Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Art 6 claims depend on art. 3 in ths case, because the failure to claim wrongdoing by the defence is not just a formal element, it is also a probative element in the merits of the claim. It not just makes a claim of violation of art. 3 inadmissible, it is itself also evidence that there was no violation (because it is not realistic to assume that the lawyers would be violating the code of ethics).

What?? The defence to art 3 is the lack of a querala - that's clear, though I don't think it will prevail. But there is no defence to art 6 on the lawyer and interpreter. There is no sense in which she was required to perform any action in regard to them. As for the third art 6 claim, I'm not sure yet.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sure she did. She sought to have the coerced statements thrown out as a basis for convicting her of a crime. When the Italian courts refused this relief, she appealed to the exhaustion of her remedies.

Seek remedy means there must be a legal claim that the thing happened. She never acted legally complaining about an alleged event. She never sought any remedy at all. Her attempt to have the statements declared unusable do not contain any claim that the statements were coerced, even less that she suffered an inhumane treatment.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that there is a special Art. 3 exclusionary rule, which provides that statements elicited in violation of Art. 3 (i.e., through torture/illegal coercion) cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever.

Art. 3 violations must be proven separately. But Amanda Knox herself declared that her memoriale was written voluntarily.
And anyway, there is not even need of any statement by Amanda Knox at all in order to convict her: Anna Donnino's testimony alone would be sufficient.

 

[Kauffer]

No. There is no power in Italy who could cancel a definitive verdict. Abandon the idea.
The theoretical possibility in the most exceptionally favourable (to Knox) scenario is that she would be entitled to a trial review, leading to a second Dorigo case.

No verdict in Italy can survive an Art 6 finding. It's wiped. There's no sense in which it can be reviewed and reconfirmed. Nor can there be another trial.

 

[Diocletus]

Seek remedy means there must be a legal claim that the thing happened. She never acted legally complaining about an alleged event. She never sought any remedy at all. Her attempt to have the statements declared unusable do not contain any claim that the statements were coerced, even less that she suffered an inhumane treatment.

What are you talking about?

Amanda said: "I was coerced to make these statements by suggestion and mistreatment, including slapping."

The prosecution said: "We didn't mistreat you, you made the statements spontaneously. And, BTW, your claims are so specious that we can respond without even investigating them."

The courts said: "She was mistreated and did not make the statements spontaneously, however, she was not coerced."

That's called raising an affirmative defense and having it adjudicated.

 

[Machiavelli]

What?? The defence to art 3 is the lack of a querala - that's clear, though I don't think it will prevail. But there is no defence to art 6 on the lawyer and interpreter. There is no sense in which she was required to perform any action in regard to them. As for the third art 6 claim, I'm not sure yet.

But alleged violations of art. 6 alone - without claiming mistreatment and coercion - would not lead to any acquittal from the charge of calunnia by any court. Claiming unfair trial procedure doesn't lead to conclude for innocence - there is no consequential relation between a correctness of procedure and the merits of judges' findings. It is theoretically well possible that courts rule that it was under an incorrect legal procedure when she committed the crime of calunnia (although I know the procedure was correct). But this is not a reason that would excuse her committing calunnia, and there is no room for her to be found innocent on that ground alone.

 

[Diocletus]

Art. 3 violations must be proven separately. But Amanda Knox herself declared that her memoriale was written voluntarily.

Oh, you mean the memoriale where she said "the cops opened up a big can of whoop-ass on me"?

 

[LondonJohn]

It matters a lot as for the reliability of LondonJohn.

Err..... what??

Seriously, take a break. You're losing badly.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, because there is Knox's blood in the her own bathroom,

There, I fixed that for you.

because Knox must have let him in,

You need to see the Channel 5 documentary again.

because Knox is the suspect who told most lies,

I wish you would give up this very tired point. For one thing it assumes she is guilty of the murder charge for which she (and Raffaele) have been acquitted.

because the motive of the crime was mostly personal rage (someone closer to Meredith),

"Personal rage"!? So you are now breaking with Mignini's theory, expressed at the closing of the 2009 trial, that Knox had a psychological dysfunction triggered by her otherwise normal relationship with a roommate.

Note to Machiavelli - do not go into Hollywood scriptwriting.

because Sollecito alone wouldn't need to stage a burglary (that points to the flatmate),

Plase provide evidence of an investigation into a staging, other than assertions from cops.

because the bloody & luminol footprints belong to multiple perpetrators, because Amanda Knox was there (she even remembers the scream) and because it is a proven fact that there were multiple murderers (so no Sollecito alone scenario could fit). And for many other reasons.

Proven judicial truth, you mean. Once again, for the millionth time, even Judge Massei heard from experts, 8 of 9 of them said that a single perp could not be ruled out. It's time you stayed with facts as you have promised.

 

[Diocletus]

It is theoretically well possible that courts rule that it was under an incorrect legal procedure when she committed the crime of calunnia (although I know the procedure was correct). But this is not a reason that would excuse her committing calunnia,

Maybe not, but it certainly would "excuse" the prosecution from using the statement to prove callunia. So, we would be left with . . . no case.

 

[Machiavelli]

What are you talking about?

Amanda said: "I was coerced to make these statements by suggestion and mistreatment, including slapping."

Where and when did she say that?
She needs to say that in a complaint within 90 days from the event, these are the rules for seeking domestic remedy.

(...)
The courts said: "She was mistreated and did not make the statements spontaneously, however, she was not coerced."

No. The courts said other, additional and quite different things. They said, among other things, that she committed calunnia while she was not being interrogated and while she was not being evan under pressure.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are lying. You know Mignini was not in the control room - and nowhere you can read anything like that in the trial papers.

All courts - no exception - established she lied voluntarily.

And Strasbourg will rule that all the Italian courts were wrong.

It's just a shame (and somewhat astonishing) that you cannot see this, just as you cannot see the clear evidence that more-or-less proves that the police unlawfully instructed Knox to accuse Lumumba in that 5th/6th November interrogation. You also ought to be ashamed of the entire Italian courts system, that it couldn't see this too. Instead, you need to have Strasbourg clean up your corrupt, unfit-for-purpose mess in the Italian system. What an embarrassment.

 

[Diocletus]

Where and when did she say that?
She needs to say that in a complaint within 90 days from the event, these are the rules for seeking domestic remedy.

It's quite evident that you are full of it. Again, if she had been required to make a complaint within 90 days or else be precluded from arguing compulsion, then that would have been the prosecution's case instead of "camomille tea, biscuits and love". Perhaps she was prevented after 90 days from asserting a collateral action against the police, however, it is evidence that this did not effect her right to raise compulsion as an affirmative defense to the charges against her, and have that affirmative defense adjudicated, as it was. Also, I very much doubt that a country could use such a procedure (must file complaint with 90 days) to limit rights that are guaranteed under the ECHR.

No. The courts said other, additional and quite different things. They said, among other things, that she committed calunnia while she was not being interrogated and while she was not being evan under pressure.

You forgot to add "and while she was being prohibited from having a lawyer."

 

[Vixen]

No they werent. Vixen's MO, if the facts don't fit your narrative make it all up. Sort of like the Donald Trump school for life.

Yes, they were. Filomena spent hours at the questura and on the witness stand. Sophie wasn't allowed to leave Italy immediately like other foreign students in Perugia, who fled. She was phone-tapped (see link.) She was grilled as to whether she really did leave Mez at the corner and not come back to the cottage.

Amanda ostensiby named 'Shaky' (Khiri) to Raff at the questura knowing police were probably listening in.

Police had them under surveillance. It is poppycock to claim police focussed exclusively on Amanda and Raff.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...ce-Police-request-phone-taps-Khiri-Purton.pdf

 

[Diocletus]

Where and when did she say that?

Well, lots of times, for example, here:

AK: The declarations were taken against my will. And so, everything that I said, was said in confusion and under pressure, and, because they were
suggested by the public minister.

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe not, but it certainly would "excuse" the prosecution from using the statement to prove callunia. So, we would be left with . . . no case.

You have strange values regarding your doubts and certainties.

The calunnia is a behaviour which the courts found to be "incontrovertible" and independent from how she was treated by the police.
The courts (Bruno/Marasca) also pointed out that her oral statement was "spontaneous" and the context where she released it was "institutionally immune" from possible pressures. The defence never claimed that an interrogation by Mignini ever took place - and a failure to make that claim, if it were true, would lead the lawyers to be disbarred.
When Knox had an opportunity to clarify about her statements and false accusations, she refused to respond questions, she did so twice, on Nov. 8. and on Dec. 17.
Knox also submitted hand written statements where she places further false evidence and she "stands by" her previous statements.
All of those documents, including judicial findings, are usable, even without spontaneous statement.

But the spontaneous statement anyway was not released by Amanda Knox as she was a suspect, because we are talking about a calunnia case, that was still to be committed at the time. She was not a suspect of calunnia. Her statements are the crime itself, its a behaviour, an event first of all.

On the other hand, prosecution would need no copy of these statements in order to prosecute her for calunnia, because the simple testimonies of Anna Donnino and people present would be sufficient to convict her.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, lots of times, for example, here:

She expresses her judgement in her murder trial, years later.
A late and apparently opportunistic judgemental claim is not seeking a remedy. Seek remedy means file a complaint reporting facts, rather than judgements, and within three months.

 

[Vixen]

Wait and see Vixen. Read the last motivation the judge suggested that the police and the PM was lying, not Amanda.

The last MR post-dates the ECHR application.

 

[Diocletus]

On the other hand, prosecution would need no copy of these statements in order to prosecute her for calunnia, because the simple testimonies of Anna Donnino and people present would be sufficient to convict her.

Oh, I see where you're going with this now. You think that if all of the written statements are thrown out for human rights violations, the Italian authorities are going to insist of the viability of their conviction on the basis of the testimony of the interpreter who currently forms the basis of another human rights charge against Italy.

Hope springs eternal, I guess.

 

[bagels]

There is no claim of coercion in Knox's memorial; but as for her calunnia, the same memorial places further false evidence and is a calunnia itself.

" The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. "

"Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused"

" Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."

Give me a break Mach.

 

[bagels]

On the other hand, prosecution would need no copy of these statements in order to prosecute her for calunnia, because the simple testimonies of Anna Donnino and people present would be sufficient to convict her.

Worked out well in the last case against her for the police lol