Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Actually, there is no evidence of interrogation at all. She released her statement to Mignini who acted as a notery, without being interrogated, and she wrote hand written statements containing false testimony.

What the hell kind of prosecutor sits there and acts like a notary, when there is a raping murderer on the loose! I mean, obviously, the cops didn't get enough out of her to justify an arrest, because they didn't rush out and arrest Lumumba after the 1:45 session. Mignini would have been derelict if he had just sat there and made notes.

This is what is meant (upthread) by the following.....

The only thing worse than it being a lie, an obvious lie, and an obviously awkward lie (as told to CNN's Drew Griffin) as per Mignini's claim about offering himself to Knox as if only a notary.....

...... would be if it were true.

On the face of it, taking Mignini's statements about that night as sincere and subsequently putting them into a time-line, Mignini is simply in complete dereliction of duty to waltz in there (circa 2 am), and continue to observe Knox's behaviour.

That's right. Observe Knox's behaviour, rather than order the cops to roust Lumumba out of bed based on what's alleged in the 1:45 am statement.

Fundamentally, the real differences between the 1:45 am and 5:45 am statements is the clarification of what "See you later" actually meant, as well as finally bringing Raffaele into this. And at 5:45 am no one knew how Raffaele fit in.

Yet the one alleged perp, Lumumba, was allowed to sleep peacefully by the cops - when they should have been assuming that he was headed for the train station for a rail-trip to Germany. (No wait.... that was Guede.)

The problem with lies, obvious lies, and obviously awkward lies is that eventually the whole narrative which they buttress comes crashing down.

And this is before considering that if people like Machiavelli continue to insist that Mignini's claims are to be taken literally - then Mignini has just handed Knox the grounds for an ECHR complaint.

To underline, Mignini drew conclusions from observing Knox's behaviour. Mignini specifically says that he asked her no questions, but was able to observe on his own:

- Knox had been relieved of a great burdern by the events leading to the 1:45 am confession

- Knox was afraid of Lumumba

- Knox wanted to continue making spontaneous statements.​

That's what Mignini said he concluded while observing her behaviour. It was then that Mignini claimed something verbal passed between the two, he told Knox she could continue and he'd act as if only a notary.

His only job at that point was to get Knox a lawyer; but he continued with what amounts to entrapment.

And that's the BEST spin you can put on Mignini; even if you take Mignini at his word. The reality was quite different. And worse.

Mignini is either derelict in duty, or a complete liar. Machiavelli - which poison is it?

 

[Bill Williams]

Very droll. I think in your head you imagine you have scored a great point.

Skeptic tank, Nencini's decision is one of rank hypocrisy and gross intellectual dishonesty. I would compare it to something Mussolini might have conjured up except that would be unkind to him. In summary Nencini said this:

'I have before me a number of defence applications and a number of prosecution applications. All the defence applications are dismissed. All the prosecution applications are allowed. Now, with the housekeeping out of the way, let's look at this case as objectively as possible, taking account of all the evidence and also some shocking things that I have read in the papers or people have said to me privately that prove these defendants are guilty. I must also take into account the directions of the Court of Cassazione which has established that the crime was carried out by these two defendants and one other and that the only question is whether the attack was part of a sex game gone wrong or some other fantasy dreamed up by the sick, twisted and perverted judges who sit in that court and among whose number I aim to belong one day. Taking all these factors into account, not least my career prospects, considering the prosecution arguments and the defence arguments fairly and justly and after due and careful deliberation on all matters relevant and irrelevant I find the defendants guilty of murder and increase their sentences to reflect disapprobation of their temerity in suggesting otherwise.
Long live The Republic of Italy, Giulano Mignini and Rudy Guede! Sieg Heil. Court is adjourned.'

That is actually a fair rendering of Nencini's motivations report. Damn. (But didn't Nencini allow one defence application? Also, did not the Kerchers write to the court asking that nothing be overlooked?)

 

[Welshman]

This is a thread I started on from IIP which looks at the issues raised by the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2439&p=134295

 

[Desert Fox]

Plausible ?

Is it a disgusting racist rant or not ?

Humans are complicated creatures. . . . .

I actually completely ignore all statements as being unreliable and just ask myself what the physical evidence argues. There is no good physical evidence of Amanda Knox and Rafaellle Sollecito being involved.

I do look at certain statements and it does look very much like Amanda was interrogated and made something akin to a false confession. Like many, she gets the details wrong. Like several other false confessions, it seems to point to whom the police want it to.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The retest of the knife

Skeptic tank, Nencini's decision is one of rank hypocrisy and gross intellectual dishonesty. I would compare it to something Mussolini might have conjured up except that would be unkind to him. In summary Nencini said this:

'I have before me a number of defence applications and a number of prosecution applications. All the defence applications are dismissed. All the prosecution applications are allowed.

anglolawyer and Skeptic tank,

I agree, but Nencini took it a step further. The prosecution wanted a retest of the knife, and they got it. The Supreme Court of Cassation called the results of this test decisive. The results did not show Meredith's DNA, as the prosecution had hoped it would. In other words, the results (Amanda's DNA, which had already been seen on the knife) tended to be exculpatory, rather than inculpatory. Then Nencini and his fan club in effect said, "Look over there, a squirrel!" Calling this ploy intellectually dishonest is the best that I can do, but I wish there were a more emphatic way of saying. Something like, "Nencini's cravenness toward the SCC is equaled only by his fecklessness with respect to forensics."

 

[Desert Fox]

I absolutely think what you've just described is a huge part of it, but I think a lot of that goes through the prism I described. It isn't either/or.

It could be a combination of our arguments but I am saying that simple confirmation bias and digging in ones heals could easily explain it all.

There are some similarities between this case and the Norfolk Four case. Might be worth a look if not familiar with it. The thing is that racism does not really enter into the case much.*

*Racism can actually be used as a defense. Those innocent defendants convicted were white sailors who went to country western clubs. White sailors generally do not party much with black civilians.

 

[Dan O.]

Regarding the palm print of Rudy Guede on the pillow case, I found this in the trial transcripts of 2008-05-08 page 174:

PRIVITERA GILJSEPPE: Why we made comparisons and did not appear to none this footprint, to any person, or as part of the list, nor comparisons that we made with the system of initiative Afis; clearly the fact which was then identified with this subject is because this person was not fotosegnalata, is was when fotosegnalata is was arrested; then we have sent the prints and we made comparisons; we had no footprints this person; was only given the usefulness of the fragment. DEFENSE ACCUSED PROMPT (AVV.BONGIORN0): Was given? PRIVITERA GIUSEPPE: Only the utility.​

My interpretation of Google's translation is that the print was compared against those of a list of suspects as well as an AFIS search and came up negative. After Rudy was arrested a comparison was made to Rudy and found to match.

This would imply that Rudy was not on the list of suspects in the early days and the palm print played no part in his identification.

 

[carbonjam72]

Regarding the palm print of Rudy Guede on the pillow case, I found this in the trial transcripts of 2008-05-08 page 174:

PRIVITERA GILJSEPPE: Why we made comparisons and did not appear to none this footprint, to any person, or as part of the list, nor comparisons that we made with the system of initiative Afis; clearly the fact which was then identified with this subject is because this person was not fotosegnalata, is was when fotosegnalata is was arrested; then we have sent the prints and we made comparisons; we had no footprints this person; was only given the usefulness of the fragment. DEFENSE ACCUSED PROMPT (AVV.BONGIORN0): Was given? PRIVITERA GIUSEPPE: Only the utility.​

My interpretation of Google's translation is that the print was compared against those of a list of suspects as well as an AFIS search and came up negative. After Rudy was arrested a comparison was made to Rudy and found to match.

This would imply that Rudy was not on the list of suspects in the early days and the palm print played no part in his identification.

I'm not sure about the translation here, but I don't think I can agree with your interpretation.

From the hilite above, what do you think is being referred to as "only given the usefulness of the fragment". And the, "only the utility".

Usefulness and utility in regard to what, given the context of a conversation about the identification of Rudy?

Seems consistent with the previous extracts from Frank's blog you provided, which I interpreted as a computer search came up negative, because Rudy had never been fingerprinted as part of a criminal file.

After a computer search came up blank for Rudy, the Perigia police sent over a stack of 'suspect cards', immigrants who had been registered as part of their immigration status, and then Rome found a manual match off that stack.

But my reading of Frank's extracts which you provided earlier, is different from both yours and London John I believe.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a thread I started on from IIP which looks at the issues raised by the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2439&p=134295

This is an important IIP thread, does not get the attention it deserves.

Some of the insightful comments are:

The problem is that there never will be an investigation against the Police in this case. There were more then a dozen of Police members present that night. If there would have been a serious investigation by independant people it would have been VERY EASY to find out what happened during the interrogation. Believe me, the covering each other would quickly have failed. A structered individual questionning, and everything would be clear today. This would have been a very easy job.


It would seem that someone of authority would have surmised that there was a high probability of a false confession when 12 investigators are brought in for an interrogation during off hours--i.e., the middle of the night. It's unfathomable that AK's statement wasn't verified before Lamumba's arrest; it's also quite disturbing that the calunnia for the false accusation has stuck.

How many people are rotting in Italian prisons due to false/forced/coerced confessions?​

I think it is sometimes good to reread existing documents: the analyses of the interrogation by Steve Moore is describing in details what was happening the night of the interrogation. The report can be found on IIP. It is a basic document to understand manipulation and coercion during interrogation.​

Some informations about the Police officers engaged in the investigation of this case:
Most of the officers also participating in the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele

1) Arturo de Felice, police chief and commander of the Perugia Police force
2) Domenico Giacinto Profazio, director of the Flying Squad in Perugia
3) Marco Chiacchiera, vice director of the Flying Squad
4) Monica Napoleoni, homicide chief, Flying Squad
5) Leona Zugarini, Flying Squad officer
6) Rita Ficarra, Flying Squad officer
7) Oresto Volturno, Flying Squad officer
8) Mauro Bigini, Flying Squad officer
9) Staffano Gubiotti, Flying Squad officer
10) Stefano Buratti, Flying Squad officer
11) Mauro Barbidori, Flying Squad officer
12) Aramando Finzi, Flying Squad officer
13) Anna Donnino, Flying Squad, interpretor
14) Aida Colantone, Flying Squad, interpretor
15) Fabio d'Asolto, Flying Squad, assistant interpretor
16) Edgardo Giobbi, head of SCO (Rome central Service organization)
17) Daniele Moscatelli, SCO officer
18) Iwano Ruffo, SCO officer
19) Michele Battistelli, Postal Police
20) Fabio Marzi, Postal Police
21) Giuliano Mignini, Prosecutor, Responsible of the Investigation

Probably the only one who got the situation right:

3) Marco Chiacchiera, vice director of the Flying Squad
Was dismissed of his participation in the investigation because he ought to say that he felt the arresst of Amanda and Raffaele was
premature

Those with known or suspected negative records:

2) Domenico Giacinto Profazio, director of the Flying Squad in Perugia
Rumors of abuse of office (not definitly confirmed)
4) Monica Napoleoni, homicide chief, Flying Squad
Was dismissed from her job for several months because of abuse of office inculding destruction of property and death threats
(source: Wikipedia)
5) Leona Zugarini, Flying Squad officer
Was dismissed of her job for several months because of abuse of office inculding destruction of property and death threats
(source:Wikipedia)
6) Rita Ficarra, Flying Squad officer
Accused by Amanda for having slept her twice during the interrogation, described as a heat-head by Mignini
16) Edgardo Giobbi, head of SCO (Rome central Service organization)
The pscho. and behaviour specialist.
Described that Amanda was crying during her interrogation, Mignini denying ever having heard this.
21) Giuliano Mignini, Prosecutor, Responsible of the Investigation
Known for his methods during investigations (Sources : Mario Spezi, Douglas Preston, ...)​

 

[platonov]

Wow

Humans are complicated creatures. . . . .

I actually completely ignore all statements as being unreliable and just ask myself what the physical evidence argues. There is no good physical evidence of Amanda Knox and Rafaellle Sollecito being involved.

I do look at certain statements and it does look very much like Amanda was interrogated and made something akin to a false confession. Like many, she gets the details wrong. Like several other false confessions, it seems to point to whom the police want it to.

Ignoring the non answer for a moment.......

Wow.
That would be a very strange justice system.
[ It would make a lot of rapists, among others, very happy].

Is this what is referred to as the CSI effect? Writ very large.


ps And when you do look at statements they clear the pwetty white girl
Apparently you can make it up.

 

[platonov]

I'm not sure about the translation here, but I don't think I can agree with your interpretation.

snip

But my reading of Frank's extracts which you provided earlier, is different from both yours and London John I believe.

Well, not to be picky but your reading of the MA apparently informed you that it’s OK to refer to a member in good standing as a ’looney’.

Hey, maybe on this thread it is

Seems like P offers more of a distraction than anything else.

Every comment seems designed to mock or incite, rather than present any argument, and often comes at a moment where the discussion might pursue a fruitful branch.

And everyone goes off chasing the looney down the path, asking for reason from the obstinately obtuse.

To the point at hand - I think you have all missed Frank S’s message [well not everyone obviously].
In a nutshell it is was – ‘Hey rubes, I’m being oppressed by the fascists (and females) – Send Money’

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, not to be picky but your reading of the MA apparently informed you that it’s OK to refer to a member in good standing as a ’looney’.

Hey, maybe on this thread it is






To the point at hand - I think you have all missed Frank S’s message [well not everyone obviously].
In a nutshell it is was – ‘Hey rubes, I’m being oppressed by the fascists (and females) – Send Money’

Well P, here was my complete post: #5026

I think its meant to all those who avoid discussing the case, and instead only provide snarky, sadistic, gleeful comments that appear designed only to incite and upset - - but let's put that aside, and get to your point -

- you feel we've missed Frank's message. But what is your message: doubt Frank.

You attack the commenter, because you won't engage on the merits of the case.

Tell you what, don't worry about conspiracies, or racism, or any of your other favorite diversions, just answer a simple question:
Why is there only evidence of Rudy Guede in Meredith's blood and on her person, in the room where meredith was killed?
If there were more people in the room and participating in that violent assault, why didn't they leave similar amounts of evidence as did Rudy Guede, for example - only Rudy's footprints in Meredith's wet blood. Just one set of bloody footprints in that room.

How are those facts consistent in your view with multiple assailants? Do you believe Rudy Guede acted with others in killing Meredith? If yes, is there any evidence you can point to, which doesn't involve aliens, racists, or xenophobes?

 

[Kauffer]

The wisdom of yummi in hindsight

The yummi/machiavelli's comments on Ms Knox's ECHR application, shortly after it was filed: (from TJMK). Oh dear!

"Personally I don’t believe any complained to the ECHR was lodged on Nov 25, because that would be beyond the terms if the proceeding of reference was the calunnia conviction.

The conviction for simple calunnia has become final more than 6 month ago, and there is no further legal step beyond the publication of the Supreme Court report from which you could count time. So there is no way: a submission to the ECHR would on Nov. 25. 2013 about that proceedings would be inadmissible.

Moreover, Knox’s lawyers were in Florence on Nov. 25. The claim about an ECHR submision is a lie.

Which is telling about the current strategic status and options of the pro-Knox side. It is also telling about ethics of alleged Anglophone news sources reporting about it or pasting it without any verification.

By the way, no news about a complaint to the ECHR has been reported by any media source in Italy as far as I know."

Posted by Yummi on 11/28/13

Oh dear!

 

[Methos]

But there was also the political maneuver to raise the spectre of an investigation of the case in parliament by the politician Girlanda(?)

Yes, there was, and Mr Girlanda's request was rejected.
INTERROGAZIONE A RISPOSTA SCRITTA 4/10296
Request:

Atto Camera

Interrogazione a risposta scritta 4-10296
presentata da
ROCCO GIRLANDA
lunedì 10 gennaio 2011, seduta n.414

GIRLANDA e CARLUCCI. -
Al Ministro dell'interno.
- Per sapere - premesso che:
un dirigente della polizia di Stato, in un'intervista televisiva presente anche sul sito Youtube mostra alle telecamere il corridoio degli uffici della polizia a Roma, dove sono esposti ritratti fotografici incorniciati di personaggi come i capi della criminalità organizzata, serial killer ed altri malviventi condannati con sentenze molto pesanti e passate in giudicato;
il dirigente in questione mostra anche tra i successi del Servizio centrale operativo, subito dopo le immagini del capo della mafia, Bernardo Provenzano, un ritratto fotografico incorniciato della studentessa americana Amanda Knox, per la quale come è noto è appena iniziato il processo d'appello;
da quanto è dato vedere nelle immagini dell'intervista, non vi è traccia di foto riguardanti l'altro imputato nello stesso processo e non vi è traccia dell'unico imputato recentemente condannato in via definitiva nell'ambito di tale procedimento giudiziario;
sembra, pertanto, che si sia scelto di rappresentare unicamente l'imputata a più alto valore mediatico, che infatti diviene l'oggetto di interviste televisive da parte di dirigenti della polizia di Stato che hanno partecipato alle indagini;
il video in questione è stato tradotto e diffuso anche negli Stati Uniti, alimentando, non senza ragione, le accuse verso il nostro Paese di aver raffigurato tra i tre imputati nel processo di Perugia unicamente una cittadina americana, in attesa di giudizio, affiancandola peraltro ai più noti capimafia destinatari di condanne in via definitiva a numerosi ergastoli;
tale ritratto è stato affisso presso gli uffici della polizia di Stato, a quanto consta all'interrogante, prima ancora dell'inizio del processo di primo grado, ed accompagnato da discutibili dichiarazioni alla stampa del suddetto dirigente, presenti anche nel video citato, dove egli sostiene che un'investigazione unicamente «psicologica», e senza nessun altro ausilio tecnico-scientifico, avrebbe consentito di arrivare in brevissimo tempo all'individuazione dei colpevoli;
va doverosamente ricordato, anche sulla base delle dichiarazioni rilasciate alla stampa dal suddetto dirigente, che in base ai principi giuridici del nostro Paese un imputato può essere eventualmente definito colpevole al termine di tre gradi di giudizio da parte della magistratura, e non al termine degli interrogatori di polizia;
come è noto infatti, la magistratura conferisce agli organi di polizia giudiziaria specifica delega alle indagini, e non certo delega al ruolo giudicante;
appare invero piuttosto curioso ed inquietante per uno Stato di diritto che, malgrado quanto espressamente prescritto dal codice di procedura penale all'articolo 530 circa la necessità di prove assolutamente certe ed inequivocabili, sia possibile giudicare un cittadino colpevole solo su base «psicologica» e dopo un interrogatorio di polizia;
nel caso questo precedente venisse accettato, ciò potrebbe autorizzare in futuro ad affiggere presso le sedi della polizia di Stato, tra le immagini dei criminali condannati, anche le foto di qualsiasi cittadino, studente, imprenditore, giornalista, docente, politico, per il quale siano state svolte indagini e sia stato richiesto un rinvio a giudizio -:
chi abbia formalmente autorizzato le riprese televisive all'interno degli uffici in una sede della polizia di Stato nonché l'intervista a tale dirigente, in che data e con quale motivazione;
quali iniziative sul piano amministrativo ed disciplinare si intenda assumere in relazione alla grave violazione del principio di presunzione di innocenza da parte del dirigente della polizia di Stato di cui in premessa, che definisce pubblicamente «colpevoli» degli imputati a quanto pare prima ancora dell'inizio del processo di primo grado in un filmato purtroppo diffuso e tradotto anche all'estero;
chi abbia deciso, con un'iniziativa che all'interrogante pare presentare un profilo diffamatorio e comunque in violazione del principio giuridico della presunzione di innocenza, di affiggere insieme a quelli dei più efferati criminali il ritratto di una studentessa americana soltanto imputata e per la quale all'epoca non era neppure iniziato il giudizio in primo grado;
se non si intenda disporre l'immediata rimozione di tale ritratto, almeno fino al completamento della vicenda processuale ed in attesa di una sentenza definitiva da parte della magistratura giudicante, unico organo in questo Paese a cui è attribuita la decisione sulla colpevolezza di un imputato.
(4-10296)

Rejection:

Atto Camera

Risposta scritta pubblicata giovedì 26 luglio 2012
nell'allegato B della seduta n. 673
All'Interrogazione 4-10296 presentata da
ROCCO GIRLANDA

Risposta. - Il 23 gennaio 2008 un giornalista britannico, accreditato presso la stampa estera di Roma, chiedeva all'Ufficio relazioni esterne e cerimoniale del dipartimento della pubblica sicurezza l'autorizzazione a intervistare un funzionario del servizio centrale operativo della Direzione centrale anticrimine della Polizia di Stato, in relazione alle indagini condotte sull'omicidio di Meredith Kercher, avvenuto a Perugia nel 2007, al fine di realizzare un documentario per le emittenti televisive «Channel four» (britannica) e «CBS» (statunitense).
Successivamente, la richiesta veniva accolta dall'Ufficio relazioni esterne - in osservanza dei criteri costantemente adottati per le attività investigative che sono già state oggetto di pubblico dibattimento - in quanto l'intervista si sarebbe riferita all'attività di indagine già svolta e il cui esito era già stato discusso in sede processuale nell'ambito di udienze pubbliche.
L'intervista venne effettuata il 18 febbraio 2008.
Al riguardo, soltanto nella trasmissione realizzata da «Channel four», andata in onda in Gran Bretagna verso la fine del 2008, erano inquadrate fotografie esposte nel corridoio della sede del servizio centrale operativo e, tra queste, il funzionario di polizia intervistato aveva commentato esclusivamente quelle relative alla cattura di Bernardo Provenzano ed Angelo Izzo, spiegando che tali immagini rappresentavano i successi operativi del servizio.
In tale occasione, l'operatore riprendeva altre fotografie, tra cui quelle riproducenti l'arresto di due imputati per il delitto di Perugia - non soltanto Amanda Knox, ma anche l'indagato di nazionalità ivoriana poi condannato in via definitiva - poste in una parte del medesimo corridoio dove si stava svolgendo l'intervista.
Le fotografie inquadrate, comunque, sono le stesse ampiamente diffuse, anche a livello internazionale, da tutti gli organi di informazione sin dai primi sviluppi dell'indagine.
I servizi integrali realizzati dalle citate emittenti sono presenti, dal 2008, sul sito web «youtube», nel quale sono stati immessi subito dopo la messa in onda della trasmissione televisiva.
In seno all'intervista, peraltro, il funzionario di pubblica sicurezza si è limitato a fare riferimento ai gravi indizi di colpevolezza emersi a carico degli imputati soltanto dopo che gli arresti erano stati convalidati da due sentenze del tribunale del riesame di Perugia.
Il diritto di cronaca, peraltro, viene esercitato mediante interviste, conferenze e riprese televisive anche in relazione a fatti e persone sottoposte a procedimenti penali sui quali non si sia ancora formata la res iudicata.

Il Sottosegretario di Stato per l'interno: Carlo De Stefano.

google translation of the rejection:

Answer. - On 23 January 2008 a British journalist, accredited to the foreign press in Rome, asked the Office of External Relations and ceremonial Department of Public Safety for permission to interview an official of the Central Operations of the Central Anti-Crime of the State Police, in relation to investigations into the murder of Meredith Kercher, took place in Perugia in 2007, in order to make a documentary for television broadcasters' Channel four "(UK) and" CBS "(US).
Subsequently, the request was rejected by the external relations - in compliance with the criteria adopted for constantly investigative activities that have already been the subject of public debate - as the interview would be related to the activity of investigation already carried out and the outcome had already been discussed during the trial as part of public hearings.
The interview was conducted February 18, 2008.
In this regard, only in the transmission made by "Channel four", aired in Britain towards the end of 2008, were framed photographs on display in the hall of the headquarters of the Central operating and, among these, the police officer had interviewed commented only those relating to the capture of Bernardo Provenzano and Angelo Izzo, explaining that these images represented the operational success of the service.
On that occasion, the operator resumed other photographs, including those which reproduce the arrest of two accused for the crime of Perugia - Amanda Knox not only, but also the suspect Ivorian then definitely convicted - placed in a part the same corridor where he was conducting the interview.
The photographs framed, however, are the same widespread, even internationally, by all the media since the early development of the investigation.
The integral services made by the aforementioned issuers are present, since 2008, on the website "youtube", in which were placed immediately after the airing of the television program.
Within the interview, however, the police officer was merely referred to serious indications of guilt against the accused emerged only after the arrests had been validated by two judgments of the court of review of Perugia.
The freedom of the press, however, is exercised by means of interviews, conferences and television coverage in relation to facts and persons subject to criminal proceedings on which has not yet formed the res judicata.

The Secretary of State for the interior: Carlo De Stefano.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes, there was, and Mr Girlanda's request was rejected.
INTERROGAZIONE A RISPOSTA SCRITTA 4/10296
Request:

Rejection:

google translation of the rejection:

This is pretty interesting. Seems like Girlanda was complaining about the picture of Amanda on Giopbbi's wall of mafiosi and terrorists, at the earliest stages of the investigation, and which was then broadcast along with Giobbi's famous statement that he uses psychology and doesn't need evidence to determine guilt.

Am I misreading this, or is the whole purpose of this request to simply take down that picture from their wall of convicted criminals, because the process has not yet been completed?

Either way, this isn't the incident I was referring to when recalling an article from CBS News interviewing judge Hellman, something along the lines of whether Amanda Knox's case had become a political football, I think was the title.

The sense I got from that article, was that Girlanda had made a political motion AFTER judge Hellman's acquittal in Oct 2011, whereas this motion appears to have been from Jan 2011.

So I'm not sure what to make of it. Except that I recall some ECHR cases that NUMBERS posted, where state prosecutors declaring in public that a defendant is guilty is also considered an ECHR violation of the right to a fair trial.

I'd say putting amanda's picture on a wall with definitively convicted Mafiosi, terrorists, and serial killers, then allowing it to be shown in a documentary that is distributed in national media organizations internationally, is a pretty straightforward egregious violation of that principle.

Here's the google translated snippet that caught my attention:

Atto Camera

Risposta scritta pubblicata giovedì 26 luglio 2012
nell'allegato B della seduta n. 673
All'Interrogazione 4-10296 presentata da
ROCCO GIRLANDA

Risposta. - Il 23 gennaio 2008 un giornalista britannico, accreditato presso la stampa estera di Roma, chiedeva all'Ufficio relazioni esterne e cerimoniale del dipartimento della pubblica sicurezza l'autorizzazione a intervistare un funzionario del servizio centrale operativo della Direzione centrale anticrimine della Polizia di Stato, in relazione alle indagini condotte sull'omicidio di Meredith Kercher, avvenuto a Perugia nel 2007, al fine di realizzare un documentario per le emittenti televisive «Channel four» (britannica) e «CBS» (statunitense).
Successivamente, la richiesta veniva accolta dall'Ufficio relazioni esterne - in osservanza dei criteri costantemente adottati per le attività investigative che sono già state oggetto di pubblico dibattimento - in quanto l'intervista si sarebbe riferita all'attività di indagine già svolta e il cui esito era già stato discusso in sede processuale nell'ambito di udienze pubbliche.
L'intervista venne effettuata il 18 febbraio 2008.
Al riguardo, soltanto nella trasmissione realizzata da «Channel four», andata in onda in Gran Bretagna verso la fine del 2008, erano inquadrate fotografie esposte nel corridoio della sede del servizio centrale operativo e, tra queste, il funzionario di polizia intervistato aveva commentato esclusivamente quelle relative alla cattura di Bernardo Provenzano ed Angelo Izzo, spiegando che tali immagini rappresentavano i successi operativi del servizio.
In tale occasione, l'operatore riprendeva altre fotografie, tra cui quelle riproducenti l'arresto di due imputati per il delitto di Perugia - non soltanto Amanda Knox, ma anche l'indagato di nazionalità ivoriana poi condannato in via definitiva - poste in una parte del medesimo corridoio dove si stava svolgendo l'intervista.
Le fotografie inquadrate, comunque, sono le stesse ampiamente diffuse, anche a livello internazionale, da tutti gli organi di informazione sin dai primi sviluppi dell'indagine.
I servizi integrali realizzati dalle citate emittenti sono presenti, dal 2008, sul sito web «youtube», nel quale sono stati immessi subito dopo la messa in onda della trasmissione televisiva.
In seno all'intervista, peraltro, il funzionario di pubblica sicurezza si è limitato a fare riferimento ai gravi indizi di colpevolezza emersi a carico degli imputati soltanto dopo che gli arresti erano stati convalidati da due sentenze del tribunale del riesame di Perugia.
Il diritto di cronaca, peraltro, viene esercitato mediante interviste, conferenze e riprese televisive anche in relazione a fatti e persone sottoposte a procedimenti penali sui quali non si sia ancora formata la res iudicata.

Il Sottosegretario di Stato per l'interno: Carlo De Stefano.

So the question for me is, what was the CBS article referring to, if not this incident Methos? What was judge Hellman referring to when he said as soon as they made it political, he knew the acquittal would get overturned.

 

[Desert Fox]

Ignoring the non answer for a moment.......

Wow.
That would be a very strange justice system.
[ It would make a lot of rapists, among others, very happy].

Is this what is referred to as the CSI effect? Writ very large.

ps And when you do look at statements they clear the pwetty white girl
Apparently you can make it up.

I ask myself simply how likely is it that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are involved in the murder and sexual assault of Ms Kercher and not leave significant evidence behind. While not impossible, I rate it as very unlikely. If it was outside or in something of a larger environment, maybe I would think differently.

You are actually the one being racist here. . . . .If there was real evidence of guilt, I would support the Italian courts in this.

 

[Numbers]

The yummi/machiavelli's comments on Ms Knox's ECHR application, shortly after it was filed: (from TJMK). Oh dear!

"Personally I don’t believe any complained to the ECHR was lodged on Nov 25, because that would be beyond the terms if the proceeding of reference was the calunnia conviction.

The conviction for simple calunnia has become final more than 6 month ago, and there is no further legal step beyond the publication of the Supreme Court report from which you could count time. So there is no way: a submission to the ECHR would on Nov. 25. 2013 about that proceedings would be inadmissible.

Moreover, Knox’s lawyers were in Florence on Nov. 25. The claim about an ECHR submision is a lie.

Which is telling about the current strategic status and options of the pro-Knox side. It is also telling about ethics of alleged Anglophone news sources reporting about it or pasting it without any verification.

By the way, no news about a complaint to the ECHR has been reported by any media source in Italy as far as I know."

Posted by Yummi on 11/28/13

Oh dear!

The starting point for the 6-month period in which an application must be filed in order that it may be admissible begins with the official finalization of the verdict (or similar last measure).

According to the ECHR court rules, the official finalization is either the publication of the verdict and sentence by the finalizing court, or the official notification (as by mail) of the verdict and sentence to the defendant and/or the defendant's lawyer, whichever is later. The postmark on the application is accepted by ECHR court rules as the date which must be within the 6-month limit.

AFAIK, there is no public information on the date of mailing of Amanda Knox's application to the ECHR. Furthermore, the reference to her lawyers being in Florence on Nov. 25, 2013 (if true) is totally irrelevant, since applications to the ECHR are only accepted through the mail (no hand-deliveries allowed).

Statements by a Migninian should be discounted; check the facts, because you know that the Migninians are merely hoaxers.

And deviating a bit from the above topic, I notice there is a lot of attempted humor (?) lately on the thread. That is usually a positive sign. However, I think some of us posting (I may be one) need a course in remedial humor.

I am thinking of establishing a Ministry of Unfunny Comedians (MUC) for those whose humor is not up to par.

 

[Kauffer]

The starting point for the 6-month period in which an application must be filed in order that it may be admissible begins with the official finalization of the verdict (or similar last measure).

According to the ECHR court rules, the official finalization is either the publication of the verdict and sentence by the finalizing court, or the official notification (as by mail) of the verdict and sentence to the defendant and/or the defendant's lawyer, whichever is later. The postmark on the application is accepted by ECHR court rules as the date which must be within the 6-month limit.

AFAIK, there is no public information on the date of mailing of Amanda Knox's application to the ECHR. Furthermore, the reference to her lawyers being in Florence on Nov. 25, 2013 (if true) is totally irrelevant, since applications to the ECHR are only accepted through the mail (no hand-deliveries allowed).

Statements by a Migninian should be discounted; check the facts, because you know that the Migninians are merely hoaxers.

And deviating a bit from the above topic, I notice there is a lot of attempted humor (?) lately on the thread. That is usually a positive sign. However, I think some of us posting (I may be one) need a course in remedial humor.

I am thinking of establishing a Ministry of Unfunny Comedians (MUC) for those whose humor is not up to par.

You are right and yummi was wrong. In fact the application was received by the court on 24th November, which was then deposited with the registry on 6th December - all quite properly in time.

 

[Planigale]

In addition to the obvious failings in timing reliability, I also have to chuckle (with attendant amazement) at this part (my bolding):

"...she noticed running steps beneath her window such as she had never heard before"

What on Earth can that even mean?! Does it mean she had never heard the sound of running steps beneath her window ever before? Or does it mean that the particular sound of running steps that she says she heard on the night of 1st November 2007 were different from any previous sounds of running steps she'd ever heard before?!

Here again is a textbook example of someone who has applied a huge dose of ex post facto rationalisation to her "recollection". Unreliable. Next!

No doubt they hd the sound of a sinister step. The footsteps of the guilty echo with evil. It is a wonder we bother with trials, when one could just get the suspect to stroll by and judge guilt by the gait.

 

[Numbers]

No doubt they hd the sound of a sinister step. The footsteps of the guilty echo with evil. It is a wonder we bother with trials, when one could just get the suspect to stroll by and judge guilt by the gait.

Planigale,

Your idea is excellent. That the gait of the guilty can be discerned by sound as well as sight signifies a revolution in forensic science, brought forth by Benito's boys and girls.