Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

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.

1. Knox's lawyers and Knox made numerous complaints to the Italian authorities; those authorities ignored all of those complaints, except that Knox was criminally charged with calunnia (malicious accusation) against the police and Mignini. This was found by the ECHR in the final judgment Knox v. Italy, and is a matter that is final under international law. It is accepted by the Italian government, according to their preliminary communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This has been explained to you in the earlier continuations of this thread.

That Knox's statements could not be lawfully used against her for the murder/rape charges (although permitted against international law for the calunnia against Lumumba charge) was an early CSC decision also brought about by the complaints of Knox's lawyers.

Sources:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

2. Sollectio's lawyers also complained, as shown by the early CSC decision that his rights had been violated during the interrogation and therefore that his interrogation statements could not be used against him. This CSC decision apparently was violated by the Italian compensation court, and is one of the subjects of the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy 1157/18, as Communicated to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

3. Please provide a citation for your claim about the Italian Bar Standards. There is indeed an Italian legal document, issued by the Ministry of Justice, which governs the lawyers of Italy under the National Bar Council of Italy, entitled Code of Conduct for Italian Lawyers. It covers all lawyers in any kind of case, including criminal cases. The first article in its first paragraph states "the lawyer protects, in any courts, the right to liberty, as well as inviolability and effectiveness of the right to representation, and he ensures that trials and hearings conform to proper procedures." There is no provision in that document that supports your claim about complaints, only that the lawyer must present any complaint in court, which is what the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito did. According to the document, lawyers who do not fulfill their duties are subject to discipline; there is no evidence that the lawyers for Knox or Sollecito were subjected to any discipline for actions or lack of actions in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Source: https://www.italianbusinesslawyers....Italy_Code_of_Conduct_for_Italian_Lawyers.pdf

 

[Vixen]

Wrong on all counts.

But if you want to keep trying to split hairs and move goalposts, I’ll give you another example - this the judgement-based rather than empirical - and see if you can successfully apply it to the matter at hand:

Suppose that a mandatory criterion for a job applicant getting the job in sales is that they have a sufficiently high rapport and communications skills. This criterion is assessed by the 3-person interview panel.

Simon comes for an interview. The day afterwards, he’s informed that he will not be getting the job because, in the view of the interview panel, he has insufficient rapport/communication skills.

Now…… Simon might have failed this test by a whisker (perhaps after a lengthy debate among the interview panel members, after which they concluded that he just fell short of making the grade).

Or…….Simon might have displayed shockingly poor rapport and communication skills in the interview. As soon as he left the interview room, the three panel members might immediately have agreed that he fell massively short of their requirements.

In both of the above scenarios, Simon would - correctly and accurately - be said to have failed the interview on the grounds of “insufficient rapport/communications skills”.

Hope that will assist with your understanding re “insufficient evidence”.


And as a postscript: please do try to read my posts for comprehension. I have neither stated nor implied your belief in any conspiracy theory (other than the one wrt the Kercher case). I was using a simile: a comparator.

If, for example, I’d made an observation that the actions of a man who was staggering around after walking into a door were just like those of a raging drunk who’s just been thrown out of the pub…. would you think I was actually accusing the man of being drunk (or even of ever having been drunk before in his life)?

I suggest you may want to my post again. More slowly and carefully this time.

(Interestingly though, there’s a famous example from history where Vixen’s illogic actually did play out: at some point in late C19 or early C20 (and I have a feeling it predates WWI, but I might be wrong), a journalist or politician had stated that the rapid merciless sweeping advancements of German military forces across a certain piece of territory was reminiscent of the all-conquering days of the marauding Hun. At some point, 2+2 became 5 and Germans - notably the German military - started actually being called “The Hun”.)

What? That was correct:

In the mid-19th century, the Hun was resurrected as an Asiatic foe at the same time the British empire came to view China as a direct threat. And then, in the early months of World War I, the allies applied the term ‘Hun’ to the forces of Germany and Austro-Hungary in order to conjure up images of a bestial foe.

History Extra

Again, your analogy is not apt. A job interview is notoriously poor at assessing the best candidate. This is because people choose others in their own image (right clothes, right accent, right school). This is why criminal courts are set up so that each party has the fair opportunity to put their case. It is the best we have.

As you know, the rich play the system or they get more favourable treatment because of 'unconscious bias' or because they know the 'right people'. For example, Conservative politician Jeffrey Archer impressing the judge with his 'fragrant' wife.

Thus a court is as fair as it can be, especially for very serious crime involving young adults. Had there really have been 'insufficient evidence' or no 'probable cause' or 'no prospect of success', do you really think it would have a whole six months, with both the merits court and the appeal court rubber-stamping a 'Guilty' verdict.

So 'insufficient evidence' for a case that has been proven twice over does not cut the mustard as 'substantially insufficient' and must ipso facto be paper thin and simply the Supreme Court opting out of its duty to come to a verdict and instead abnegating its responsibility like a latter day Pontius Pilate, cringing and cowardly and only making things worse.

 

[Vixen]

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….?)

A simple stenographer taking down notes per paper and pen and then reading it back to the witness before their signing it has worked well all the way down the centuries. This is what is meant by the term 'recorded'.

It is a typical PIP lie to say the interviews were not recorded.

Watching too much Steven Avery Netflix apologists.

 

[Vixen]

And Vixen’s already had it explained to her - patiently and at length, and several times now - that the Marasca SC panel was faced with an issue wrt Knox’s criminal slander* conviction, whose verdict and MR had by then been finalised and signed off by the SC.

The Marasca court had two options: 1) include in its verdict elements which contradicted some or all of the criminal slander verdict; or 2) find some way to make its verdict align with the criminal slander verdict.

Had Marasca taken the former option, the contradictions would have necessitated a re-opening of the criminal slander conviction, and very probably a revision trial of some sort. By taking the latter option, Marasca ensured that the criminal slander conviction could simply be left as-is. And this - and ONLY this - is why many of the judicial facts from Knox’s criminal slander conviction found themselves within the Marasca judgement on the murder charges.

Of course, it wasn’t too long after the Marasca verdict/MR that the ECHR shredded the Knox criminal slander conviction in any case. Any rational, intelligent and objective observer can put the pieces of this small jigsaw puzzle together very easily.


* And yes, I realise there’s a more strictly accurate way to translate the Italian crime of calunnia, but “criminal slander” is, to me, an acceptable & sufficiently-accurate shorthand.

No, 'criminal slander' is a French law oft used to great financial advantage by Victoria Beckham whenever anyone disses her boutiques in Paris. It refers to a libel or slander that results in financial damage to your livelihood or business. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with slander or libel proper. Your confusion comes from translating Calunnia into calumny.

Calunnia is most closely equivalent to the US federal felony of 'Obstruction of Justice' (impeding a criminal investigation) or the UK 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is not a civil offence, it is classed as a serious crime, with sentencing guidelines recommending between three to six years, Italy, USA and UK. Don't try to downplay it as a minor misdemeanour.

Do you not see the paradox contained within your own message? Evidently not. If Knox is guilty of Criminal Calunnia and the written reasons state that this is because she appeared to have named Lumumba to cover up for Guede as she reasoned that someone might have seen a Black guy leaving the scene of the murder. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE if at the same time the pair 'had nothing to do with the murder'??? LondonJohn????!!!!


Under UK contract law any legal clause that contradicts itself repudiates the entire document.

So, on the one hand we have Knox covering up for Guede, who was there, was covered in blood, was convicted of Aggravated Murder, did sexually assault the victim (hence, 'Aggravated') but was cleared of being the killer and he did act with others and on the other hand we have Knox and Sollecito 'did not commit the act' due to insufficient evidence.

How so?

I will adopt my listening pose.

 

[Vixen]

We’re all still waiting patiently for you to supply us with (reliable) evidence that 530.2 is the “rich man’s get-out clause”.

Any chance of that happening, Vixen? Note that the simple supplying of evidence of two rich men being acquitted in this way is NOT evidence to support your claim. What you’ll need to supply is

1) How many total acquittals there were in Italy over a given period (say, 2005-2015);

2) Of these, how many were under 530.1 and how many were under 530.2;

3) Of those that were under 530.2, how many could reasonably be described as examples of a “rich man’s get-out clause”.

Only then will you be able to support your claim in any sort of credible manner.

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.

 

[Vixen]

You'll be surprised to read that I agree with you. That Sollecito and Knox were SUSPECTS from the start. To the point where the cops organized an all-night interrogation to coerce confessions from them before Knox's mother could arrive.

The issue? The events which provoked suspicion. Can those individual suspicious events be inventoried?

John Follain's book is perhaps the best at outlining what the cops were thinking, because he seemed to have access to their very thoughts - Mignini's very thoughts. The first 1/3 of Follain's book is 'the cops were right to suspect the pair,' and the second part he shifts to how the case against them fell apart at trial.

What were those suspicions? Please note, none of these are indicators of actual suspicion - that they were in investigators' minds is all one really needs to read, to know why Marasca-Bruno had called the original investigation 'amnesiac' and riddled with failures.

As above, the first "suspicious" act was Raffaele bugging Napoleoni about the pooh in Laura's toilet. The second was Raffaele and Knox comforting each other with soft kisses outside the cottage, then later canoodling at the Questura. While perhaps inappropriate - save for the fact that Knox was barely out of her teenage years - none of that is a marker for murder. Knox also bought underwear, her own was then behind crimescene tape.

Knox was taken back to the cottage and when she put on the anti-contamination booties, she swiveled her hips and said 'oop-la', or 'ta-da'. Inside she freaked out when they asked her to help in inventorying the kitchen knives, none of which were missing. All of that was cited as the psychological observations police made to declare them guilty, even before the forensics came in!

Tellingly, hours and hours of phone taps of their phones revealed nothing suspicious. At the Questura on Nov 5 while waiting for Raffaele, she did yoga, which the tabloid press sluttified as cartwheels.

There. It's one thing to say, "Here's a radical suggestion: perhaps Sollecito came under suspicion because he behaved extremely suspiciously...?"

It's quite another to inventory those actual behaviours. None of which pointed towards their participation in a murder - one of which (the phone taps) should have pointed the cops away from suspicions.

But it's good to read from you, one of the few remaining guilters, that the cops actually did bring Raffaele into the Questura late on Nov 5 with him as a full-on suspect. With a rotating team of police ready to go at both of them all night if necessary.

With the recording equipment turned off.

No, you cannot downplay this as 'inappropriate'. It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' 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.


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

 

[Vixen]

1. Knox's lawyers and Knox made numerous complaints to the Italian authorities; those authorities ignored all of those complaints, except that Knox was criminally charged with calunnia (malicious accusation) against the police and Mignini. This was found by the ECHR in the final judgment Knox v. Italy, and is a matter that is final under international law. It is accepted by the Italian government, according to their preliminary communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This has been explained to you in the earlier continuations of this thread.

That Knox's statements could not be lawfully used against her for the murder/rape charges (although permitted against international law for the calunnia against Lumumba charge) was an early CSC decision also brought about by the complaints of Knox's lawyers.

Sources:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

2. Sollectio's lawyers also complained, as shown by the early CSC decision that his rights had been violated during the interrogation and therefore that his interrogation statements could not be used against him. This CSC decision apparently was violated by the Italian compensation court, and is one of the subjects of the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy 1157/18, as Communicated to Italy by the ECHR 1 February 2022.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997

3. Please provide a citation for your claim about the Italian Bar Standards. There is indeed an Italian legal document, issued by the Ministry of Justice, which governs the lawyers of Italy under the National Bar Council of Italy, entitled Code of Conduct for Italian Lawyers. It covers all lawyers in any kind of case, including criminal cases. The first article in its first paragraph states "the lawyer protects, in any courts, the right to liberty, as well as inviolability and effectiveness of the right to representation, and he ensures that trials and hearings conform to proper procedures." There is no provision in that document that supports your claim about complaints, only that the lawyer must present any complaint in court, which is what the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito did. According to the document, lawyers who do not fulfill their duties are subject to discipline; there is no evidence that the lawyers for Knox or Sollecito were subjected to any discipline for actions or lack of actions in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Source: https://www.italianbusinesslawyers....Italy_Code_of_Conduct_for_Italian_Lawyers.pdf

Please issue me a specific citation that shows Dalla Vedova, Maori or Bongiorno ever set out a formal complaint to the police. I am not eeferring to what was said in court.

The Bar Standards say a barrister has a duty to his or her client. (First duty is to the court.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Do you not see the paradox contained within your own message? Evidently not. If Knox is guilty of Criminal Calunnia and the written reasons state that this is because she appeared to have named Lumumba to cover up for Guede as she reasoned that someone might have seen a Black guy leaving the scene of the murder. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE if at the same time the pair 'had nothing to do with the murder'???
...
I will adopt my listening pose.

"She appeared to have" is not the same thing as "She did".

You are conflating the act of calunnia with the surmised motive for committing the act. She was convicted of callunia against Lumumba, not of covering up for Guede.

So your argument that she couldn't be uninvolved in the murder if she was convicted of covering up for the murderer fails because you carelessly failed to grasp that she was not convicted of covering up for the murderer, she was convicted of throwing blame on an innocent man.

Still listening, or is that just a pose?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

bullies laugh at other people's misfortune

Ordinary people laugh inappropriately in stressful situations.

 

[Numbers]

Please issue me a specific citation that shows Dalla Vedova, Maori or Bongiorno ever set out a formal complaint to the police. I am not eeferring to what was said in court.

The Bar Standards say a barrister has a duty to his or her client. (First duty is to the court.)

This in the Italian Bar document is stated in Article 10 as:

A lawyer shall faithfully fulfil the received mandate, carrying out his activity in the interest of the assisted party and in compliance with the constitutional and social relevance of the defence.

That means if the lawyer and client believe that the best course of action is to complain to the court rather than to the police, that is what is proper.

Knox had properly complained to the police about mistreatment in her Memoriale 1, and that complaint was ignored.

There was no Italian law against torture of persons by police or prison guards at the relevant time, so Knox, Sollecito, and their lawyers waited to present futher complaints to the court, as was appropriate, legal, and in the best interests of Knox and Sollecito. Your attempts to make the proper and legal seem otherwise are laughably false.

In its case law, the ECHR is very specific that complaints are to be directed to the courts when there is a risk of retaliation by the authorities after complaints to the police. The brutality that may be displayed by Italian police was well known at the relevant time, based upon several Italian court and ECHR cases. Part of the lawyer's job in Italy is to assure, as much as possible, that the lawyer's client who has been allegedly mistreated by the authorities is not subjected to further mistreatment as a result of retaliation by those same authorities.

 

[Vixen]

"She appeared to have" is not the same thing as "She did".

You are conflating the act of calunnia with the surmised motive for committing the act. She was convicted of callunia against Lumumba, not of covering up for Guede.

So your argument that she couldn't be uninvolved in the murder if she was convicted of covering up for the murderer fails because you carelessly failed to grasp that she was not convicted of covering up for the murderer, she was convicted of throwing blame on an innocent man.

Still listening, or is that just a pose?

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.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please issue me a specific citation that shows Dalla Vedova, Maori or Bongiorno ever set out a formal complaint to the police. I am not eeferring to what was said in court.
The Bar Standards say a barrister has a duty to his or her client. (First duty is to the court.)

Wow. Mignini cited Knox's statements in court as a reason to have her charged with defamation, for claiming to have been slapped at interrogation.

Indeed I read somewhere that a PM, like Mignini, is required to investigate ANY wrongdoing he becomes aware of, regardless of if an aggrieved party fills out the forms....

... like none of the inquisators from that night had done.

But for someone who rarely provides citations for the most bizarre of claims, it's weird to read that you want others to cite.... just saying.

 

[Vixen]

This in the Italian Bar document is stated in Article 10 as:



That means if the lawyer and client believe that the best course of action is to complain to the court rather than to the police, that is what is proper.

Knox had properly complained to the police about mistreatment in her Memoriale 1, and that complaint was ignored.

There was no Italian law against torture of persons by police or prison guards at the relevant time, so Knox, Sollecito, and their lawyers waited to present futher complaints to the court, as was appropriate, legal, and in the best interests of Knox and Sollecito. Your attempts to make the proper and legal seem otherwise are laughably false.

In its case law, the ECHR is very specific that complaints are to be directed to the courts when there is a risk of retaliation by the authorities after complaints to the police. The brutality that may be displayed by Italian police was well known at the relevant time, based upon several Italian court and ECHR cases. Part of the lawyer's job in Italy is to assure, as much as possible, that the lawyer's client who has been allegedly mistreated by the authorities is not subjected to further mistreatment as a result of retaliation by those same authorities.

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.

 

[Vixen]

Wow. Mignini cited Knox's statements in court as a reason to have her charged with defamation, for claiming to have been slapped at interrogation.

Indeed I read somewhere that a PM, like Mignini, is required to investigate ANY wrongdoing he becomes aware of, regardless of if an aggrieved party fills out the forms....

... like none of the inquisators from that night had done.

But for someone who rarely provides citations for the most bizarre of claims, it's weird to read that you want others to cite.... just saying.

Why were Knox' parents and friends spreading false claims about police brutality and encouraging Knox to say she was hit, yet not once did any of the attorneys lodge a complaint against the police? Can't prosecute an attorney for going through the correct channels.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Of course, no one cares if the Italian courts got calunnia right or wrong, except for maybe the immediate parties to it. ECHR certainly thought Italy had got it wrong.

I'm speaking as someone who when I got involved with this, actually though Hellmann had got everything 100% right, including sustaining calunnia. On that I've changed my mind, after reading Mignini's 2010 interview with CNN where he painted himself into a corner about it.

 

[Welshman]

No, you cannot downplay this as 'inappropriate'. It was cold-bloodied bullying behaviour by Knox, laughing and giggling in front of Mez' 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.


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

Vixen has a virulent hatred of Amanda and believes Amanda is guilty regardless of the facts. In view of this, Amanda will be condemned for her behaviour regardless of what she does. These are the following behaviours Vixen has no issue with :-

*Corrupt police/prosecutors violating the rights of Amanda and Raffale by denying access to lawyers and not taping their interrogations, lying to Amanda she had HIV, feeding numerous lies to the media about the washing machine running, the purchase of receipts, a missing Harry Potter book and showering in a bloody bathroom, suppressing evidence and committing fraud and destroying evidence. Below is a small examples of how the prosecution suppressed evidence. The prosecution lied in court when prosecutor Comoedi asked Amanda why she called her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records showed she called her mother at 12.47 pm.

The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA tests excluding Raffaele Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pre-trial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense;

The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence, i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36b) and the bra clasp (Rep. 165b), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (re-runs), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests were “do overs”;

The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide;

The prosecution claimed that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was produced during a set of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination;

The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA laboratory as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab;

The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and a secondary crime scene downstairs;

The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination-control tests for this process.

*Vixen attacks C&V, Hellman and the supreme court for being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police/prosecutors who committed numerous abuses as detailed above.



*Vixen falsely accusing judge Hellman to take a massive bribe to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty whilst viciously attacking Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11669633#post11669633

*Vixen lying on an industrial scale in her posts and then attacks people for lying. Vixen feels it is perfectly acceptable to accuse someone of a crime on the basis of false claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11938562#post11938562

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11942852#post11942852

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11598412#post11598412

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11427461#post11427461

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951893#post11951893

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11982023#post11982023

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12107306#post12107306

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12200863#post12200863

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297573#post12297573

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12297575#post12297575

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13170726#post13170726

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13920821#post13920821

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13941551#post13941551

*Witnesses such as Curalto and Quintavelle lying and it is perfectly acceptable to convict people on the basis of false testimony.

*Complain the supreme court acted illegally in annulling the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele but had no problem with corrupt police breaking numerous Italian laws in the interrogation and for Amanda to be convicted for Callunia on the basis of an illegal interrogation as per the link below.

http://amandaknoxcase.com/echr-case-law/

 

[Bill Williams]

Why were Knox' parents and friends spreading false claims about police brutality and encouraging Knox to say she was hit, yet not once did any of the attorneys lodge a complaint against the police? Can't prosecute an attorney for going through the correct channels.

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.

 

[Vixen]

*Vixen attacks C&V, Hellman and the supreme court for being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police/prosecutors who committed numerous abuses as detailed above.



*Vixen falsely accusing judge Hellman to take a massive bribe to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty whilst viciously attacking Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime.

This is what was being said about Hellmann:

I'll tell you some "inside news" I forgot to tell you: I found out that one reliable "source" has told about Pratillo Hellmann's bribe

The source has been Pratillo Hellmann's laywer. He said - in an unsolicited conversation - that Hellmann received on 500.000 US $ on a bank account.

He pointed out that it was US dollars, not Euros.

He told that directly to Mignini while sitting at a table at a Perugian pub. Basically suggesting it, thus, I suppose, as a track. Unfortunately neither Mignini or the lawyers friends sitting there were able to record him - it was not waited for.

There are also other informal declaration that I know were made, providing other pieces of information. The lawyer didn't know the overall amount of the bribe but said he knew Zanetti was corrupted as well. What we know from other sources is that the overall amount of the bribe was about 2 million Euros.

The lawyer made this statement only 1 month ago.

At least 5 people were corrupted

The lawyer says this because this is Perugia, Italy. A place where people can't really "hide" thing. We call these kind of secrets "a Pulcinella's secret"


Also the Narducci - Monster of Florence involvement was a Pulcinella's secret. Actually the 2 million figure was a figure already known and talked about days before the verdict. And it was the reason why a crowd gathered in front of the court chanting "vergogna"

Source: Macchiavelli


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

 

[Vixen]

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.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

It's unclear what you're even talking about. It reads a bit like a word salad, words tossed together which have no dressing on them.