts articles that have nothing to do with the Kercher case on his hate website long after anyone but 4-5 PGP post there. As the saying goes: if the shoe fits, wear it.

When reasoned debate fails, the helpless can always find a choice profanity, mental illness of the day or other ad hominem as a form of attack.

So true. Would calling Sollecito and Knox "sociopaths" and "thrill killers" count? How about calling someone a racist, a sexist, and a liar?

If it makes you feel better.

Did you?

 

[Stacyhs]

I did not say they were stupid. They were persuaded to use the 'rich man's get-out clause' even though they knew perfectly well that the 'not proven' verdict was frowned on and rarely used (but seems to have been left there so that influential politicians have a loophole).
I dare say OJ Simpson would also have got a similar verdict.

Speaking of the highlighted: despite multiple requests for evidence that 503,par. 2 is a "loophole" or "rare" and used for the mafia and politicians, you have failed to do so. Maybe you can cite evidence that it's also, apparently now, also a "rich's get-out clause" rather than just a made up factoid.

When something cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever, most people would conclude it may not be true and stop repeating it.

 

[LondonJohn]

What? That was correct:

History Extra

*sigh* that’s the satan-damn point. The Germans were being likened to the Hun. But then people actually began calling Germans “the Hun”. More substandard comprehension…..

 

[Stacyhs]

Good job then that they electronically audio-recorded Knox’s and Sollecito’s interrogations on 5th/6th November. In the regional police HQ. In a room equipped with functioning audio recording equipment.

Oh, wait…

(Wasn’t there some astonishing misdirection being put forward later on about budgetary constraints being a feasible reason why no audio cassettes were used….?)

That would have been Mignini:

CNN Mignini Interview, pg 14:

12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?
13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not in the confrontations with Amanda or with anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].

They had money for recording RS and AK in the waiting room and all of the Brit girls, but not the two critical interrogations of the people they had already decided were involved.
AFAIK, there was no recording of Lumumba's interrogation either. Was he only a 'witness' not a suspect the morning of Nov. 6th?

 

[Stacyhs]

No, you cannot downplay this as 'inappropriate'. It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' Meredith's devastated friends - bullies laugh at other people's misfortune - and Sollecito was teaching Knox how to say 'I spit on your dead relative's grave' in Italian. Bragging about how Mez' throat was slit and how she had died in agony. Knox was on a Joanna Dehenney-style high, yelling that she had just made up a song about murder and that she 'could murder a pizza'. Completely off her head - the murderer's high. Essays written about rape and murder of young women.

Wow...I've seen some twisting of the facts to conform with someone's bias, but this makes a pretzel look like straight. Please stop resorting to ridiculous hyperbole to further your agenda.

I'm not going to bother with refuting your falsehoods; I'll just be accused of wanting "to keep going over stuff that was already dealt with in court and discussed numerous times already in the thread" and "present the same stuff over and over again".

No way was that 'just an inappropriate teenage reaction'. At best it reveals a truly nasty and unpleasant character and at worst...

While Napoleoni was just a woman going through an acrimonious divorce.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, first stage of complaint should be the person you have a complaint against. Give them a chance to make amends.

If police behaviour led to Knox and Sollecito being unfairly arraigned to court then the complaint should have been made before the arraignment.

An official from the US Embassy visited regularly while Knox was on remand and he or she didn't mention any complaints from Knox, either. That is the function of the ambassador.

Oh, dear...would, could, should.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Figure of speech. How would she have knowledge of Lumumba's innocence or guilt if she had nothing to do with it? Yet this is what Marasca-Bruno claim, despite setting out highly incriminating legal facts found.

This only confuses you because you can only ever see Knox through guilt-coloured glasses.

Why would an innocent person, who has been coerced and badgered by the police to the point that they try to deflect blame onto someone, indeed anyone else, know or care whether the person they drag in is innocent or guilty? They're clutching at straws, not enacting some cunning plan.

 

[Stacyhs]

Point being, that as soon as Knox made the claim, PM Mignini was required by law to investigate it. He didn't. If you know different, please provide the citation.

Instead of following the law, he slaps a defamation suit on her parents for daring to repeat what their daughter told them, testified to, what they believed was the truth.

Mignini used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits to intimidate people. But, I'm sure are those who will defend all his lawsuits...none of which he won, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is what was being said about Hellmann:

Source: Macchiavelli
Let's face it, Hellmann was brought in to fix it.

An anonymous poster citing an anonymous lawyer.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Point being, that as soon as Knox made the claim, PM Mignini was required by law to investigate it. He didn't. If you know different, please provide the citation.

If the aim is to pervert the course of justice, then you can be prosecuted.

Best to get a lawyer to lodge the complaint and refrain from going to a PR agency. Courts don't like people trying a case outside court.

 

[Stacyhs]

Figure of speech. How would she have knowledge of Lumumba's innocence or guilt if she had nothing to do with it?

She wouldn't...but it wasn't exactly hard for her to infer that he was suspected by the police when the moment her text to Lumumba is discovered on her phone she's taken for formal interrogation where she's repeatedly told that she took him there and has amnesia. The drilled her to inculpate him until she finally "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles, " as de Felice so proudly and publicly declared.

Yet this is what Marasca-Bruno claim, despite setting out highly incriminating legal facts found.

The only 'incriminating legal fact' found was her coerced and illegal statement which she immediately withdrew in hours. A statement made while her right...no legal requirement... to a lawyer was denied.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen earlier claimed that Sollecito had never withdrawn his interrogation claim that Knox had gone out the night of Nov. 1. She wanted a court document as evidence he had. Happily provided:

Matteini motivation:

…during the hearing for the confirmation of the arrest, Raffaele Sollecito said that he had spent the whole night between 1 and 2 November with Amanda Knox, that he had returned to his flat around 8:00 pm-8:30 pm, that he had had dinner with his girlfriend, that he had realized she had received text messages on her mobile phone, that she had told him she would not need to got to work to the pub Le Chic that night, as she had been told via text message on her mobile, that they had gone to bed, they had woken up the next morning…..

 

[Bill Williams]

Instead of following the law, he slaps a defamation suit on her parents for daring to repeat what their daughter told them, testified to, what they believed was the truth.

Mignini used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits to intimidate people. But, I'm sure are those who will defend all his lawsuits...none of which he won, as far as I'm aware.

It was no less than John Follain who wrote the article which appeared in an English paper, and Follain quoted Edda and Curt's repetition of Knox's claim.

Was Follian named as co-accused by Mignini? No. Was the newspaper similarly sued for printing the defamation? No.

Follain had done many favours for Mignini, acting as if a PR machine for the ever shifting case against the pair. Mignini repaid him by not suing him, when it was his own piece in which the defamation was repeated.

Why would Mignini do that? Some time later John Follain's book, 'A Death in Italy' comes out. In it, Follain seems to have unparalleled access to Mignini and the cops, often passing on the cops' very thoughts.

 

[Numbers]

]No, first stage of complaint should be the person you have a complaint against. Give them a chance to make amends.[/HILITE]

If police behaviour led to Knox and Sollecito being unfairly arraigned to court then the complaint should have been made before the arraignment.

An official from the US Embassy visited regularly while Knox was on remand and he or she didn't mention any complaints from Knox, either. That is the function of the ambassador.

1. This concept that the first stage of complaint is to speak or write to the person or company who has made a mistake is truly correct, Vixen, when the mistake is, for example, a server at a restaurant bringing the wrong dinner or a contractor hired to repave the driveway of one's home sends an incorrect bill.

But it does not apply to crimes. Suppose a person is robbed a gunpoint by an unknown person. Does the victim seek out the armed robber and issue that person a complaint? Should the two American young women raped by two Carabinieri have sought them out after the crime and complained (formally?) to them? And what happens in a case like that of Sarah Everard? How can a murdered person issue a complaint?

Italy has laws that govern complaints, and Knox complained repeatedly to the Italian authorities in accordance with those laws. The ECHR, an international court, found that Italy repeatedly ignored her complaints, and rather than following through with the required effective and independent investigation, charged Knox with the crime of malicious accusation (calunnia) against the police and Mignini. Knox was acquitted of the charges in that case on the basis that the act of the crime of calunnia had not occurred.

Vixen, the simple fact is that your arguments, which you continually recycle in your posts, are nonsensical, and the repetition suggests that your bias is stronger than your ability or desire to reason logically from reliable evidence.

2. Knox's first complaint was indeed made by her to the police in writing before the arrest hearing (if that is what you mean by "arraignment"). The timing of her first complaint, as well as her subsequent written complaint to her lawyers, has significance with respect to ECHR case law - that is, international law. It strongly suggests that she had no intent to maliciously accuse Lumumba and reinforces the indications that her complaints were credible and should have been investigated by the Italian authorities.

3. Neither you nor anyone beyond the participants in Knox's conversations with personnel from the US Embassy or Consulate and those informed by them has any knowledge of the full details of what was discussed in those meetings. They are confidential except for the details publicly disclosed. Likewise, the discussions between an ambassador and a government are confidential, and the publicly disclosed details of discussions may not include all the matters discussed. One would be truly naive or ignorant to think otherwise.

 

[Vixen]

Wow...I've seen some twisting of the facts to conform with someone's bias, but this makes a pretzel look like straight. Please stop resorting to ridiculous hyperbole to further your agenda.

I'm not going to bother with refuting your falsehoods; I'll just be accused of wanting "to keep going over stuff that was already dealt with in court and discussed numerous times already in the thread" and "present the same stuff over and over again".



While Napoleoni was just a woman going through an acrimonious divorce.

I was not defending Napoleoni's disgraceful behaviour. I was pointing out that someone can be a paragon of virtue in one area of their life and totally the opposite in another. For example, the gifted doctor who in his professionally life is eminent yet in his personal life might be a raging alcoholic or wife-beater. That is all. The fact Napoleoni resorted to illicitly accessing the Police central computer to dig up dirt on the person who took away her child in a child custody dispute does not cancel out how good she may have been as a cop.

 

[Vixen]

Instead of following the law, he slaps a defamation suit on her parents for daring to repeat what their daughter told them, testified to, what they believed was the truth.

Mignini used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits to intimidate people. But, I'm sure are those who will defend all his lawsuits...none of which he won, as far as I'm aware.

Knox' parents hired a PR agent, Steve Marriott, for a considerable sum of money. Marriott's job was to put out there tales of 'rail roading', tag teams of twelve every hour', Knox being beaten up, forced to confess, the evil prosecutor. This is all the stuff of fake news.


The Calunnia laws in Italy were drawn up to be particularly tough to overcome the Mafia, who use similar tactics: slime the police and the prosecutors to pervert the course of justice.

 

[Vixen]

Knox' parents hired a PR agent, Steve David Marriott, for a considerable sum of money. Marriott's job was to put out there tales of 'rail roading', tag teams of twelve every hour', Knox being beaten up, forced to confess, the evil prosecutor. This is all the stuff of fake news.


The Calunnia laws in Italy were drawn up to be particularly tough to overcome the Mafia, who use similar tactics: slime the police and the prosecutors to pervert the course of justice.

Correction

 

[Vixen]

Vixen earlier claimed that Sollecito had never withdrawn his interrogation claim that Knox had gone out the night of Nov. 1. She wanted a court document as evidence he had. Happily provided:

Matteini motivation:

Can you please provide a link that works?

 

[Vixen]

1. This concept that the first stage of complaint is to speak or write to the person or company who has made a mistake is truly correct, Vixen, when the mistake is, for example, a server at a restaurant bringing the wrong dinner or a contractor hired to repave the driveway of one's home sends an incorrect bill.

But it does not apply to crimes. Suppose a person is robbed a gunpoint by an unknown person. Does the victim seek out the armed robber and issue that person a complaint? Should the two American young women raped by two Carabinieri have sought them out after the crime and complained (formally?) to them? And what happens in a case like that of Sarah Everard? How can a murdered person issue a complaint?

Italy has laws that govern complaints, and Knox complained repeatedly to the Italian authorities in accordance with those laws. The ECHR, an international court, found that Italy repeatedly ignored her complaints, and rather than following through with the required effective and independent investigation, charged Knox with the crime of malicious accusation (calunnia) against the police and Mignini. Knox was acquitted of the charges in that case on the basis that the act of the crime of calunnia had not occurred.

Vixen, the simple fact is that your arguments, which you continually recycle in your posts, are nonsensical, and the repetition suggests that your bias is stronger than your ability or desire to reason logically from reliable evidence.

2. Knox's first complaint was indeed made by her to the police in writing before the arrest hearing (if that is what you mean by "arraignment"). The timing of her first complaint, as well as her subsequent written complaint to her lawyers, has significance with respect to ECHR case law - that is, international law. It strongly suggests that she had no intent to maliciously accuse Lumumba and reinforces the indications that her complaints were credible and should have been investigated by the Italian authorities.

3. Neither you nor anyone beyond the participants in Knox's conversations with personnel from the US Embassy or Consulate and those informed by them has any knowledge of the full details of what was discussed in those meetings. They are confidential except for the details publicly disclosed. Likewise, the discussions between an ambassador and a government are confidential, and the publicly disclosed details of discussions may not include all the matters discussed. One would be truly naive or ignorant to think otherwise.

When a crime is committed, you lodge a complaint with the police and they are obliged to act.

Here is Knox' testimony in court when cross-examined by Pacelli:

CP: When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?
AK: When?
CP: When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?
AK: No.
CP: Mistreated?
AK: No.
CP: Did the police suggest the contents?
AK: No.
CP: You gave it to them freely?
AK: Yes.
CP: Voluntarily?
AK: Yes.
CP: Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you made the night before about what might have happened at your house with Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?
AK: Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real. So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn’t know. But at the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.
CP: But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?
AK: No, I wasn’t sure.
CP: Why?
AK: Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was confused.

TJMK

In fact, she contradicted herself several times.

The ECHR court relied on Boninsegnia who was not the judge in the Calunnia case she was convicted in.


Boninsegna was not present at that hearing. Why did Della Vedova use the Boninsegna case instead of the one in which she was convicted?

 

[Numbers]

When a crime is committed, you lodge a complaint with the police and they are obliged to act.

Here is Knox' testimony in court when cross-examined by Pacelli:

TJMK

In fact, she contradicted herself several times.

The ECHR court relied on Boninsegnia who was not the judge in the Calunnia case she was convicted in. Boninsegna was not present at that hearing. Why did Della Vedova use the Boninsegna case instead of the one in which she was convicted?

These absurd statements reflect a complete misunderstanding of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy and the remit and methods of the ECHR.

The ECHR relies upon the European Convention on Human Rights and its case law in formulating its judgments. It generally relies on all the relevant documents in a case to determine whether or not an application suggests one or more violations of the Convention had been committed by a respondent state.

The ECHR's judgments, as it repeatedly states, are NOT continuations of domestic (respondent state) trials.

The violations of the Convention by Italy found by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy 76577/13 were:

1. Violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c: Unfair trial and conviction of Knox for calunnia because she was denied a lawyer during the interrogation of 5/6 Nov. 2007. Since her statement from that interrogation was the only evidence of calunnia, that implies the calunnia conviction is unfair.

2. Violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e: Unfair trial and conviction of Knox for calunnia because she was denied a fair interpreter during the interrogation of 5/6 Nov. 2007. The interpreter acted outside her required and allowed role under international law in a manner that harmed Knox's defense rights. Since Knox's statement from that interrogation was the only evidence of calunnia, that implies the calunnia conviction is unfair.

3. Violation of Convention Article 3 in its procedural limb. Italy failed to launch an independent effective investigation of Knox's credible and repeated complaints of mistreatment, allegedly including slaps and threats, by the police during the 5/6 Nov. 2007 interrogation.

In its 10 January 2020 preliminary communication to the Committee of Ministers (CoM), Italy accepted the findings against it in the ECHR's final judgment Knox v. Italy. The CoM now awaits Italy's Action Plan that will describe how Italy intends to fully redress the violations against Knox and tp prevent insofar as possible future violations, with Individual and General Measures, under the supervision of the CoM.

The ECHR and CoM are agencies within the Council of Europe, the organization that Italy and a number of other states in Europe have formed by treaty to protect human rights as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[Vixen]

How true is Stacyhs' claim that Sollecito retracted his second statement at the Matteini hearing (re remand) to say Knox was with him all night?

Not true at all. The first statement he gave police was 2 Nov 2007 and the second on the 5 Nov 2007. Matteini was 9 Nov 2007.

 

[Vixen]

These absurd statements reflect a complete misunderstanding of the ECHR case Knox v. Italy and the remit and methods of the ECHR.

The ECHR relies upon the European Convention on Human Rights and its case law in formulating its judgments. It generally relies on all the relevant documents in a case to determine whether or not an application suggests one or more violations of the Convention had been committed by a respondent state.

The ECHR's judgments, as it repeatedly states, are NOT continuations of domestic (respondent state) trials.

The violations of the Convention by Italy found by the ECHR in its final judgment Knox v. Italy 76577/13 were:

1. Violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c: Unfair trial and conviction of Knox for calunnia because she was denied a lawyer during the interrogation of 5/6 Nov. 2007. Since her statement from that interrogation was the only evidence of calunnia, that implies the calunnia conviction is unfair.

2. Violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e: Unfair trial and conviction of Knox for calunnia because she was denied a fair interpreter during the interrogation of 5/6 Nov. 2007. The interpreter acted outside her required and allowed role under international law in a manner that harmed Knox's defense rights. Since Knox's statement from that interrogation was the only evidence of calunnia, that implies the calunnia conviction is unfair.

3. Violation of Convention Article 3 in its procedural limb. Italy failed to launch an independent effective investigation of Knox's credible and repeated complaints of mistreatment, allegedly including slaps and threats, by the police during the 5/6 Nov. 2007 interrogation.

In its 10 January 2020 preliminary communication to the Committee of Ministers (CoM), Italy accepted the findings against it in the ECHR's final judgment Knox v. Italy. The CoM now awaits Italy's Action Plan that will describe how Italy intends to fully redress the violations against Knox and tp prevent insofar as possible future violations, with Individual and General Measures, under the supervision of the CoM.

The ECHR and CoM are agencies within the Council of Europe, the organization that Italy and a number of other states in Europe have formed by treaty to protect human rights as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Can I ask, how will this Action Plan reconcile with Marasca-Bruno SCS when it said:

"2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait
for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of
the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a
denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators
against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation
of article 188 of penal procedure code. [21]"

 

[Numbers]

Can I ask, how will this Action Plan reconcile with Marasca-Bruno SCS when it said:

"2.2. The request of Amanda Knox’s defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait
for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of
the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected as a partial final status, against a
denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators
against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation
of article 188 of penal procedure code. [21]"

Vixen, the Marasca CSC panel statement you have quoted is of interest as possibly indicative of the bias of the Italian judiciary regarding Knox and her wrongful conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.

However, the Marasca CSC statement does not have any binding legal quality in Italy unless a revision court interprets it as having such a status.

It's up to the government of Italy to formulate its Action Plan, I certainly cannot speak for the Italian government. It is of interest that the ECHR, in its final judgment Knox v. Italy, in paragraph 105, which Italy is solemnly obliged to follow under the Council of Europe treaty, pointed out that Italian law (CPP Articles 178, 180, and 182) provides for a finding of a "nullity" when an accused person is deprived of a lawyer (representation) during criminal proceedings*. This suggests that the ECHR is hinting that Italy could, in a revision hearing, dismiss Knox's calunnia conviction under CPP Article 529. But it's up to Italy, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to develop and execute an Action Plan to finally resolve its obligation regarding the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy.

* Under Italian law and ECHR case law, interrogations are part of criminal proceedings.

 

[Numbers]

It is well-recorded. The pair were also witnessed whispering loudly in a theatrical 'Chinese whisper' that Knox thought Shaky was a very dodgy character, clearly trying to draw the police's attention to Shaky as a suspect. (Turkish Lives Matter.)

You might think that is fine but I hope noone openly laughs in your face when you have received bad news.

Please try to remember that Meredith Kercher is the victim here.

Kercher was a victim of murder and rape committed by Guede.

Knox and Sollecito were victims of false accusations, unjust detention, and, for Knox, a wrongful final conviction for calunnia.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, the Marasca CSC panel statement you have quoted is of interest as possibly indicative of the bias of the Italian judiciary regarding Knox and her wrongful conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.

However, the Marasca CSC statement does not have any binding legal quality in Italy unless a revision court interprets it as having such a status.

It's up to the government of Italy to formulate its Action Plan, I certainly cannot speak for the Italian government. It is of interest that the ECHR, in its final judgment Knox v. Italy, in paragraph 105, which Italy is solemnly obliged to follow under the Council of Europe treaty, pointed out that Italian law (CPP Articles 178, 180, and 182) provides for a finding of a "nullity" when an accused person is deprived of a lawyer (representation) during criminal proceedings*. This suggests that the ECHR is hinting that Italy could, in a revision hearing, dismiss Knox's calunnia conviction under CPP Article 529. But it's up to Italy, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to develop and execute an Action Plan to finally resolve its obligation regarding the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy.

* Under Italian law and ECHR case law, interrogations are part of criminal proceedings.

Knox was not deprived of a lawyer in criminal proceedings. The documents (see here Matteini, whilst we are looking at it) states she was a person 'informed of the facts' and only became a suspect after she confirmed she had taken 'Patrick' to the cottage for sex with the victim.

ECHR appear to have been misled by Dalla Vedova in that respect, with his selective quoting.

As you know, the ECHR has no power in a State's criminal affairs. Della Vedova would not be able to successfully repeat his claimed facts again should Italy hold a revision trial as it was based on a false premise to begin with.

 

[TruthCalls]

It is well-recorded. The pair were also witnessed whispering loudly in a theatrical 'Chinese whisper' that Knox thought Shaky was a very dodgy character, clearly trying to draw the police's attention to Shaky as a suspect. (Turkish Lives Matter.)

You might think that is fine but I hope noone openly laughs in your face when you have received bad news.

Please try to remember that Meredith Kercher is the victim here.

So in other words you can't provide any proof of any of it other than to claim "it is well-recorded". Haven't you figured out merely making statements is NOT evidence of something.

And apparently now you're doubling down by claiming they whispered loudly in "theatrical 'Chinese whisper'" that Amanda thought Shaky was a very dodgy character. And I'm sure, just like your other claims, you'll not be able to offer any evidence this took place. And worse still, you then employ that other bad habit of yours - pretending to know what everyone else is thinking.

No, I would think someone laughing in my face after I've received bad news is definitely not fine. The problem here though is that Amanda didn't laugh in anyone's face. And that's the point - you claim to want nothing but the truth yet you can't seem to stop yourself from lying and embellishing, always at the expense of Amanda and Raffaele. That is NOT what someone wanting the truth would do.

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox was not deprived of a lawyer in criminal proceedings. The documents (see here Matteini, whilst we are looking at it) states she was a person 'informed of the facts' and only became a suspect after she confirmed she had taken 'Patrick' to the cottage for sex with the victim.

It's exactly here where you need to pick a lane. Your over-the-top post above thread, you outlined some very venomous claims about Knox, all of which, you claimed, rightly brought Knox and Sollecito into the police crosshairs from the start.

Which is it, Vixen? The lane you choose depends on what ridiculous claim you're trying to make.....

 

[Vixen]

So in other words you can't provide any proof of any of it other than to claim "it is well-recorded". Haven't you figured out merely making statements is NOT evidence of something.

And apparently now you're doubling down by claiming they whispered loudly in "theatrical 'Chinese whisper'" that Amanda thought Shaky was a very dodgy character. And I'm sure, just like your other claims, you'll not be able to offer any evidence this took place. And worse still, you then employ that other bad habit of yours - pretending to know what everyone else is thinking.

No, I would think someone laughing in my face after I've received bad news is definitely not fine. The problem here though is that Amanda didn't laugh in anyone's face. And that's the point - you claim to want nothing but the truth yet you can't seem to stop yourself from lying and embellishing, always at the expense of Amanda and Raffaele. That is NOT what someone wanting the truth would do.

It is well-documented, as I said.

Robyn Butterworth also testified, and said that Amanda's behaviour that day at the cottage had been 'very strange'.
'Everybody was really upset but she didn't seem to show any emotion about what had happened or any thought for anyone else who was there,' Butterworth said. She went on to describe how Amanda had sat with her feet on Raffaele's lap, and had considered their behaviour 'upsetting' considering the circumstances.
"They were kissing and joking together,' Butterworth said. 'I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele.' Butterworth also testified that when one of their other friends had said she hoped that Meredith had not suffered, Amanda responded with, 'What do you think? She ******* bled to death.'

and

'So I am at the police station after a long day in which I describe how I was the first person to arrive home and find my flatmate dead,' read an excerpt from Amanda's diary. 'The strange thing is after all that has happened, I want to write a song about all this. It would be the first song I have written and would speak about how someone died in a horrible way and for no reason.'

So, not 'demonization' but objective references to what witnesses as of the time related.

 

[Vixen]

It's exactly here where you need to pick a lane. Your over-the-top post above thread, you outlined some very venomous claims about Knox, all of which, you claimed, rightly brought Knox and Sollecito into the police crosshairs from the start.

Which is it, Vixen? The lane you choose depends on what ridiculous claim you're trying to make.....

These are claims by Robyn Butterworth, Mez' friend who took the courage of her convictions to the witness box.

 

[Stacyhs]

I was not defending Napoleoni's disgraceful behaviour. I was pointing out that someone can be a paragon of virtue in one area of their life and totally the opposite in another. For example, the gifted doctor who in his professionally life is eminent yet in his personal life might be a raging alcoholic or wife-beater. That is all. The fact Napoleoni resorted to illicitly accessing the Police central computer to dig up dirt on the person who took away her child in a child custody dispute does not cancel out how good she may have been as a cop.

The doctor analogy is not accurate. A doctor's professional work is apart and distinct from drinking (as long as it's not when he's working) or wife beating. Napoleoni, Zugarini, Squarta, et al...all police officers sworn to uphold the law... intentionally broke the law more than once in Napoleoni's self-serving vendetta which indicates their lack of professional ethics. Three of those convicted worked on the Knox case and Zugarini was one of Knox's interrogators.

On Nov. 17, 2012 in Perugia, a young woman discovered that the four tires on her mother's car were slashed and a note, written in blue crayon on the hood, read, "Bitch, so you'll learn not to take children away from their mothers." A phallic symbol was also drawn on the car hood. The next day, a Perugia lawyer came home to find "You must die" and "Pedophile" spray-painted on his house. The lawyer called police to report that he saw a dark Audi speeding away from his home.

After Ciammarughi's report led the court to reject Napoleoni's petition, a few detectives in the Perugia murder squad began investigating the psychologist. Prosecutors say "hundreds of questions" were put into the internal police computer concerning the psychologist. The questions were about the properties she owned, the accounts she maintained, the type of car she drove, and the number on her license plates. The inquiries were made on November 14 and 16, 2012 - just days before the disturbing incidents directed first at the psychologist and then the former spouse.

What kind of people, much less police officers, do this?

"the person who took away her child"; interesting choice of words implying the child psychologist was at fault and Monica was her victim.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are quite wrong there. I am only interested in the truth of the matter.

If you are "only interested in the truth of the matter," why do you repeat falsehoods such as there was "mixed blood, Kercher's and Knox's" and make spurious claims that every judge, witness, expert, etc. that did not support your guilt view was bent, corrupt, paid off, incompetent, a shill, in a conspiracy with a judge, etc? That is hardly the position of anyone who is "only interested in the truth of the matter," but of someone who is extremely partisan.

Others are more partisan, to do with nationality or like backing a horse.

I find those people, on either side, tend to be those not very informed on the case except for what they read or heard from the media and usually very early on in the case. But those who know the case well, as does everyone in this thread, base their opinions on the facts. Well, most do. Several of us have stated that we assumed the two were guilty in the beginning but changed their minds when we became more informed of the facts. Then there are those who do know the case well but are so biased, so emotionally entrenched in their opinion and, sometimes, so narcissistic that they are incapable of admitting they are wrong. They would rather be wrong than admit they are wrong.

 

[TruthCalls]

It is well-documented, as I said.



and



So, not 'demonization' but objective references to what witnesses as of the time related.

So what I see well documented is someone finding Amanda's behavior "upsetting". What I'm looking for is evidence that Amanda was bullying people, laughing at other people's misfortunes. I'm looking for evidene of Raffaele teaching Amanda how to say "I spit on your dead relative's grave" in Italian. How about evidence of her "bragging" about how Meredith's throat was slit and how she died in agony. I see none of that in what you just quoted, yet it's what you claimed.

What Amanda said was she wanted to write a song about "how someone died in a horrible way and for no reason." which is entirely different from yelling about having written a song about murder, and she never said anything about how she could "murder a pizza". Finally, her short story was a tale of an older brother being disgusted by the actions of his younger brother, the action being a rape. Never a tale about murder, and rape was only briefly mentioned, it was not 'the' subject of the story.

As I said, you lie or embellish, and always at the deteriment of Amanda and Raffaele. What you wrote is anything but an objective reference of what witnesses stated, and clearly your reference to Joanna Dehenney was entirely on you and reveals much more about you than Amanda. Again, this is not what people in search of the truth do.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please try to remember that Meredith Kercher is the victim here.

Nobody has forgotten that. Please try to remember that Guede is the perpetrator.

Your obsessive personal vendetta against Knox, who wasn't the perpetrator, is not helping Kercher.

 

[Stacyhs]

Knox' Knox's parents hired a PR agent, Steve Marriott, for a considerable sum of money. Marriott's job was to put out there tales of 'rail roading', tag teams of twelve every hour', Knox being beaten up, forced to confess, the evil prosecutor. This is all the stuff of fake news.

This is what I mean by your habit of just making stuff up, Vixen. That is not what Marriott was hired to do. He was hired to help handle the media's requests for interviews, etc and to counter the false information and lurid stories so popular in especially Italian and British tabloids. As the saying goes, "Lies go around the world before Truth gets its pants on."

If you can give any examples, with citation, of David Marriott doing any of the things you claimed above, then do so. Otherwise, they're getting chucked into the bin with the other claims you've never supported with evidence.

The Calunnia laws in Italy were drawn up to be particularly tough to overcome the Mafia, who use similar tactics: slime the police and the prosecutors to pervert the course of justice.

You've made this claim before and asked to provide evidence of it...which you, unsurprisingly, never did. Yet you continue to state it as fact. You can read the exchange starting with your post in the link.
I won't bother to ask you for a citation.

Interestingly, I did find this article on this very subject:

Data from Istat (Italian National Statistics Institute) shows that, in 2017 alone, a total of 9,479 proceedings for defamation were initiated against journalists, of which 60% were dismissed after preliminary investigation and 6.6% went to trial.1 Plaintiffs are often public figures – politicians, businessmen, or individuals involved in organized crime – who start legal proceedings against journalists with an aim to silence them and bury articles that often contain information on corruption, tax evasion, or mafia collusion.

It seems that it's the mafia using these defamation laws. From what I've seen, it's also being used by those in power, including politicians, the police and prosecutors, to silence and intimidate journalists and others.

As far as your mafia claim, how ironic that an anti-mafia journalist is being sued for calling politicians 'bastards':

Roberto Saviano, Italy's best-known anti-Mafia author and a leading human rights campaigner, is due to stand trial in Rome on Tuesday for calling Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni a "bastard."
If convicted of the libel charge Saviano, 43, could in theory face up to three years' imprisonment, but under Italy's legal system a fine of at least about $520 (500 euros) or a suspended sentence are more likely.

Saviano faces two more defamation cases pitting him against Salvini, now deputy prime minister, and Culture Minister Gennaro Sangiuliano.

It does seem to me that it was the prosecution, police, and media that slimed Knox, Sollecito and their families.

 

[Bill Williams]

These are claims by Robyn Butterworth, Mez' friend who took the courage of her convictions to the witness box.

No they're not. Indeed, if they were you would have provided a link - perhaps you didn't because no one said such a thing.

I've just read through John Follain's prosecution-friendly book, and he makes no such claim. Indeed, the 2nd of Follain's three sections is, how the case against against AK and RS fell apart at trial, including the testimony about Knox's - Kercher's relationship being within the bounds of normal.