Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

'Reasoning' is too big a word. The point is so simple it sneaks under everybody's radar. Aside from Stefanoni's word, unsupported by any samples or slides, EDFs or an intact clasp itself what exactly is the evidence that there was anything on it? 'Trust me, I'm a scientist' is not good enough. The same problem attends the knife of course. Plus, she's a proven liar.

Exactly right - the "evidence" was intentionally destroyed because it wasn't truly inculpatory evidence. If it were real, the amount of money that Mignini and Comodi spent on the cartoon in trial 1 would have been spent to preserve it.

 

[acbytesla]

Let me address some of the issues brought out above by Bill and acby.

The ECHR is a multinational organization, part of the Council of Europe, which is a confederation of 47 States spanning the European subcontinent, devoted to the promotion of human rights and democracy. As some of us have stated in previous posts here, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, and Turkey are the States with the highest number of pending cases at the ECHR. The ECHR has in its judgments found Italy in violation of the Convention many times. I am not aware of any information that claims that the ECHR has ever shown favoritism for or against any State. Before becoming too concerned about such issues, one should check for any indication of favoritism or bias in the history of the ECHR.

In terms of the selection of case-law, there is a misunderstanding about that. It may be that guilters simply don't wish to invest the time and effort at educating themselves, or have a different agenda, but if one looks into how the ECHR functions, one can understand that there is no "cherry-picking" of judgments. The ECHR starts adjucation with the Convention and with its extant case-law, a certain sense of what are internationally accepted judicial procedures and defendant's rights, and proceeds to judge cases based on common law principles, including following precedent but adapting or evolving law to meet new situations. These concepts are actually not that complicated, although perhaps they are more familiar to persons living in the US, UK, and other common law countries.

Take, for example, the issue of someone under interrogation. The case of Salduz v Turkey [GC] 36391/02 27/11/2008 established that information derived from such a person, who was not provided with counsel during the interrogation, could not be used to convict that person of a crime. Previously, the ECHR had hinted at such ideas, but not really stated them. In fact, the original Chamber judgment in Salduz did not find the lack of a lawyer during the interrogation a violation. It was only after the appeal to the Grand Chamber that this position became case law.

If one starts with the Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (criminal limb), available at:
http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/analysis&c=#n13693846752619364551309_pointer

one can begin to learn the cases and the case-law. One can say that the ECHR has cherry-picked the cases. Additional cases can be found at HUDOC, which is the ECHR library search data-base.

In terms of counter-example cases, those wishing to find them are free to do so. That such counter-example cases have not been presented by guilters may be considered evidence that the counter-examples do not exist.

You have always offered a very persuasive argument Numbers. And this latest post continues that tradition. If we were discussing American jurisprudence, I would have essentially no doubt because legal precedence and "stare decisis" truly does rule our judicial system. My only real doubts are based on the unknown components that I, not you remain unaware.

 

[Diocletus]

Let me address some of the issues brought out above by Bill and acby.

The ECHR is a multinational organization, part of the Council of Europe, which is a confederation of 47 States spanning the European subcontinent, devoted to the promotion of human rights and democracy. As some of us have stated in previous posts here, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, and Turkey are the States with the highest number of pending cases at the ECHR. The ECHR has in its judgments found Italy in violation of the Convention many times. I am not aware of any information that claims that the ECHR has ever shown favoritism for or against any State. Before becoming too concerned about such issues, one should check for any indication of favoritism or bias in the history of the ECHR.

In terms of the selection of case-law, there is a misunderstanding about that. It may be that guilters simply don't wish to invest the time and effort at educating themselves, or have a different agenda, but if one looks into how the ECHR functions, one can understand that there is no "cherry-picking" of judgments. The ECHR starts adjucation with the Convention and with its extant case-law, a certain sense of what are internationally accepted judicial procedures and defendant's rights, and proceeds to judge cases based on common law principles, including following precedent but adapting or evolving law to meet new situations. These concepts are actually not that complicated, although perhaps they are more familiar to persons living in the US, UK, and other common law countries.

Take, for example, the issue of someone under interrogation. The case of Salduz v Turkey [GC] 36391/02 27/11/2008 established that information derived from such a person, who was not provided with counsel during the interrogation, could not be used to convict that person of a crime. Previously, the ECHR had hinted at such ideas, but not really stated them. In fact, the original Chamber judgment in Salduz did not find the lack of a lawyer during the interrogation a violation. It was only after the appeal to the Grand Chamber that this position became case law.

If one starts with the Guide on Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial (criminal limb), available at:
http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/analysis&c=#n13693846752619364551309_pointer

one can begin to learn the cases and the case-law. One can say that the ECHR has cherry-picked the cases. Additional cases can be found at HUDOC, which is the ECHR library search data-base.

In terms of counter-example cases, those wishing to find them are free to do so. That such counter-example cases have not been presented by guilters may be considered evidence that the counter-examples do not exist.

Italy had better hope that this case gets to the ECHR pronto, or the next Salduz-type judgment might come out in the meantime, and then they'll really be screwed.

 

[NancyS]

'Reasoning' is too big a word. The point is so simple it sneaks under everybody's radar. Aside from Stefanoni's word, unsupported by any samples or slides, EDFs or an intact clasp itself what exactly is the evidence that there was anything on it? 'Trust me, I'm a scientist' is not good enough. The same problem attends the knife of course. Plus, she's a proven liar.

Exactly - even if I believed they were guilty, I would think this evidence should be thrown (and laughed) out of court. If you believe in the right to a fair trial, you can not accept such blatant disregard for standards of care when collecting evidence - and you definitely can not accept the destruction and withholding of evidence.

This is what I don't understand about the pro-guilt point of view - fair enough they can believe AK is guilty based on her evil eyes, weird behaviour or some other such nonsense - but when they start singing the praises of such obviously flawed forensic work, I have to question what kind of people they are Supporting this disgusting excuse for evidence, is arguing against the very essence of our right to a fair trial

 

[js202]

If she is fluent, what do these signs say?

[qimg]http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2015/03/17/0320knox06.jpg?itok=w4pzg1_x[/qimg]

From this article
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970.html

Paraphrasing: "This is absolutely not hysterical nor tabloid-style coverage of the fantastic, hideous, despicable, Satanic murder of the saintly Meredith Kercher by the demoness Amanda Knox and her pet monkey, personally kept under her maniacal control for 8 days, knife-boy Raffaele Sollecito."

 

[acbytesla]

Italy had better hope that this case gets to the ECHR pronto, or the next Salduz-type judgment might come out in the meantime, and then they'll really be screwed.

Simple fruit of the poisonous tree . An axiom that is very important in the US....Which seems to not exist in Italy.

 

[js202]

In Google Translate, avvocato and avvocatessa are "lawyer", while "avvocata" is "advocate".

Thanks for your language instruction! Now I know another Italian word that is not the name of a form of pasta noodle.

Ha, indeed, I know how you feel. Her mother tongue is Dutch, and she speaks better English than some of my American-born friends; so I, along with my 19 month old son, bow to her tutelage in languages.

 

[LondonJohn]

Esteemed failed book reviewer Hugo pronounces that all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators are "murderer fans", that we all "admire and approve" the murder, and that we all "wish to take some small vicarious part in it":

"They all do, and they all do it all the time. They are the fan club of a murderer. They admire and approve the crime and they wish to take some small vicarious part in it.

And there are no exceptions to this rule.

(And there is just one mild variable -- 'Bill Williams', who is fixated on Sollecito rather than Knox.)"


Special shout out for Bill there!

I've seen this from various pro-guilt nutters commentators often, but most particularly dear old Hugo. It's a fascinating psychiatric phenomenon to observe though - I'd suggest that it comforts them to believe (or make themselves believe) that we all actually "know" Knox and Sollecito to be murderers, but that even in this "knowledge" we support their cause. It appears beyond their wit (and their warped psychology) to comprehend that we are arguing for acquittal because we believe Knox and Sollecito WEREN'T involved in the murder (or, at the very least, there's no reliable, credible evidence pointing to their involvement, and thus no logical reason whatsoever to convict). Because if that were so, it would mean that they were wrong. And we couldn't have that, could we?!

Incidentally, did anyone else spot the rich irony in "McCall" telling AP that he wasn't going to publish his real identity because he didn't want "pro-Knox" people stalking him? After all, there's a hit team among the pro-guilt commentators (hello Jools and Hugo, among others!) who make a concerted effort to identify individuals from the "other side". The recent rather nasty fiascos concerning James Moninger and Michael Wiesner are only the latest in a long, long line of creepy "outings". What was that about "projection" again........?

 

[Planigale]

I've never understood why the defence lawyers have never suggested this as a possible explanation for the luminol prints. I mean, Amanda takes a shower the morning after the murder, wipes her bare feet on the bloody bath mat and even wanders up the corridor with it (something she mentioned long before the prints were found). And no one in court ever says, "Maybe that's where the prints came from?"

It seems like a glaringly obvious explanation, yet as far as I know hasn't been mentioned at all by the lawyers, even as they managed to talk about turnip juice and fruit juice. The only reason I can think for not mentioning it is that the prosecution claimed one of the prints was Raffaele's (an argument I suspect was designed precisely to counter the obvious explanation for the prints) but surely that nonsense argument wouldn't have been too difficult to tackle if it had been their main focus. Anyone with eyes can see that you can't tell much more from the prints except that they were probably made by feet.

I think maybe Frank Sfarzo is right that offering too many explanations sometimes weakens the stronger arguments.

I think that courts of law are not good places for rational discussion. I think the defence wanted to deliver the message 'Stephanoni concealed these resuts' and 'Luminol positive does not equal blood'.

I like this explanation for the footprints as it matches Knox's description of her actions this morning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Esteemed failed book reviewer Hugo pronounces that all pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators are "murderer fans", that we all "admire and approve" the murder, and that we all "wish to take some small vicarious part in it":

"They all do, and they all do it all the time. They are the fan club of a murderer. They admire and approve the crime and they wish to take some small vicarious part in it.

And there are no exceptions to this rule.

(And there is just one mild variable -- 'Bill Williams', who is fixated on Sollecito rather than Knox.)"


Special shout out for Bill there!

I've seen this from various pro-guilt nutters commentators often, but most particularly dear old Hugo. It's a fascinating psychiatric phenomenon to observe though - I'd suggest that it comforts them to believe (or make themselves believe) that we all actually "know" Knox and Sollecito to be murderers, but that even in this "knowledge" we support their cause. It appears beyond their wit (and their warped psychology) to comprehend that we are arguing for acquittal because we believe Knox and Sollecito WEREN'T involved in the murder (or, at the very least, there's no reliable, credible evidence pointing to their involvement, and thus no logical reason whatsoever to convict). Because if that were so, it would mean that they were wrong. And we couldn't have that, could we?!

Incidentally, did anyone else spot the rich irony in "McCall" telling AP that he wasn't going to publish his real identity because he didn't want "pro-Knox" people stalking him? After all, there's a hit team among the pro-guilt commentators (hello Jools and Hugo, among others!) who make a concerted effort to identify individuals from the "other side". The recent rather nasty fiascos concerning James Moninger and Michael Wiesner are only the latest in a long, long line of creepy "outings". What was that about "projection" again........?

"Fixated"!? LOL!

<never mind>

 

[Anode]

...and we know who Gill is.

 

[Samson]

I find myself wondering if it is possible to write this


but sparing a private citizen like Knox from extradition would be an "anomaly", said Pier Luigi Petrillo, Professor of Comparative Law at Rome's LUISS university.

"If an American citizen has been found guilty of a crime and in particular a serious crime such as murder on Italian soil, there is an obligation by the United States to extradite the American citizen," Petrillo said

while believing Knox is innocent.

Or does he believe she is guilty, despite being a high ranking professor who should find it straightforward to impartially review the case as most here do?

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-italys-top-court-to-rule-on-amanda-knox-fate-2015-3?IR=T

 

[Desert Fox]

Not as if the Italian legal system has not creatively judged the extradition treaty as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

It may be Avvocata. The "o" ending in Italian is generally masculine, "a" feminine.

That is about 50% of my Italian language knowledge.

I'm afraid your knowledge of criminal law is comparable. But I see you are a guesswork enthusiast.

The most common femininum is "avvocato" (identical to the masculinum), but some like to use "avvocatessa", also correct.

 

[js202]

I'm afraid your knowledge of criminal law is comparable. But I see you are a guesswork enthusiast.

"Spoken" truly by an individual, whom, if one could buy him for what he's worth, and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, one's descendants could live like royalty for generations.

 

[Dougm]

I'm afraid your knowledge of criminal law is comparable. But I see you are a guesswork enthusiast.
The most common femininum is "avvocato" (identical to the masculinum), but some like to use "avvocatessa", also correct.

It's better than being a fantasist! Just curious, what ever happened to that passage you said was in Burleigh's book about Knox sobbing for two hours on Halloween night? The one no one else can find?

Just askin'.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm afraid your knowledge of criminal law is comparable. But I see you are a guesswork enthusiast.

The most common femininum is "avvocato" (identical to the masculinum), but some like to use "avvocatessa", also correct.

Hm. So does that mean that you would call a female Italian judge a dumbassatessa?

 

[Samson]

Hm. So does that mean that you would call a female Italian judge a dumbassatessa?

I just learned the annulment was crafted by a dumbassatessa.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm afraid your knowledge of criminal law is comparable. But I see you are a guesswork enthusiast.

The most common femininum is "avvocato" (identical to the masculinum), but some like to use "avvocatessa", also correct.

And your knowledge of the truth has been proven to be even less.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's better than being a fantasist! Just curious, what ever happened to that passage you said was in Burleigh's book about Knox sobbing for two hours on Halloween night? The one no one else can find?

Just askin'.

..... or the "fact" that Knox walked home alone? Machavelli was "owe" for "two" on those!