Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:32 am

Bill Williams wrote:
B_Real wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
1) if we do not know how or why Gill came to make public assertions about this case, what weight can we assign to his opinion given that his connection to this case, and his assertions about it, have never been tested by way of cross-examination?

2) are you aware of ANY jurisdiction that allows police and/or prosecutors to seek out experts-for-hire to appear in the media (but not in the court room) to back the state's case?

3) can you point out any example where Gill attempts to evaluate the degree to which the non-DNA evidence (example, lies to police) reinforces/ undermines one or other of the competing interpretations of the DNA evidence?

(For example, why should the trier of fact side with a lower probability tertiary transfer theory (sloppy cops) rather than a higher probability primary transfer theory (murder &/or staging), given that the defendant also lied to police?)




Was Einstein tested by cross examination in court? Was Oppenheimer? Was Henry Ford?


Cross examination? This is about the dumbest criticism of Dr. Gill's work there is.

Dr. Gill regularly faces something a lot more daunting than cross-examination. It's called peer-review.

If a peer of Dr. Gill's finds a flaw in his work, that peer can make a name for him/herself by exposing it, and similarly publishing about that flaw - again with peer review in the background.

It's in the background both before it is allowed to be published, as well as subject to continual review once published. "Once published" means that anyone, anytime can read the article and if it does not pass muster it can be critiqued.

It is simply bizarre that someone would discount Dr. Gill because he had not been "cross-examined". This is the poverty of understanding of those commenting on this case.


Dumb? I am a member of Mensa. (Are you?)

“Poverty of understanding"? I spent 6 figures & 4 years of my life studying biological sciences (and winning awards), and another 6 figures & 3 years of my life studying law (and winning awards). (What academic work have you done that adds value to your opinions about law and DNA evidence?)

Along the way, I had the opportunity to serve as an associate editor of a prestigious academic journal AND the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in a court of law.

In the result, I can assure you that “peer-review” is a JOKE compared to “cross-examination”.

Cross-examination is far more rigorous, far more thorough, and can wind up putting you in jail.

My objective in a cross-examination is to show the world that you are a fool, a liar or both. You must swear an oath and answer my questions on pain of penalty of perjury.

Peer-review, on the other hand, is NOT even remotely “adversarial”. It is collegial. Credentials are not challenged, motives are not impugned, and oaths are not sworn. Friendly suggestions are made if a submission is lacking in minor ways and the worst that can happen is that your submission is not published. No one is humiliated. No one goes to jail.

I would also add that the process does not result in the publication of immutable and unimpeachable truths, particularly when the article in question concerns the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a murder case.

And, as anyone with an IQ score over 100 can tell you, Gill has NO academic or professional expertise that would enhance his ability to evaluate NON-DNA evidence (e.g. lies to police) or the degree to which the various pieces of NON-DNA evidence either reinforce or undermine the various interpretations of the DNA evidence in this case.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:48 am

erasmus44 wrote:I know of no rule preventing the prosecution from seeking support from outside experts.

And - of course - an expert who strongly believed the prosecution was correct can simply come forward on his or her own. .


With respect, Mr. E, I must confess that I am truly surprised to see that you, of all people, seem to be suggesting that the prosecution’s case is weak because they did not seek out or attract consultants-for-hire to appear on their behalf in the (English language) media.

While I do not pretend to have any formal schooling in the Italian civil law tradition, I feel compelled to remind you that the vast majority of the common law world (including England, Canada, Australia & New Zealand) has adopted the Sub Judice Rule (part of the law re contempt of court).

In these jurisdictions, as you know, NO ONE can make public statements about any aspect of ongoing legal proceedings for fear that they will usurp the role of the courts/ triers of fact.

Even in the US, where the State’s interest in fair trials has to be balanced against concerns re First Amendment rights, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct reflect this same fear about people prejudging matters that are properly left to the courts/ triers of fact:

"Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity:

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter…”



It’s hard to see how Gill’s public comments, while the proceedings in Italy were ongoing, could not entail a "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter”. He'd be facing serious legal problems if he'd done the same thing in connection with a trial or an appeal in England, Canada, Australia or NZ.



Surely a man who works as consultant-for-hire, and who at one point indicated (erroneously) to the BBC that the knife had been transported in a container that had belonged to Meredith Kercher, should be forced to answer how and why he came to make repeated public assertions about this case before we decide his opinion has not been unduly influenced by one of the parties appearing before the court.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:34 am

Mediocrates wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I know of no rule preventing the prosecution from seeking support from outside experts.

And - of course - an expert who strongly believed the prosecution was correct can simply come forward on his or her own. .


With respect, Mr. E, I must confess that I am truly surprised to see that you, of all people, seem to be suggesting that the prosecution’s case is weak because they did not seek out or attract consultants-for-hire to appear on their behalf in the (English language) media.

While I do not pretend to have any formal schooling in the Italian civil law tradition, I feel compelled to remind you that the vast majority of the common law world (including England, Canada, Australia & New Zealand) has adopted the Sub Judice Rule (part of the law re contempt of court).

In these jurisdictions, as you know, NO ONE can make public statements about any aspect of ongoing legal proceedings for fear that they will usurp the role of the courts/ triers of fact.

Even in the US, where the State’s interest in fair trials has to be balanced against concerns re First Amendment rights, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct reflect this same fear about people prejudging matters that are properly left to the courts/ triers of fact:

"Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity:

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter…”



It’s hard to see how Gill’s public comments, while the proceedings in Italy were ongoing, could not entail a "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter”. He'd be facing serious legal problems if he'd done the same thing in connection with a trial or an appeal in England, Canada, Australia or NZ.



Surely a man who works as consultant-for-hire, and who at one point indicated (erroneously) to the BBC that the knife had been transported in a container that had belonged to Meredith Kercher, should be forced to answer how and why he came to make repeated public assertions about this case before we decide his opinion has not been unduly influenced by one of the parties appearing before the court.


The above comments by "Mediocrates" display a profound ignorance of law. Sub judice only applies to persons publicly commenting on cases in a country with a sub judice law who are within the jurisdiction of that country, for example, England and Wales. The relevant current law in England and Wales is the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, according to Wikipedia. There are no sub judice laws in Italy, and sub judice does not apply in the US, where freedom of speech and the press is a right listed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The ABA model rule quoted has no legal status, applies only to lawyers, and is a proposed standard of professional conduct. The ABA itself is a private voluntary organization, and should not be confused with the bar associations of individual US states, the rules of which may or may not be given legal status by the State Legislature.

Dr. Gill and other experts spoke out or published on this case and published in accordance with law and based upon their own sense of professional responsibility.

It should be recalled that the Knox - Sollecito case was heavily covered by the Italian media, which published numerous falsehoods, apparently originating with the police or prosecution, against the accused.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:41 am

Mediocrates wrote:Peer-review, on the other hand, is NOT even remotely “adversarial”. It is collegial. Credentials are not challenged, motives are not impugned, and oaths are not sworn. Friendly suggestions are made if a submission is lacking in minor ways and the worst that can happen is that your submission is not published. No one is humiliated. No one goes to jail.

I would also add that the process does not result in the publication of immutable and unimpeachable truths, particularly when the article in question concerns the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a murder case..

It is bizarre to claim that peer review is not even remotely adversarial, or that nothing is on the line in the process, other than some collegial polite conversation.

Peer review rarely results in jail, that is true. But the cases where it resulted in a ruined career and the bread line are legion.

But thanks for the laugh.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:37 am

Numbers wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I know of no rule preventing the prosecution from seeking support from outside experts.

And - of course - an expert who strongly believed the prosecution was correct can simply come forward on his or her own. .


With respect, Mr. E, I must confess that I am truly surprised to see that you, of all people, seem to be suggesting that the prosecution’s case is weak because they did not seek out or attract consultants-for-hire to appear on their behalf in the (English language) media.

While I do not pretend to have any formal schooling in the Italian civil law tradition, I feel compelled to remind you that the vast majority of the common law world (including England, Canada, Australia & New Zealand) has adopted the Sub Judice Rule (part of the law re contempt of court).

In these jurisdictions, as you know, NO ONE can make public statements about any aspect of ongoing legal proceedings for fear that they will usurp the role of the courts/ triers of fact.

Even in the US, where the State’s interest in fair trials has to be balanced against concerns re First Amendment rights, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct reflect this same fear about people prejudging matters that are properly left to the courts/ triers of fact:

"Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity:

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter…”



It’s hard to see how Gill’s public comments, while the proceedings in Italy were ongoing, could not entail a "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter”. He'd be facing serious legal problems if he'd done the same thing in connection with a trial or an appeal in England, Canada, Australia or NZ.



Surely a man who works as consultant-for-hire, and who at one point indicated (erroneously) to the BBC that the knife had been transported in a container that had belonged to Meredith Kercher, should be forced to answer how and why he came to make repeated public assertions about this case before we decide his opinion has not been unduly influenced by one of the parties appearing before the court.


The above comments by "Mediocrates" display a profound ignorance of law. Sub judice only applies to persons publicly commenting on cases in a country with a sub judice law who are within the jurisdiction of that country, for example, England and Wales. The relevant current law in England and Wales is the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, according to Wikipedia. There are no sub judice laws in Italy, and sub judice does not apply in the US, where freedom of speech and the press is a right listed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The ABA model rule quoted has no legal status, applies only to lawyers, and is a proposed standard of professional conduct. The ABA itself is a private voluntary organization, and should not be confused with the bar associations of individual US states, the rules of which may or may not be given legal status by the State Legislature.

Dr. Gill and other experts spoke out or published on this case and published in accordance with law and based upon their own sense of professional responsibility.

It should be recalled that the Knox - Sollecito case was heavily covered by the Italian media, which published numerous falsehoods, apparently originating with the police or prosecution, against the accused.


I hope you're better with "numbers" than you are with "words", "Numbers"!

I think you may have a very serious reading comprehension problem.

1) I specifically declined having any knowledge of the relevant Italian law;

2) I specifically pointed out 4 common law countries, by name, that had adopted the Sub Judice Rule;

3) I specifically acknowledged that the US differed slightly (due to concerns re First Amendment rights) and noted that, despite this small difference, the ABA created model rules that recognize the SAME problem targeted but the Sub Judice Rule (people prejudging matters that should be left to the courts);

4) I used the ABA Model Rules as a succinct way of summarizing the American approach in general because they have been adopted in whole or in part in EVERY STATE except California (I'm not going to go through the Rules in all 50 states looking for subtle differences - the specific states I am familiar with do not differ from the Model Rules in any meaningful way re trial publicity.);

5) the wording from Model Rule 3.6 ("substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter”) was used only to summarize (nicely) the problem with Gill's public statements, not to suggest that the Rule itself literally applied to him (or any other NON-lawyer); &

6) I specifically pointed out that Gill would've run afoul of the law if he'd tried to play the same game in any of the 4 jurisdictions listed by name (all of which have adopted the Sub Judice Rule, as noted previously). There was no suggestion, express or implied, that Gill violated Italian law. (Although, for all I know, he may have.)
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:44 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:Peer-review, on the other hand, is NOT even remotely “adversarial”. It is collegial. Credentials are not challenged, motives are not impugned, and oaths are not sworn. Friendly suggestions are made if a submission is lacking in minor ways and the worst that can happen is that your submission is not published. No one is humiliated. No one goes to jail.

I would also add that the process does not result in the publication of immutable and unimpeachable truths, particularly when the article in question concerns the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a murder case..

It is bizarre to claim that peer review is not even remotely adversarial, or that nothing is on the line in the process, other than some collegial polite conversation.

Peer review rarely results in jail, that is true. But the cases where it resulted in a ruined career and the bread line are legion.

But thanks for the laugh.


Hey, speaking of good laughs and "bizarre" claims, tell us more about your hockey career, young fella!

And when you're done, tell us more about these "legions" of people that ended up in "bread lines" after their submissions were not published.

Surely, if these case are "legion", you can quickly rattle off 20 or so examples, no?
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:56 am

Mediocrates wrote:
Hey, speaking of good laughs and "bizarre" claims, tell us more about your hockey career, young fella!

And when you're done, tell us more about these "legions" of people that ended up in "bread lines" after their submissions were not published.

Surely, if these case are "legion", you can quickly rattle off 20 or so examples, no?

Huh!?

The bizarreness continues.

In 2007 a man with a known background in breaking and entering surprises a helpless young woman in her flat in upcountry Italy, commits a horrible murder, then flees to Germany.....

And a decade later a hockey brawl breaks out in a forum halfway around the world.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:59 am

Tell us about your last big hockey fight, Billy!

As for the murder, yes, it is TRULY bizarre that some old men would come to treat it as a form of daily amusement.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:04 am

Mediocrates wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:Peer-review, on the other hand, is NOT even remotely “adversarial”. It is collegial. Credentials are not challenged, motives are not impugned, and oaths are not sworn. Friendly suggestions are made if a submission is lacking in minor ways and the worst that can happen is that your submission is not published. No one is humiliated. No one goes to jail.

I would also add that the process does not result in the publication of immutable and unimpeachable truths, particularly when the article in question concerns the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a murder case..


It is bizarre to claim that peer review is not even remotely adversarial, or that nothing is on the line in the process, other than some collegial polite conversation.

Peer review rarely results in jail, that is true. But the cases where it resulted in a ruined career and the bread line are legion.

But thanks for the laugh.


Hey, speaking of good laughs and "bizarre" claims, tell us more about your hockey career, young fella!

And when you're done, tell us more about these "legions" of people that ended up in "bread lines" after their submissions were not published.

Surely, if these case are "legion", you can quickly rattle off 20 or so examples, no?


To Mediocrates

Hey Medicrates, you want to bring up a good laugh and now your saying: Oh hey let talk about the Ice Hockey of the NHL style. Are we going to listen to this, everyone? No! We an't going to listen. So why did Medicrates bring this up? The reason is? He never exist of criminal law even Dr Gill case was all flaw and inside the cottage was a mess of sloppy Joe work inside it and it was ruin even crystal clear of it!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:06 am

What's this,Tom? The NHL? Did Bill tell you he was in the NHL?!
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:07 am

Mediocrates wrote:Tell us about your last big hockey fight, Billy!

As for the murder, yes, it is TRULY bizarre that some old men would come to treat it as a form of daily amusement.


To Medicorates

Why is it so bizarre that you need to bring this up? You need to accept the fact or shut the HELL UP!!!!!!!!!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:08 am

Mediocrates wrote:What's this,Tom? The NHL? Did Bill tell you he was in the NHL?!


To Mediocrates

Really, Bill inside the NHL? I would love to heard that right now? Why not? Let really ask him right now?
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:14 am

To everyone

I am not putting my foot down for once in a life time, that if some silly guts game of Medcrates or any of the guilt side want to play this stupid game of nonsense it need to stop for once in a life time, even it crystal clear that the whole case was sloppy Joe and it was ruin even I know, and everyone else knows it, and I an't going to buy it one bit. Amanda Knox had nothing to do with Meredith Kercher even it was pointed to Rudy Guede and it was shown by him crystal clear of criminal law and I prove to you she is 1,000 percent innocent and I an't buying anyone or any person inside the PMF or the TJMK. They don't like it? Sue me or banned me from Italy too. I triple dare them to Banned me to Italy. I wouldn't care one bit, even I support another woman who murder a sex offender and it bother you. My god grow up, I call that woman a hero and I can care less even she was 170 miles away from the crime scene. I focus on the innocent and only on that part, end of story even I am against self defense even I had hard for the case, even I only believe on Amanda innocent not Raffaele, until he was proven innocent of the case and it shows he was telling the truth, all along!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:22 am

B_Real wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
1) if we do not know how or why Gill came to make public assertions about this case, what weight can we assign to his opinion given that his connection to this case, and his assertions about it, have never been tested by way of cross-examination?



Was Einstein tested by cross examination in court? Was Oppenheimer? Was Henry Ford?


To B-Real

Hey B-Real, no wonder you got it right! But I would like to ask Mediocrates?

Was Anne Hathaway tested by cross examinated in this case? I would love to heard his answer of my Anne Hathaway!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:57 am

Mediocrates wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:What's this,Tom? The NHL? Did Bill tell you he was in the NHL?!


To Mediocrates

Really, Bill inside the NHL? I would love to heard that right now? Why not? Let really ask him right now?


Hi Tom - yes! Let's ask Bill about his hockey fights!

Are you an NHL fan?

Really? Someone with a claimed background in law and in the peer review process argues this way?

Ok. There's no real reason to doubt your claimed bona fides, but whatever. It's a mystery why you are not pointing all this out to the relevant journal which seems taken in by Dr Gill's alleged inadequacies..... be sure to mention that you once had a fight with someone on an internet forum who has NHL experience. That should add to your credentials as far as they evaluate things....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Mediocrates » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:00 am

You have "NHL experience"?!!!

But ... WOW! Do tell! Who did you play for?


PS I have no reason to suspect Gill is "inadequate" but I have reason to suspect his APPROACH, in this case, may have been ... a little too one-sided, not to mention an affront to the notion that cases should be tried in the courtroom, not on the courthouse steps.

Reactions to all that's being published in connection with this case will play out over the course of many years. I hope valuable lessons will be learned along the way.
Mediocrates
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:21 am

Mediocrates wrote:You have "NHL experience"?!!!

But ... WOW! Do tell! Who did you play for?


PS I have no reason to suspect Gill is "inadequate" but I have reason to suspect his APPROACH, in this case, may have been.

Reactions to all that's being published in connection with this case will play out over the course of many years. I hope valuable lessons will be learned along the way.

Suspect to your hearts content. When this has played out to your satisfaction, make sure that the journals he's been published in is appraised, so that the injustice he's participating in can be exposed.

As for NHL experience, I once operated the scoreboard at an NHL arena. No joke!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:28 am

Mediocrates wrote:Booooooooooooo! That's a let down!

Now I feel like Peter did after Frank stayed over ... but without the fear and loathing part ;-)

Huh!?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:30 am

Ok, now I get it. Troll away......
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:47 am

Mediocrates wrote:
Numbers wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I know of no rule preventing the prosecution from seeking support from outside experts.

And - of course - an expert who strongly believed the prosecution was correct can simply come forward on his or her own. .


With respect, Mr. E, I must confess that I am truly surprised to see that you, of all people, seem to be suggesting that the prosecution’s case is weak because they did not seek out or attract consultants-for-hire to appear on their behalf in the (English language) media.

While I do not pretend to have any formal schooling in the Italian civil law tradition, I feel compelled to remind you that the vast majority of the common law world (including England, Canada, Australia & New Zealand) has adopted the Sub Judice Rule (part of the law re contempt of court).

In these jurisdictions, as you know, NO ONE can make public statements about any aspect of ongoing legal proceedings for fear that they will usurp the role of the courts/ triers of fact.

Even in the US, where the State’s interest in fair trials has to be balanced against concerns re First Amendment rights, the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct reflect this same fear about people prejudging matters that are properly left to the courts/ triers of fact:

"Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity:

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter…”



It’s hard to see how Gill’s public comments, while the proceedings in Italy were ongoing, could not entail a "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter”. He'd be facing serious legal problems if he'd done the same thing in connection with a trial or an appeal in England, Canada, Australia or NZ.



Surely a man who works as consultant-for-hire, and who at one point indicated (erroneously) to the BBC that the knife had been transported in a container that had belonged to Meredith Kercher, should be forced to answer how and why he came to make repeated public assertions about this case before we decide his opinion has not been unduly influenced by one of the parties appearing before the court.


The above comments by "Mediocrates" display a profound ignorance of law. Sub judice only applies to persons publicly commenting on cases in a country with a sub judice law who are within the jurisdiction of that country, for example, England and Wales. The relevant current law in England and Wales is the Contempt of Court Act of 1981, according to Wikipedia. There are no sub judice laws in Italy, and sub judice does not apply in the US, where freedom of speech and the press is a right listed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The ABA model rule quoted has no legal status, applies only to lawyers, and is a proposed standard of professional conduct. The ABA itself is a private voluntary organization, and should not be confused with the bar associations of individual US states, the rules of which may or may not be given legal status by the State Legislature.

Dr. Gill and other experts spoke out or published on this case and published in accordance with law and based upon their own sense of professional responsibility.

It should be recalled that the Knox - Sollecito case was heavily covered by the Italian media, which published numerous falsehoods, apparently originating with the police or prosecution, against the accused.


I hope you're better with "numbers" than you are with "words", "Numbers"!

I think you may have a very serious reading comprehension problem.

1) I specifically declined having any knowledge of the relevant Italian law;

2) I specifically pointed out 4 common law countries, by name, that had adopted the Sub Judice Rule;

3) I specifically acknowledged that the US differed slightly (due to concerns re First Amendment rights) and noted that, despite this small difference, the ABA created model rules that recognize the SAME problem targeted but the Sub Judice Rule (people prejudging matters that should be left to the courts);

4) I used the ABA Model Rules as a succinct way of summarizing the American approach in general because they have been adopted in whole or in part in EVERY STATE except California (I'm not going to go through the Rules in all 50 states looking for subtle differences - the specific states I am familiar with do not differ from the Model Rules in any meaningful way re trial publicity.);

5) the wording from Model Rule 3.6 ("substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter”) was used only to summarize (nicely) the problem with Gill's public statements, not to suggest that the Rule itself literally applied to him (or any other NON-lawyer); &

6) I specifically pointed out that Gill would've run afoul of the law if he'd tried to play the same game in any of the 4 jurisdictions listed by name (all of which have adopted the Sub Judice Rule, as noted previously). There was no suggestion, express or implied, that Gill violated Italian law. (Although, for all I know, he may have.)


I'm amused at your trolling, "Mediocrates".

Anyone following this case and aware of the hostile media campaign launched by the Italian authorities against Knox and Sollecito knows there are no sub judice laws in Italy.

It's notable that the complaints about the paper published by Dr. Gill or any of the statements from other DNA experts come from PGP trolls such as yourself. No Italian authority has raised any criminal complaint against any of these experts.

Your latest posts to Bill Williams and others are merely off-topic trolling.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:49 am

Mediocrates wrote:C'mon, Bill! It's all over now! You can tell us what really happened when you and Frank and Peter went into the woods with a bottle of rum!

Who called the cops and why? What the HELL were you boys doing?!

Peter was sure mad at you! You should see the PMs he was sending everyone!

Troll away.......
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:52 am

Numbers wrote:Your latest posts to Bill Williams and others are merely off-topic trolling.

I'm embarassed that it took a minute to realize this. I should have stopped after confessing to operating an NHL arena's scoreboard.

If the troll had really pressed he'd have discovered the news link...... trolls used to be more skilled!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:03 am

Mediocrates wrote:Would "Frank" say it was kind of a "Deliverance" thing, or more like a "Midnight Cowboy" thing?

PS What happened to "Frank" and all those charges (from Seattle to Perugia)?

Troll away......
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:14 am

Since the topic of sub judice law has come up, here is a summary of the UK law from a neutral source:

This guide is based on UK law and was written in January 2009.

Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.

Publication of material which is sub judice comprises contempt of court, a crime which is punishable by a fine of unlimited amount and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Third party costs orders may also be awarded against the media organisation, enabling the courts to recover the costs of any trial aborted as a result of the prejudicial reporting.

There are two forms of contempt of court:

statutory contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which criminalises the publication of material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the relevant proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced; and
common law contempt, which targets any other action which is intended to interfere with the administration of justice, including interfering with pending or imminent court proceedings.

Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings. Accordingly, any of the following activities could be considered to be contempt:

obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
filming or recording within court buildings;
making payments to witnesses;
publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
reporting on the defendant's previous convictions;
mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.

However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day's legal proceedings.
Liability and defence

Statutory contempt of court: Liability for statutory contempt of court is strict. This means that the publisher cannot escape liability by arguing that he had no intention of prejudicing on-going legal proceedings or that he did not know that the material was sub judice. The degree of prejudice which results from the publication is also irrelevant; it is sufficient that there was a risk that the proceedings would be substantially prejudiced.

However, a limited number of defences to statutory contempt are available to a publisher, namely that the material comprised a fair and accurate contemporary report or a discussion of public affairs,and, more significantly, that publication of the potentially prejudicial material was made innocently. This last defence applies only where the publisher did not know and had no reason to suspect that the proceedings which featured in the material were active.

Common law contempt of court: Intention is necessary to commit common law contempt. The material must have been published with the design to prejudice criminal proceedings that are pending or imminent, a definition which introduces a fine line between pressing for prosecution, which is acceptable, and influencing public perception of an individual who is about to be prosecuted, which is forbidden. There is no defence for publication in the public interest, but a court would need to consider the requirements of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the need for proportionality in view of any legitimate purpose which the publication may serve.
....
In 2006, the New York Times used technology to block British visitors to its website so that it could report on a terrorism trial. The material used in the report was believed to be sub judice in Britain.....

Source: https://www.out-law.com/page-9742

From the above, it is clear that an online article published in a foreign country does not fall under sub judice in the UK as long as it is blocked from UK readers.
However, a campaign available to UK readers such as that carried out by the PGP would fall under UK sub judice law if the trial were in the UK.
And information in the public interest, such as a scientific article describing the international standards appropriate for forensic DNA analysis, would not fall under UK sub judice law.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:30 am

Mediocrates wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:What's this,Tom? The NHL? Did Bill tell you he was in the NHL?!


To Mediocrates

Really, Bill inside the NHL? I would love to heard that right now? Why not? Let really ask him right now?


Hi Tom - yes! Let's ask Bill about his hockey fights!

Are you an NHL fan?


To Medicorates

No I am not a fan of the NHL! I only enjoy NBA & Fubo sports. Why would I want to watch the NHL crap!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:32 am

And again as a clarification, neither the US nor any US State has a sub judice law on publications similar to that in the UK. Neither the Federal government nor any State can pass any such law since it would be contrary to the US Constitution. However, there are laws and rules pertaining to what comments lawyers, judges, or jurors involved in a trial may make public regarding a trial in progress. That is significantly different than the broad sub judice law in the UK.

Most relevantly, there is no sub judice law in Italy, where the trials of Knox and Sollecito took place. And many UK publications, because of the content of their articles on the case, would have been in violation of the UK sub judice law had the trial been taking place in the UK.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:37 am

Mediocrates wrote: Peter was sure mad at you! You should see the PMs he was sending everyone!


To Medicorates

Hey Medicorates, you really need to go away even I an't buying this. Right now I would love to see Bruce in here right now, because you need to go right now even this nonsense need to stop and I replying anymore of your crappy style, and tell your friend Peter sue me? Not Bill, I order him to do it!!!

I an't buying Peter story one bit even he can proclaim all he want, and stop with this nonsense stuff. The only off topic we can talk about is the celebrity of innocent project and me talking about my Anne Hathaway!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:04 am

Mediocrates wrote:C'mon, Bill! It's all over now! You can tell us what really happened when you and Frank and Peter went into the woods with a bottle of rum!

Who called the cops and why? What the HELL were you boys doing?!

Peter was sure mad at you! You should see the PMs he was sending everyone!



I'm sorry mediocre, What does this have to do with the Knox case? I'm sure your inventive mind serves you well in times of loneliness, but not suited to this forum!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:58 am

The ECHR will release judgment in the period 24 - 26 Oct 2017 for the following cases against Italy:

Azzolina and Others v. Italy (nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10)
Blair and Others v. Italy (nos. 1442/14, 21319/14, and 21911/14)
These five cases submitted by 59 applicants of different nationalities concern incidents following the
G8 Summit in Genoa in July 2001, as well as the effectiveness of the investigation and the sentences
imposed by the domestic courts.
....
The applicants, who were arrested and taken to the Bolzaneto barracks between 20 and 22 July,
stayed there for one or two day(s) before being transferred to prison. They allege that they suffered
violence at the hands of members of the security forces and the medical staff. In particular, they
submit that they sustained bodily injury and insults, were sprayed with irritant gas, had their
personal effects destroyed and were subjected to other forms of ill-treatment. They were at no
stage provided with appropriate treatment for their injuries, and the violence also continued during
the medical examinations.
....
Relying essentially on Article 3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment), all
the applicants claim to have suffered acts of violence which they equate with torture or inhuman
and degrading acts. They also consider that the investigation was inadequate on the grounds, in
particular, of the lack of appropriate sanctions against the persons deemed responsible. In that
regard, they complain, in particular, of the statute of limitations applying to most of the offences
with which those persons had been charged, the remission of sentence granted to some of the
convicted persons, and the absence of disciplinary sanctions against the same persons. Furthermore,
they affirm that the Italian State failed to take the requisite action to prevent this kind of illtreatment
by omitting the offence of torture from Italian criminal law.

Source: ECHR Press Release
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:19 pm

Unfortunately, Mediocrates outed himself or herself as a troll. Mediocrates used IP addresses of past banned accounts. His or her recent posts exposed trollish behavior as well. Mediocrates is no longer a member here.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Zrausch » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:25 pm

I see that Jackie made a lot of posts, but not one about his stupid beliefs in plainly false things (112 call ~15 minutes after the police arrived, Quintavalle telling the police to their face he didn't see the girl in the photo but believing him later that he did, his faith in a heroin bum (who was interviewed by police the day after the crime and saw nothing)).

All his DNA spam is a red herring. It's like trying to discuss Einstein while you still can't work out 2+2.
Zrausch
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:37 pm

Zrausch wrote:I see that Jackie made a lot of posts, but not one about his stupid beliefs in plainly false things (112 call ~15 minutes after the police arrived, Quintavalle telling the police to their face he didn't see the girl in the photo but believing him later that he did, his faith in a heroin bum (who was interviewed by police the day after the crime and saw nothing)).

All his DNA spam is a red herring. It's like trying to discuss Einstein while you still can't work out 2+2.


Isn't it amazing? I personally believe that 99% of our trolls have all been the work of the person behind the Jackie screen name. If that is truly the case, I have sympathy for that person. They really have a pathetic life. I hope they can find something meaningful to do. We only live once. Spending your days trolling discussion forums doesn't seem all that fulfilling to me. Each to their own I guess.

There is no doubt that the same person has created other accounts within our forum. Unless they find a better hobby, I'm sure we will see more of the games.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby B_Real » Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:26 pm

Mediocrates wrote:Dumb? I am a member of Mensa. (Are you?)



I am a member of Mensa and an Eagle Scout. Your move.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:10 am

Mignini's suit against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel for the book ' Honor Bound' has been thrown out by the Florentine judge because ' the fact does not exist'.

A good day. A GREAT day. :D :D :D

New absolution for Raffaele Sollecito , the young Puglia for years in the middle of a complex legal affair, the one linked to the homicide in Perugia of English student Meredith Kercher. Already definitively abolished years ago by the murder charge, today the sole judge of Florence has absolved it "because the fact does not exist" in a proceeding born following the publication in 2013 of the book  "Honor bound, my travel all 'hell and back with Amanda Knox'. Raffaele Sollecito had been sentenced for trial by police forces in connection with some passages of the unpublished book in Italy: that book is a story of the criminal casewho has seen him star in November 2007, after the discovery of the corpse of Meredith Kercher in the house of via Della Pergola 7 in Perugia. A sentence of acquittal has also arrived for American writer Andrew Gumbel, co-author of the volume. Solicitude was also accused of defamation against the magistrate of Perugia Giuliano Mignini who has however lodged the lawsuit. The proceedings before the Pugliese were therefore also closed for this charge.

"Raffaele still stated alien to the facts" - "It has closed - said lawyer Alfredo Brizioli, who defended Gumbel and Solicited together with colleague Francesca Bacecci - another page linked to the painful affair of the murder of Meredith Kercher and Raffaele has still been declared alien to the facts. " Solicitude remained in prison for about four years , together with American Amanda Knox, for being accused of murdering the English student murdered in Perugia in 2007. His definitive assertion - the only convicted for Meredith's murder was the young Ivorian Rudy Guede - arrived on March 27, 2015.

Rate this article:

continua su: https://www.fanpage.it/caso-meredith-so ... i-polizia/
http://www.fanpage.it/
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:54 am

Annella wrote:Mignini's suit against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel for the book ' Honor Bound' has been thrown out by the Florentine judge because ' the fact does not exist'.

A good day. A GREAT day. :D :D :D

New absolution for Raffaele Sollecito , the young Puglia for years in the middle of a complex legal affair, the one linked to the homicide in Perugia of English student Meredith Kercher. Already definitively abolished years ago by the murder charge, today the sole judge of Florence has absolved it "because the fact does not exist" in a proceeding born following the publication in 2013 of the book  "Honor bound, my travel all 'hell and back with Amanda Knox'. Raffaele Sollecito had been sentenced for trial by police forces in connection with some passages of the unpublished book in Italy: that book is a story of the criminal casewho has seen him star in November 2007, after the discovery of the corpse of Meredith Kercher in the house of via Della Pergola 7 in Perugia. A sentence of acquittal has also arrived for American writer Andrew Gumbel, co-author of the volume. Solicitude was also accused of defamation against the magistrate of Perugia Giuliano Mignini who has however lodged the lawsuit. The proceedings before the Pugliese were therefore also closed for this charge.

"Raffaele still stated alien to the facts" - "It has closed - said lawyer Alfredo Brizioli, who defended Gumbel and Solicited together with colleague Francesca Bacecci - another page linked to the painful affair of the murder of Meredith Kercher and Raffaele has still been declared alien to the facts. " Solicitude remained in prison for about four years , together with American Amanda Knox, for being accused of murdering the English student murdered in Perugia in 2007. His definitive assertion - the only convicted for Meredith's murder was the young Ivorian Rudy Guede - arrived on March 27, 2015.

Rate this article:

continua su: https://www.fanpage.it/caso-meredith-so ... i-polizia/
http://www.fanpage.it/


Annella, thanks for pointing this out. Here is an article from ANSA.

Sollecito assolto da vilipendio polizia
Per libro Honor bound, pm Mignini rimette querela diffamazione

Il giudice unico di Firenze ha assolto oggi "perché il fatto non sussiste" Raffaele Sollecito che era stato rinviato a giudizio per vilipendio delle forze di polizia in relazione ad alcuni passaggi del libro 'Honor bound, il mio viaggio all'inferno e ritorno con Amanda Knox', pubblicato negli Stati Uniti. Stessa sentenza per lo scrittore americano Andrew Gumbel, co-autore del volume.
Sollecito era anche accusato di diffamazione nei confronti del magistrato perugino Giuliano Mignini che ha però rimesso la querela. Il procedimento a carico dell'ingegnere pugliese si è quindi chiuso anche per questo capo d'imputazione.

Gumbel e Sollecito sono stati difesi dagli avvocati Francesca Bacecci e Alfredo Brizioli. "Si è chiusa - ha detto quest'ultimo - un'altra pagina legata alla dolorosa vicenda dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher e Raffaele è stato ancora dichiarato estraneo ai fatti".

Sollecito e la Knox sono stati infatti definitivamente assolti per l'omicidio Kercher.

Source: http://www.ansa.it/umbria/notizie/2017/ ... 77d74.html

Google translation with my assistance:

Sollecito acquitted of defamation of police. Public Minister {Prosecutor} Mignini had launched the defamation lawsuit against the book “Honor Bound”.

A single-judge court in Florence has today acquitted Raffaele Sollecito, who had been brought to trial by police for defamation based on some of the passages in the book 'Honor bound, my journey to hell and return with Amanda Knox ', published in the United States. The same sentence {of acquittal} was given for American writer Andrew Gumbel, co-author of the volume. Sollecito was also accused of defamation against the magistrate of Perugia Giuliano Mignini who lodged the lawsuit. The proceedings against the Puglia engineer {Sollecito} were therefore also closed for this charge.Gumbel and Sollecito were defended by lawyers Francesca Bacecci and Alfredo Brizioli. "It is over," said the latter, "another page related to the painful affair of Meredith Kercher's murder and Raffaele has still {again} been declared not involved in the crime [litterally: alien to the facts]." Sollecito and Knox have been definitively acquitted of Kercher's murder.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:18 am

B_Real wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:Dumb? I am a member of Mensa. (Are you?)



I am a member of Mensa and an Eagle Scout. Your move.


To B-Real

Hey B-Real, I got some terrible news that Mediocrates is no longer here. Bruce send him to the detention punishment, of bad behavior and he was gone, even I told him that I was not a fan of the NHL. I only enjoy NBA & Fubo, even I should brought up my Anne Hathaway, style. But I never did, even it shame we miss the guy!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Cross is vicious - Peers are not

Postby Numbers » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:29 am

ScifiTom wrote:
B_Real wrote:
Mediocrates wrote:Dumb? I am a member of Mensa. (Are you?)



I am a member of Mensa and an Eagle Scout. Your move.


To B-Real

Hey B-Real, I got some terrible news that Mediocrates is no longer here. Bruce send him to the detention punishment, of bad behavior and he was gone, even I told him that I was not a fan of the NHL. I only enjoy NBA & Fubo, even I should brought up my Anne Hathaway, style. But I never did, even it shame we miss the guy!!!


"Mediocrates" was a troll, probably a sock-puppet of "Jackie".

Someone claiming to have been "associate editor of an academic journal" and also claiming status as "a member of Mensa" - that just doesn't add up. This would apply even more strongly for the "associate editor of a prestigious academic journal".

Normal people involved at all in scientific work in their arguments discuss the soundness and meaning of evidence, not their alleged intellectual status. Trolls engage in discussions of personality and seek to claim authority based on alleged status and accomplishments. If those were real, they would not be posting their claims against those who publicly and objectively discuss the evidence, such as Dr. Gill, anonymously on internet forums.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:42 am

Annella wrote:Mignini's suit against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel for the book ' Honor Bound' has been thrown out by the Florentine judge because ' the fact does not exist'.

A good day. A GREAT day. :D :D :D

New absolution for Raffaele Sollecito , the young Puglia for years in the middle of a complex legal affair, the one linked to the homicide in Perugia of English student Meredith Kercher. Already definitively abolished years ago by the murder charge, today the sole judge of Florence has absolved it "because the fact does not exist" in a proceeding born following the publication in 2013 of the book  "Honor bound, my travel all 'hell and back with Amanda Knox'. Raffaele Sollecito had been sentenced for trial by police forces in connection with some passages of the unpublished book in Italy: that book is a story of the criminal casewho has seen him star in November 2007, after the discovery of the corpse of Meredith Kercher in the house of via Della Pergola 7 in Perugia. A sentence of acquittal has also arrived for American writer Andrew Gumbel, co-author of the volume. Solicitude was also accused of defamation against the magistrate of Perugia Giuliano Mignini who has however lodged the lawsuit. The proceedings before the Pugliese were therefore also closed for this charge.

"Raffaele still stated alien to the facts" - "It has closed - said lawyer Alfredo Brizioli, who defended Gumbel and Solicited together with colleague Francesca Bacecci - another page linked to the painful affair of the murder of Meredith Kercher and Raffaele has still been declared alien to the facts. " Solicitude remained in prison for about four years , together with American Amanda Knox, for being accused of murdering the English student murdered in Perugia in 2007. His definitive assertion - the only convicted for Meredith's murder was the young Ivorian Rudy Guede - arrived on March 27, 2015.

Rate this article:

continua su: https://www.fanpage.it/caso-meredith-so ... i-polizia/
http://www.fanpage.it/


This is good news. One more step in the right direction. Thanks for posting the article.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:37 pm

Here is a fuller description of the outcome of this important trial.

Raffaele Sollecito assolto da vilipendio polizia per libro sull’omicidio di Meredith Kercher
‘Honor bound, il mio viaggio all’inferno e ritorno con Amanda Knox’ è stato pubblicato solo negli Stati Uniti

Sollecito, assolto anche dall’accusa di vilipendio. Il giudice unico di Firenze ha assolto oggi Raffaele Sollecito «perché il fatto non sussiste». IL giovane pugliese era stato rinviato a giudizio per vilipendio delle forze di polizia in relazione ad alcuni passaggi del libro ‘Honor bound, il mio viaggio all’inferno e ritorno con Amanda Knox’, pubblicato negli Stati Uniti.

Stessa sentenza per lo scrittore americano Andrew Gumbel, co-autore del volume. Sollecito era anche accusato di diffamazione nei confronti del magistrato perugino Giuliano Mignini che ha però rimesso la querela. Il procedimento a carico dell’ingegnere pugliese si è quindi chiuso anche per questo capo d’imputazione. A querelare Sollecito è stato proprio il l magistrato ritenuto diffamato da una serie di passaggi del libro nel quale Sollecito ricostruisce la sua vicenda giudiziaria legata all’omicidio di Meredith Kercher. “Con questo libro – ha detto l’avvocato Brizioli -, Raffaele ha voluto dire la sua verità. Abbiamo dimostrato ancora una volta l’innocenza di Raffaele Sollecito”.

Gumbel e Sollecito sono stati difesi dagli avvocati Francesca Bacecci e Alfredo Brizioli. «Si è chiusa – ha detto Brizioli – un’altra pagina legata alla dolorosa vicenda dell’omicidio di Meredith Kercher e Raffaele è stato ancora dichiarato estraneo ai fatti». Sollecito e la Knox sono stati infatti definitivamente assolti per l’omicidio Kercher. Nel libro, scritto in inglese e mai uscito in Italia, Sollecito ha proposto una sua ricostruzione della vicenda giudiziaria legata all’omicidio della studentessa inglese. Mignini, che aveva coordinato le indagini sul delitto, aveva però sporto querela sentendosi diffamato da alcuni passaggi.

Nel corso del procedimento era stata sequestrata la sola copia del volume presente in Italia, quella regalata da Sollecito a un docente universitario che lo aveva seguito nella laurea. Al termine del processo il giudice di Firenze ha disposto la revoca di quel provvedimento.

In “Honor Bound”, i passaggi contestati furono quelli relativi ad un riferimento a due avvocati perugini (ma non è dato sapere i loro nomi), i quali avrebbero fatto intendere alla famiglia dello studente pugliese che per ottenere una condanna più blanda sarebbe bastato confessare un ruolo minore nell’omicidio della studentessa, aggravando però le responsabilità di Amanda Knox.

Source: http://tuttoggi.info/raffaele-sollecito ... er/422355/

Google translation with my assistance:

Raffaele Sollecito was acquitted of criminal defamation {insult; contempt} of the police for Meredith Kercher's murder book 'Honor bound, my trip to hell and return with Amanda Knox' was only released in the United States

Sollecito has been acquitted of the accusation of criminal defamation. The single-judge court in Florence has today acquitted Raffaele Sollecito "because the fact does not exist". The young Pugliese had been remanded for trial for criminal defamation of the police in connection with some passages of the book 'Honor bound, my trip to hell and return with Amanda Knox', published in the United States. The same verdict [of acquittal] was pronounced for American writer Andrew Gumbel, co-author of the volume. Sollecito was also accused of defamation against the magistrate of Perugia Giuliano Mignini who had lodged a lawsuit {filed a complaint}. The proceedings of the Puglia engineer were therefore also ended for this complaint. A lawsuit againt Sollicito was brought by this magistrate who considered himself to be defamed by a series of passages in the book in which Sollecito reconstructs the legal proceedings related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. "With this book - said lawyer Brizioli - Raffaele wanted to tell the truth. We have once again demonstrated Raffaele Sollecito's innocence."

Gumbel and Sollecito were defended by lawyers Francesca Bacecci and Alfredo Brizioli. "It was closed," said Brizioli, "another page related to the painful affair of Meredith Kercher's murder and Raffaele has still [again] been declared not involved in the crime {"alien to the facts"}." Sollecito and Knox have been definitively acquitted of Kercher's murder. In the book, written in English and never released in Italy, Sollecito has proposed a reconstruction of the court case related to the murder of the English student. Mignini, who had coordinated criminal investigations, had, however, lodged a complaint, feeling defamed by some passages.

During the proceedings, the only copy of the volume in Italy was seized, the one given by Sollecito to a university professor who had supervised him in obtaining his degree. At the end of the trial, the court of Florence ordered the revocation of the measure {of the seizure of the book; that is, it was returned to the professor}.

In Honor Bound, the passages contested were those relating to a reference to two Perugia lawyers (their names were not known), who suggested to Sollecito's family that he would be given a lenient sentence if he would confess a minor role in Kercher's murder, thus increasing the criminal responsibility attributable to Amanda Knox.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:34 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Annella wrote:Mignini's suit against Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel for the book ' Honor Bound' has been thrown out by the Florentine judge because ' the fact does not exist'.

A good day. A GREAT day. :D :D :D

New absolution for Raffaele Sollecito , the young Puglia for years in the middle of a complex legal affair, the one linked to the homicide in Perugia of English student Meredith Kercher. Already definitively abolished years ago by the murder charge, today the sole judge of Florence has absolved it "because the fact does not exist" in a proceeding born following the publication in 2013 of the book  "Honor bound, my travel all 'hell and back with Amanda Knox'. Raffaele Sollecito had been sentenced for trial by police forces in connection with some passages of the unpublished book in Italy: that book is a story of the criminal casewho has seen him star in November 2007, after the discovery of the corpse of Meredith Kercher in the house of via Della Pergola 7 in Perugia. A sentence of acquittal has also arrived for American writer Andrew Gumbel, co-author of the volume. Solicitude was also accused of defamation against the magistrate of Perugia Giuliano Mignini who has however lodged the lawsuit. The proceedings before the Pugliese were therefore also closed for this charge.

"Raffaele still stated alien to the facts" - "It has closed - said lawyer Alfredo Brizioli, who defended Gumbel and Solicited together with colleague Francesca Bacecci - another page linked to the painful affair of the murder of Meredith Kercher and Raffaele has still been declared alien to the facts. " Solicitude remained in prison for about four years , together with American Amanda Knox, for being accused of murdering the English student murdered in Perugia in 2007. His definitive assertion - the only convicted for Meredith's murder was the young Ivorian Rudy Guede - arrived on March 27, 2015.

Rate this article:

continua su: https://www.fanpage.it/caso-meredith-so ... i-polizia/
http://www.fanpage.it/


This is good news. One more step in the right direction. Thanks for posting the article.


To Bruce

Lol Bruce it is good news, even the sad part is that poor Peter Quennell is going to explain his own work on TGIF of Thanks Goodness it Friday of I bet that it is going to happen, on that day and the most sad part is he might want to bring in Stranger Things 2nd season as well, with this!!!

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-i ... e-2776742/

Watch on youtube.com


I would love to heard what is Peter Quennell is going to say to us of how he going to fix Raffaele Sollecito & Andrew Gumbel case of guilt. Even it show that they both were acquitted to the case, and talk to you soon Bruce!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:11 pm

Sollecito acquitted of the allegation of criminal defamation to law enforcement
He had been ordered to trial for some passages in the book published in America.

Acquittal [absolution] arrived for Raffaele Sollecito, who before a magistrate [judge] in Florence had to respond to the charge of criminal defamation of law enforcement, an accusation based on certain passages of "Honor Bound: My journey to hell and return with Amanda Knox".

For the Tuscan judge "the fact does not exist" and therefore the passages of the memoir published in the United States on the criminal case related to the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher, are not enough to support the accusation against him.

Also acquitted yesterday was the writer Andrew Gumbel, who with Sollecito had written the book, which was never released in Italy. The book contains a reconstruction of the investigations, carried out by magistrate Giuliano Mignini, deemed "injurious". The magistrate Mignini had filed a complaint and lawsuit in response to some passages of Honor Bound, and then retracted it, leaving only the accusation of criminal defamation, which came to an end today.

"Another page has been linked to the painful affair of Meredith Kercher's murder and Raffaele has still been declared alien to the facts [not involved in the crime]," commented Alfredo Brizioli, one of Sollecito's two lawyers, after the verdict [of acquittal].

Google translation with my help. Here's the original:

Sollecito assolto dall'accusa di vilipendio alle forze dell'ordine
Era stato rinviato a giudizio per alcuni passaggi del libro pubblicato in America

È arrivata l'assoluzione per Raffaele Sollecito, che di fronte alla magistratura di Firenze doveva rispondere dell'accusa di vilipendio alle forze dell'ordine, accusato per alcuni passaggi di "Honor bound, il mio viaggio all'inferno e ritorno con Amanda Knox".

Per il giudice toscano "il fatto non sussiste" e dunque i passaggi del memoir pubblicato negli Stati Uniti sulla vicenda giudiziaria legata all'omicidio della studentessa ingese Meredith Kercher, non sono sufficienti a sostenere l'accusa nei suoi confronti.

Assolto ieri anche lo scrittore Andrew Gumbel, che con Sollecito aveva scritto il libro, mai uscito in Italia. All'interno una ricostruzione delle indagini svolte dal magistrato Giuliano Mignini ritenuta "lesiva". Il giudice aveva sporto querela per alcuni dei brani di "Honor bound", per poi ritirarla, lasciando in piedi soltanto l'accusa di vilipendio, che è venuta meno oggi.

"Si è chiusa un'altra pagina legata alla dolorosa vicenda dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher e Raffaele è stato ancora dichiarato estraneo ai fatti", ha commentato dopo la sentenza uno dei due legali che seguiva Sollecito, Alfredo Brizioli.

Source: http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/ ... 56263.html
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby european neighbour » Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:30 am

Numbers wrote:The ECHR will release judgment in the period 24 - 26 Oct 2017 for the following cases against Italy:

Azzolina and Others v. Italy (nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10)
Blair and Others v. Italy (nos. 1442/14, 21319/14, and 21911/14)

Source: ECHR Press Release

Here it is:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=0 ... 24-7526266
european neighbour
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:28 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:02 am

european neighbour wrote:
Numbers wrote:The ECHR will release judgment in the period 24 - 26 Oct 2017 for the following cases against Italy:

Azzolina and Others v. Italy (nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10)
Blair and Others v. Italy (nos. 1442/14, 21319/14, and 21911/14)

Source: ECHR Press Release

Here it is:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=0 ... 24-7526266


european neighbour, thanks for pointing out the link to the ECHR press release of these judgments.

There has also been a judgment given by the ECHR in the joined case Cirino and Renne v. Italy, application nos. 2539/13 and 4705/13.

The significance of these ECHR cases is:

1. The ECHR has found that because there is no law making torture a criminal offense in Italy, under Italian law in force at the time, the Italian courts "had had to turn to other provisions of the Criminal Code, which were subject to statutory limitation periods. As a result of this lacuna in the legal system, the domestic courts had been ill-equipped to ensure that treatment contrary to Article 3 perpetrated by State officials did not go unpunished".

2. In all of these sets of cases, the ECHR judged that Italy was thus in violation of Convention Article 3, prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and in particular of inadequate investigation of such acts.

3. These cases were among the "noteworthy pending cases" summarized in the current Country Profile for Italy. Knox v. Italy is also listed as a noteworthy pending case, and thus it appears highly likely that the ECHR will publish a judgment on that case in 2018 if not sooner.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:30 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, I am so thrill and please of the master mind through the innocent that we are really going to win, this year of the ending of 2017 and I can see it coming even I want some people give a tired of this next case even I know Amanda/Raffaele case is over even it sound like it all going to end in 11/1/17 of the 10yrs anniversary and it all over even it look like the innocent is going to win more even I can see it coming to an end of the case of Meredith Kercher and I am loving it. But I want something new even I did update on this case since October 1st to 26 and I know that I get zero responds even I have been talking to myself? So anyway here is the link again for a second time!!!

viewtopic.php?f=193&t=1634&p=191359#p191359

I need people to go there? Who should go there? Anne-Ella, Number, Samson, Bruce, Hans even Doug himself. I am not invisible even I am doing everything in my power to work it, even the next time I will go is going to be on Halloween Day. I will return to the KBL case on 10/31/17! I am going to talk about sex offender into the killing of halloween and how it all end. Yes you can hate me, even if she did kill the bad of bone or the bad guy. I have no clue? But the KBL case is a huge mess and I had done everything even yes I know that I get ignore. I want people give it a chance for once please reply to my KBL case of through the innocent. I did the 5 hearing part on each day of Hans wrote that article himself through newspaper and no one is replying. It really stinks even I will return to the link and here it is again and talk to you soon everyone!!!

viewtopic.php?f=193&t=1634&p=191359#p191359
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:27 pm

Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:42 pm

Each anniversary provides an opportunity for a few people to use the murder of Meredith Kercher to make themselves feel important. I am thankful that the vast majority of the world has moved on. No need to mention the four or five people remaining on the pro-guilt sites by name because they have no bearing on anything. But people should call out lousy "news" outlets like the Daily Mail for continuing to post an annual article, all for the clicks. People should also call out lousy journalists like Andrea Vogt who continue to post an annual Tweet trying to gain a bit of attention for themselves. They are free to do so of course, but it is well known by the rest of the planet that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been exonerated. Yes. Exonerated.

Roughly 400,000 people are murdered every year in this world. Our world is a violent place. How many murder victims receive articles mentioning the anniversaries of their deaths? Meredith Kercher is far from forgotten. A well-publicized botched murder investigation has made Meredith Kercher one of the most remembered victims in modern history. I do not speak for Meredith Kercher, or any murder victim for that matter, but I doubt that any of them would have wanted to be famous for such reasons. The few, like Andrea Vogt and the Daily Mail, who continue to use Meredith Kercher's murder for their own gain, need to cut it out. The vultures have had ten years. It's time to move on.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:48 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:Each anniversary provides an opportunity for a few people to use the murder of Meredith Kercher to make themselves feel important. I am thankful that the vast majority of the world has moved on. No need to mention the four or five people remaining on the pro-guilt sites by name because they have no bearing on anything. But people should call out lousy "news" outlets like the Daily Mail for continuing to post an annual article, all for the clicks. People should also call out lousy journalists like Andrea Vogt who continue to post an annual Tweet trying to gain a bit of attention for themselves. They are free to do so of course, but it is well known by the rest of the planet that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been exonerated. Yes. Exonerated.

Roughly 400,000 people are murdered every year in this world. Our world is a violent place. How many murder victims receive articles mentioning the anniversaries of their deaths? Meredith Kercher is far from forgotten. A well-publicized botched murder investigation has made Meredith Kercher one of the most remembered victims in modern history. I do not speak for Meredith Kercher, or any murder victim for that matter, but I doubt that any of them would have wanted to be famous for such reasons. The few, like Andrea Vogt and the Daily Mail, who continue to use Meredith Kercher's murder for their own gain, need to cut it out. The vultures have had ten years. It's time to move on.


The passage of time has left these Guilters exposed, they stand in a barren desert alone, their blindness a vacuum that consumes their voice.A sack of twisted flesh under a bench in a dreamscape at Kings Cross, Everyone knows it is over except them, they sadly cling to hate and lies to perpetuate their life consuming failure. The sun has come up. its a new day, a day were Amanda can embrace the light of innocence she lost and has fought so hard to restore, freedom, beauty and truth, what a long battle Amanda, but one fought with grace dignity in light of such great odds. Live an extraordinary life!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Annella » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:37 am

So WHY are Massei and Nencini's heads not rolling?????????

"Finally, it
is worth recalling a key principle of the Italian criminal justice system, the presumption
of innocence: a defendant can
only be declared guilty if the prosecution
proves beyond any reasonable doubt
that he committed the crimes for which
he is being prosecuted. If a single doubt
remains, even the slightest, the defendant
must be acquitted. Judges who convict
in the absence of strong, unambiguous
and consistent evidence violate the law"
(Grosso, 2011).


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... -Italy.pdf
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:37 pm

While not a lawyer, I posted this brief reply in the letter page of People on my understanding of the Marasca acquittal without remand. These seem to me the essential points, but again I'm not a lawyer, and welcome any corrections. (NOTE: "Horst Schimanski" is a fictional detective in the German TV series "crime scene" used as an alias by what appears to be an Italian lawyer.)

My reply to Horst Schimanski:

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the documents is --

The Marasca ISC (27.03.2015) was bound by previous ISC rulings resulting from confirmation of Rudy Guede’s conviction and the Chieffi motivation overturning Hellmann. These became “legal certainties” -- not in the sense they are certainly true -- but their truth can no longer be contested in an Italian court. Some examples:

That Rudy Guede acted with others
That Rudy was not the author of the staged break-in [confirming it was staged]
That Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed
That Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands in the bathroom sink
That the Hellmann acquittal contained something like 17 logical errors

Marasca, accordingly, does not contest any of the above. However, he observes that: (1) He may arrive at the same conclusions as Hellmann provided he does not use Hellman’s logical errors to do so. (2) None of the “legally certain” statements above state that Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the murder, nor can they be used to logically deduce this.

Example: That “Amanda was there” was derived from a statement elicited from her during police interrogation – “I was there when Patrick killed Meredith.” That Raffele was there is derived from the allegedly “logical” deduction “If Amanda was there, Raffaele was there.”

Ironically, it is a “legal certainty” that Amanda’s statement “I was there when Patrick killed Meredith” is false; this was confirmed by her conviction for falsely accusing Patrick. The fragment “I was there” may or not be true, but cannot be deduced from a false statement. Nonetheless, also ironically, its alleged truth cannot be contested in an Italian court. Nonetheless, Amanda lived in the house, and there is no evidence placing her in the murder room.

Nencini’s reconviction of Knox attempted to follow Chieffi’s directive to use all circumstantial evidence “as a whole” to create a logical construction of greater evidentiary value than the individual parts. Marasca notes Nencini was only able to accomplish this by dismissing time of death as “irrelevant” and stating that a consistent timeline of events was unnecessary. Marasca finds the latter two extraordinary assertions both fantastic and fatal.

Marasca next concluded no reliable physical evidence of any sort exists, and places blame for this solely on the extraordinary incompetence of prosecutor and police. For this reason he sees no point in remanding to a lower court because they would have nothing to review. Given the total lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, he acquits them without remand “for not having committed the fact.”

http://people.com/crime/amanda-knox-mou ... -miss-her/
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:15 pm

If Rudy Guede can return to Perugia, why can't Amanda?

This from PMF --

November 5, 2017
Meredith Kercher, "Rudy Guede Will Work Outside Prison"


He will hold a one-year internship linked to the degree in Historical Sciences of Territory [Land] and International Cooperation at the Center for Criminological Studies

Rudy Guede will work outside the prison in Viterbo where he is serving a 16-year prison sentence for Meredith Kercher's murder. In fact, he will hold a one-year internship linked to his degree in Historical Sciences of Territory and International Cooperation at the Center for Criminological Studies (Centro per gli studi criminologici - CSC). It was announced by Guede's spokesperson in an article on the Tusciaweb website.

In July 2016, the Ivorian graduated in prison with the highest marks in one of the courses at the Roma Tre University.

Guede, who has already received several permits thanks to which he was also able to return to Perugia, will be at the CSC site - the website writes - four afternoons per week for three hours a day (probably starting already on Tuesday). During the internship he will mainly deal with bibliographical research and cataloging for the center's library.

The Ivorian, who has always denied having killed the English student, has been detained in Viterbo prison for ten years. He has been given the opportunity to do an internship on the basis of Article 21 of the Prison Order.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:36 pm

carlofab wrote:While not a lawyer, I posted this brief reply in the letter page of People on my understanding of the Marasca acquittal without remand. These seem to me the essential points, but again I'm not a lawyer, and welcome any corrections. (NOTE: "Horst Schimanski" is a fictional detective in the German TV series "crime scene" used as an alias by what appears to be an Italian lawyer.)

My reply to Horst Schimanski:

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the documents is --

The Marasca ISC (27.03.2015) was bound by previous ISC rulings resulting from confirmation of Rudy Guede’s conviction and the Chieffi motivation overturning Hellmann. These became “legal certainties” -- not in the sense they are certainly true -- but their truth can no longer be contested in an Italian court. Some examples:

That Rudy Guede acted with others
That Rudy was not the author of the staged break-in [confirming it was staged]
1. That Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed
2. That Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands in the bathroom sink
3. That the Hellmann acquittal contained something like 17 logical errors

Marasca, accordingly, does not contest any of the above. However, he observes that: (1) He may arrive at the same conclusions as Hellmann provided he does not use Hellman’s logical errors to do so. (2) None of the “legally certain” statements above state that Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the murder, nor can they be used to logically deduce this.

Example: That “Amanda was there” was derived from a statement elicited from her during police interrogation – “I was there when Patrick killed Meredith.” That Raffele was there is derived from the allegedly “logical” deduction “If Amanda was there, Raffaele was there.”

Ironically, it is a “legal certainty” that Amanda’s statement “I was there when Patrick killed Meredith” is false; this was confirmed by her conviction for falsely accusing Patrick. The fragment “I was there” may or not be true, but cannot be deduced from a false statement. Nonetheless, also ironically, its alleged truth cannot be contested in an Italian court. Nonetheless, Amanda lived in the house, and there is no evidence placing her in the murder room.

Nencini’s reconviction of Knox attempted to follow Chieffi’s directive to use all circumstantial evidence “as a whole” to create a logical construction of greater evidentiary value than the individual parts. Marasca notes Nencini was only able to accomplish this by dismissing time of death as “irrelevant” and stating that a consistent timeline of events was unnecessary. Marasca finds the latter two extraordinary assertions both fantastic and fatal.

Marasca next concluded no reliable physical evidence of any sort exists, and places blame for this solely on the extraordinary incompetence of prosecutor and police. For this reason he sees no point in remanding to a lower court because they would have nothing to review. Given the total lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, he acquits them without remand “for not having committed the fact.”

http://people.com/crime/amanda-knox-mou ... -miss-her/


I am not a lawyer either, but I think your analysis is correct. First, it was important for the Marasca CSC panel, in their motivation report, to not directly contradict the Chieffi CSC motivation report if at all possible. Instead, since the Marasca CSC panel was considering the appeal of the Nencini appeal court verdict, they confined their observations to the Nencini court motivation report, thus only indirectly criticizing the Chieffi CSC panel's report.

I think that the Marasca CSC panel MR leaves ambiguity about statement 1, only indicating that Knox was in the cottage at some time. And of course, she lived there.
Can you provide a quote from the Marasca MR relating to statement 2, showing an actual acceptance of this proposition?
Regarding statement 3, I think that the Marasca MR did not engage in any direct review of the Chieffi MR with respect to the Hellmann appeal court verdict. I suspect that a CSC panel would be cautious in criticizing a previous CSC panel's MR. Perhaps under the Italian system only a United Sections CSC panel or a Constitutional Court judgment would be entitled to criticize a CSC panel MR. Under the Italian system, CSC panel judgments are not binding as precedent, but are "almost" precedent, since while not absolutely binding on future cases, they are taken as guidance.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:29 am

Thanks for your comments Numbers -- I value your opinions. Here are the references you asked about. I am interested to hear what you think:

1. That Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed
p 48 = 9.4.1. = “This is an acclaimed fact of the trial”

2. That Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands in the bathroom sink
p. 49 = mixed blood and DNA in sink confirms Amanda tried to wash off Meredith’s blood, further confirming her presence.

3. That the Hellmann acquittal contained something like 17 logical errors
Top of page P 24 (in italics) = Marasca can reach the same conclusions as Hellmann if he uses different arguments than Hellmann’s alleged flawed logic.

MARASCA MOTIVATION:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:12 am

carlofab wrote:Thanks for your comments Numbers -- I value your opinions. Here are the references you asked about. I am interested to hear what you think:

1. That Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed
p 48 = 9.4.1. = “This is an acclaimed fact of the trial”

2. That Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands in the bathroom sink
p. 49 = mixed blood and DNA in sink confirms Amanda tried to wash off Meredith’s blood, further confirming her presence.

3. That the Hellmann acquittal contained something like 17 logical errors
Top of page P 24 (in italics) = Marasca can reach the same conclusions as Hellmann if he uses different arguments than Hellmann’s alleged flawed logic.

MARASCA MOTIVATION:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf


I'm going to respond relating to statement 3 first. Here's the relevant translated text of the Marasca CSC panel MR, starting on page 23, with the second paragraph of Section 3:

"The assessment requested of this Court is – only in appearance – easy, given that the ratio decidendi [rationale for the decision] of the verdict of annulment lies in the realisation of the obvious lack of logic of the reasoning of the challenged judgment {= the Nencini appeal court verdict}; a realisation that, then, is substantiated – and specified – in the revealed violation of the principles of completeness and freedom from contradictions.

In any case, it is an indisputable application of jurisprudence that, in the presence of such grounds for annulment, pertaining to the deficiency in reasoning, the referral judge {= the Nencini appeal court} is responsible for the examination of the entire body of evidence, that he is expected to review in complete freedom to form judgments, without any type of constraints, being only required to produce motivations devoid of deficiencies of obvious lack of logic or patent contradictoriness that had caused the annulment of the first appeal verdict {= the Hellmann appeal court}. In the jurisprudence of this Court of Legitimacy {= the CSC}, in fact, the assertion is repeated according to: “following an annulment for deficiency of reasoning, the referral judge {= Nencini appeal court} is not bound by founding the new verdict on the same arguments considered illogical or deficient by the Supreme Court of Cassation, but is free to arrive at, based on different arguments from those rejected in the Court of Legitimacy or rather integrating and completing those already carried out, to the same decision of the annulled pronouncement. That because it is the judge of the lower court who is expected to have the task of reconstructing the facts emerging from the results of the trial and to appreciate the significance and value of the various sources of evidence (amongst others, Section 4, n. 30422 of 21/06/2005, Poggi, Rv. 232019; Section 4, n. 48352 of 29/04/2009, Savoretti, Rv. 245775)."

So what the Marasca CSC is pointing out is not the alleged deficiencies of the Hellmann appeal court claimed by the Chieffi CSC panel, but rather Marasca is pointing out that the Nencini appeal court was free to re-evaluate the case in complete freedom and was not constrained by the Chieffi CSC MR to deliver a verdict of guilty based on the Nencini appeal court's own defective logic and misinterpretation of factual evidence. The obligation of the Nencini appeal court was to simply provide logical arguments different than those of the Hellmann appeal court, but based on valid logical interpretations of valid factual evidence within the case. {Edited to add:} And, it is the Nencini appeal court that is being discussed by the Marasca CSC panel, not that "Marasca can reach the same conclusions as Hellmann if he uses different arguments than Hellmann’s alleged flawed logic".

Thus, the number of alleged logical errors claimed by the Chieffi CSC panel to be in the Hellman appeal court MR is not explicitly called out in the Marasca CSC panel MR, and the paragraphs are really about how the Nencini appeal court MR should have treated the case.

Further reading of Section 3 on page 24 of the translated Marasca CSC panel MR provides criticism of the Chieffi CSC panel for improperly discussing the merits of the case, which is not an a legally authorized function of the CSC (see CPP Articles 606 and 609) and stronger criticism of the Nencini appeal court for not properly exercising its responsibilities, which included independently addressing the merits of the case. Here's the text of the Marasca MR:

"A problem – outlined, with appreciable discretion, in the new reasoning in favour of Knox –is when, as in the case in question, the judge of legitimacy {= the Chieffi CSC panel} made incursions into the “merit”, going beyond the institutional limits assigned to it, such as, for example, when a variety of alternative motives are proposed for the murderous act and the referral judge {= the Nencini appeal court} is expected to identify, in that predetermined numerus clausus [finite number], the most appropriate to the case in question. There is no doubt, according to this Court, that in such an unusual situation the referral judge cannot be considered in any way bound or conditioned, precisely because of the clearcut discrimen [crisis] that exists in the profession, for what has been said, between cognisance of law and cognisance of fact, the latter the exclusive prerogative of the referral judge {= the Nencini appeal court}. On this matter, moreover, this Supreme Court of Jurisprudence {= the CSC} has already expressed itself, in stating that the referral judge cannot be conditioned in his reasoning by evaluations of fact that may have escaped {= has been stated by} the judge of legitimacy {= the CSC}, with the levels on which the respective evaluations operate being different, and with it not being the role of the Court of Cassation to superimpose its own judgment on the referral judge {= the Nencini appeal court} regarding such aspects.

Moreover, where the Supreme Court {= the CSC} focuses any attention on some particular aspects from which emerges the deficiency or the contradictoriness of the reasoning, that does not mean that the referral judge {= the Nencini appeal cout} for the new verdict is limited only by the points specified, because he conserves the same powers held originally, which is as the judge of merit relative to the identification and evaluation of the court records, within the charges of the verdict affected by annulment. (Section 4 n. 30422/2005 cit.). In the same way, it was stated that […] any elements of fact or evaluation contained in the pronouncement of annulment are not binding on the referral judge, but are to be taken purely as points of reference in order to identify the defect or defects reported, and not as facts that impose upon the decision entrusted to him; in addition there is no doubt that, following a pronouncement of annulment because of lack of reasoning through the identification of specific points of deficiency or of contradictoriness, the power of the referral judge cannot be limited to the evaluation of the single points specified, as if they were isolated from the rest of the body of evidence, but is expected to consider other court records on which the decision must be based, providing the justification in the sentence...."

Briefly, the Marasca CSC panel states that the Nencini appeal court failed in its legally authorized function to independently evaluate the merits of the evidence and wrongfully relied on some speculations of the Chieffi CSC panel, extralegal intrusions into the merits of the case, which the CSC cannot judge according to law, to form its verdict. The CSC is legally authorized to judge the evaluation of the evidence, but is not to form a judgment on the merits itself. If there were not true, the Chieffi CSC panel would have itself declared Knox and Sollecito guilty and not been required by law to make a referral to an appeal court to review the case, after the Chieffi CSC panel judged the Hellmann appeal court MR contained logical errors.

I hope this rather lengthy post clears up some of the issues relating to statement 3.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:13 am

carlofab wrote:While not a lawyer, I posted this brief reply in the letter page of People on my understanding of the Marasca acquittal without remand. These seem to me the essential points, but again I'm not a lawyer, and welcome any corrections. (NOTE: "Horst Schimanski" is a fictional detective in the German TV series "crime scene" used as an alias by what appears to be an Italian lawyer.)

My reply to Horst Schimanski:

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of the documents is --

The Marasca ISC (27.03.2015) was bound by previous ISC rulings resulting from confirmation of Rudy Guede’s conviction and the Chieffi motivation overturning Hellmann. These became “legal certainties” -- not in the sense they are certainly true -- but their truth can no longer be contested in an Italian court. Some examples:

That Rudy Guede acted with others
That Rudy was not the author of the staged break-in [confirming it was staged]
That Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed
That Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands in the bathroom sink
That the Hellmann acquittal contained something like 17 logical errors

Marasca, accordingly, does not contest any of the above. However, he observes that: (1) He may arrive at the same conclusions as Hellmann provided he does not use Hellman’s logical errors to do so. (2) None of the “legally certain” statements above state that Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the murder, nor can they be used to logically deduce this.

Example: That “Amanda was there” was derived from a statement elicited from her during police interrogation – “I was there when Patrick killed Meredith.” That Raffele was there is derived from the allegedly “logical” deduction “If Amanda was there, Raffaele was there.”

Ironically, it is a “legal certainty” that Amanda’s statement “I was there when Patrick killed Meredith” is false; this was confirmed by her conviction for falsely accusing Patrick. The fragment “I was there” may or not be true, but cannot be deduced from a false statement. Nonetheless, also ironically, its alleged truth cannot be contested in an Italian court. Nonetheless, Amanda lived in the house, and there is no evidence placing her in the murder room.

Nencini’s reconviction of Knox attempted to follow Chieffi’s directive to use all circumstantial evidence “as a whole” to create a logical construction of greater evidentiary value than the individual parts. Marasca notes Nencini was only able to accomplish this by dismissing time of death as “irrelevant” and stating that a consistent timeline of events was unnecessary. Marasca finds the latter two extraordinary assertions both fantastic and fatal.

Marasca next concluded no reliable physical evidence of any sort exists, and places blame for this solely on the extraordinary incompetence of prosecutor and police. For this reason he sees no point in remanding to a lower court because they would have nothing to review. Given the total lack of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, he acquits them without remand “for not having committed the fact.”

http://people.com/crime/amanda-knox-mou ... -miss-her/


To Carlo

Hey Carlo, I totally agree with you of what you said is true facts of this case. I also am not a lawyer at all. I never was a lawyer or my family went to law school and my dad is a lawyer who had done it over 45yrs and I know it hit me very sad that he not going to live long, even why am I saying it. My dad got cancer since December 25. 2016 and he fought it, from December 25. 2016 to September 2017 and since October 31st 2017. The cancer came back and it worst again, even he might died today, or tomorrow soon enough of when is it, and how he going to live!!!

What am I going to say right now into this case. How I support criminal law is by reading a novel even yes people hate me of why I am not going to buy it. I go to the Book store and I read a novel and I believe novels are the fiction of law and yes people can sue me, even. What is the best answer to you? I don't know! But I know for a factor Amanda might had been at the cottage and how can we make sure she committed this crime, even it made no sense even was she there? Yes only for the slander charges of maybe she touch the dead body!!!

NCIS/Twisted Sister: I love that episode have you watch it Carlo? NCIS did an amazing job through the innocent project of Tim McGee sister even he would fight for her sister even his boss he doesn't know what to do? What should we do? Read a novel of mystery? That he tell him what to do even it the only best answer even NCIS did an amazing job on that episode even it explain every detail of how an innocent who might confess of the crime scene. even they were false of the crime and someone else did it!!!

This is the way the crime should work even I believe into that part of innocent and I prove it my own way of innocent into it, of reading a novel and I might not be the nicest man in America of why I support the novel into the innocent!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:26 am

carlofab wrote:Thanks for your comments Numbers -- I value your opinions. Here are the references you asked about. I am interested to hear what you think:

1. That Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was killed
p 48 = 9.4.1. = “This is an acclaimed fact of the trial”

2. That Knox washed Meredith's blood off her hands in the bathroom sink
p. 49 = mixed blood and DNA in sink confirms Amanda tried to wash off Meredith’s blood, further confirming her presence.

3. That the Hellmann acquittal contained something like 17 logical errors
Top of page P 24 (in italics) = Marasca can reach the same conclusions as Hellmann if he uses different arguments than Hellmann’s alleged flawed logic.

MARASCA MOTIVATION:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf


Now, here are some comments regarding statements 1 and 2.

The issues related to these statements have been discussed at great length and with much repetition on ISF. I will try to be brief here.

The texts in questions are in Section 9 of the the Marasca CSC panel MR. All of Section 9 forms a logical whole which must be understood from the explanation of the Marasca CSC panel's intent as they have described in the first paragraphs of Section 9. Guilters ignore these explanatory paragraphs and isolate certain phrases later in Section 9 in order to take statements out of context and provide a false impression of the information in the Marasca CSC panel MR. Section 9 is devoted to demolishing the Nencini appeal court reasoning for guilt and showing that even under certain hypotheses apparently unfavorable to the accused (Knox and/or Sollecito), their guilt cannot be established according to Italian law (CPP Article 533, which requires that a verdict of guilty can only be pronounced if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Section 9 does not proclaim these hypotheses to be factual. So the Marasca CSC panel MR does not state either statement 1 or statement 2 as factual.

That's the brief explanation. A full explanation, from my viewpoint, would involve extensive quotes from Section 9, beginning with:

"9. The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict [= of the Nencini appeal court} from the funditus [foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.
The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to present an evidentiary framework that can really be considered suitable to support a pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Article 533 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in the text renewed by Article 5 of the law n. 46/2006. ...."

{A long discussion follows of how and why the concept of "BARD" is not somehow against Italian principles and has a long history in Italian law. To understand why this is in the text, it's important to remember that Italy was a fascist dictatorship for a long time, and perhaps even independently of this the Italian judicial system relied on an inquisitorial judicial system, where the accused person had to prove his or her innocence to be acquitted; otherwise, they were assumed guilty. The Italian law, Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Article 533, was not finalized by the Italian Parliament until 1999; the Italian Constitution, for example, Article 111 and possibly Article 27, also had to be modified to make it agree with the European Convention of Human Rights. The adoption of the BARD standard and the change to an adversarial system from the inquisitorial system, which the Italian Parliament required by law, was resisted by many in the Italian judiciary.}

"9.1 The intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence, whose objective uncertainty is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering progress of the proceedings, does not therefore allow [us] to be satisfied to the standard of [beyond a] reasonable doubt, whose establishment is an achievement of legal culture that must, always and in any case, be upheld since it is the expression of fundamental constitutional values, centered around the key role of the human being in the judicial system, whose protection in the context of a trial is also exercised by the principle of presumption of innocence until the definitive decision [verdict], as per Article 27, section 2 of the Constitution.

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic {= a general summary; synopsis} presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling {= the Nencini appeal court MR} and of the previous ones.

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy {= the case law of the CSC}. ....

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
....

This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis, removing some biological traces while leaving others.

9.4.1. With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed {= acknowledged (may be a better translation)} fact of the trial {= a "judicial truth" not necessarily a real fact}, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial {= ignoring the fact that Knox disowned her statement, claiming it was made under coercion, and these matters are now subject to a case pending before the European Court of Human Rights}, ....
....

Another element regarding her is represented by traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent confirmation that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, which she tried to wash off (it seems we are dealing with washed away blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing).
The data leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the well-known considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in question {= the consideration includes that Knox's DNA is expected to be in the sink since she used it innocently to wash her hands, brush her teeth, etc.}.

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element {= a judical truth, not a real fact} would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime {= the murder room} or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.
...."

I hope this presentation is sufficient to make the point that statements 1 and 2 are not statements of fact by the Marasca CSC panel.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:35 pm

Thanks Numbers --

I see there has been a thorough analysis of these documents that I missed out on. I appreciate this clarification. My comments were merely an impression based on a perusal of the documents, tracing back where something originated to see if/how it was confirmed by the ISC. Perhaps someone can put the ISF analysis on record in the Injustice trial history someday.

This is becoming increasingly important because -- I notice -- as the event recedes into history, understanding of the case as described by readers in letters pages (e.g., to the flurry of articles on Amanda's recent tribute to Meredith) has already become increasingly garbled. A Knox defender (of sorts) in the Fox News letters page on the story claimed Meredith was dating Patrick Lumumba, which gave Rudy the impression she would date him also. When she refused him, he killed her.

I do think it important to remember a "legal certainty" merely means the statement, right or wrong, can no longer be challenged in an Italian court, at least in the case in which it was introduced. At least this is my understanding, but put me straight if I'm wrong on this too.

:)
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:37 pm

Hi Scifi Tom --

Thanks for the comment.

Yup, I watch NCIS and saw the episode.

:)
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby LondonSupporter » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:12 pm

As with other high profile cases (the Lindy Chamberlain dingo baby comes to mind), I don't think that there is any way that ignorant stupid people can be prevented from making crass comments. In maybe 25 years time there will be widespread public acceptance that the investigation and prosecution was incompetent and flawed from the outset and that Amanda and Raffaele were effectively framed. Until then, we will mainly have to grit our teeth. It is impossible to take on every idiot and doing so will probably make no difference.
"Life lived somehow for love is life never wasted." - Amanda Knox
User avatar
LondonSupporter
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:31 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:27 pm

carlofab wrote:Thanks Numbers --

I see there has been a thorough analysis of these documents that I missed out on. I appreciate this clarification. My comments were merely an impression based on a perusal of the documents, tracing back where something originated to see if/how it was confirmed by the ISC. Perhaps someone can put the ISF analysis on record in the Injustice trial history someday.

This is becoming increasingly important because -- I notice -- as the event recedes into history, understanding of the case as described by readers in letters pages (e.g., to the flurry of articles on Amanda's recent tribute to Meredith) has already become increasingly garbled. A Knox defender (of sorts) in the Fox News letters page on the story claimed Meredith was dating Patrick Lumumba, which gave Rudy the impression she would date him also. When she refused him, he killed her.

I do think it important to remember a "legal certainty" merely means the statement, right or wrong, can no longer be challenged in an Italian court, at least in the case in which it was introduced. At least this is my understanding, but put me straight if I'm wrong on this too.

:)


I'm not sure in what context you have found the term "legal certainty". This term generally means, according to definitions I have seen and the ECHR uses, that laws are clearly written so that indiviuals (including corporations, etc.) know what the law means and can thus follow the law. It does include the concept that final court decisions are binding in accordance with law. In Italy, under certain conditions in accordance with law, final convictions may be revised to acquittals or other dismissals. There is no procedure in Italy for the revision of final acquittals.

"Legal certainty is a principle in national and international law which holds that the law must provide those subject to it with the ability to regulate their conduct. Legal certainty is internationally recognised as a central requirement for the rule of law."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_certainty
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:18 pm

Thanks Numbers,

"Legal certainty" is a personal phrase I coined to keep my head straight in looking through these documents and was not aware such a phrase already existed.

"Legal Certainty" in International Law per your link merely says laws must to be written with such clarity that any ordinary person can understand their meaning and intent. Nobody should have to wonder whether something is illegal..

Perhaps I need to find another expression for what I intended, which is (example):

Rudy Guede is convicted of "murdering Merideth Kercher with others." The supreme court reviews the conviction to assure the lower court made no legal, "logical" or other errors. If the ISC finds errors, the conviction is overturned, and the case is remanded to the lower court for retrial with the offending problems prohibited from the new trial. On the other hand, if the ISC finds no errors, it confirms the conviction and the case is closed with no further appeal possible.

If the latter occurs, then "Rudy Guede acted with others in the murder of Meredith Kercher" becomes what I called a "legal certainty" in sense that, whether true or not, it can no longer be contested in an Italian court.

An example from Amanda's case illustrates the subtleties that can arise:

Hellmann convicted Amanda of of the calumny against Patrick but acquitted her of murdering Meredith. The ISC confirmed the calumny against Patrick but overturned the murder acquittal and sent that part back for retrial.

Amanda in the retrial is now handicapped because the false accusation against Patrick is (in my sense of the expression) an established fact that can no longer be contested. The prosecution can take advantage of this by pointing to it as proof Amanda is a "convicted liar" and also to claim it is evidence of guilt because she tried to throw blame on another.

I'm curious whether Amanda and Raffele were even allowed to argue at trial that Rudy acted alone and broke into the window and murdered Meredith. There is certainly abundant evidence of this. But it flies in the face of his finalized conviction for "acting with others."

Anyway, that was my use of an expression I coined. Thanks for your helpful clarifications.

:)
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:43 pm

carlofab wrote:Thanks Numbers,

"Legal certainty" is a personal phrase I coined to keep my head straight in looking through these documents and was not aware such a phrase already existed.

"Legal Certainty" in International Law per your link merely says laws must to be written with such clarity that any ordinary person can understand their meaning and intent. Nobody should have to wonder whether something is illegal..

Perhaps I need to find another expression for what I intended, which is (example):

Rudy Guede is convicted of "murdering Merideth Kercher with others." The supreme court reviews the conviction to assure the lower court made no legal, "logical" or other errors. If the ISC finds errors, the conviction is overturned, and the case is remanded to the lower court for retrial with the offending problems prohibited from the new trial. On the other hand, if the ISC finds no errors, it confirms the conviction and the case is closed with no further appeal possible.

If the latter occurs, then "Rudy Guede acted with others in the murder of Meredith Kercher" becomes what I called a "legal certainty" in sense that, whether true or not, it can no longer be contested in an Italian court.

An example from Amanda's case illustrates the subtleties that can arise:

Hellmann convicted Amanda of of the calumny against Patrick but acquitted her of murdering Meredith. The ISC confirmed the calumny against Patrick but overturned the murder acquittal and sent that part back for retrial.

Amanda in the retrial is now handicapped because the false accusation against Patrick is (in my sense of the expression) an established fact that can no longer be contested. The prosecution can take advantage of this by pointing to it as proof Amanda is a "convicted liar" and also to claim it is evidence of guilt because she tried to throw blame on another.

I'm curious whether Amanda and Raffele were even allowed to argue at trial that Rudy acted alone and broke into the window and murdered Meredith. There is certainly abundant evidence of this. But it flies in the face of his finalized conviction for "acting with others."

Anyway, that was my use of an expression I coined. Thanks for your helpful clarifications.

:)


Amanda was indeed finally convicted of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. However, that conviction may be reviewed for revision, if (and when) the European Court of Human Rights judges the case Knox v. Italy. Based on my reading of ECHR case law, the ECHR will judge that Italy violated Amanda's defense rights under the Convention. Under an Italian Constitutional Court decision (number 113 of 2011), convictions which the ECHR has found to be violations of the Convention are eligible for revision. A revision in this case would mean a retrial with defense rights guaranteed by the Convention respected. Thus, none of Amanda's coerced statements or statements made in custody without legal counsel would be admissible, and so there would be no calunnia. It would be an acquittal with the specification "because the fact (act of the crime) did not occur".
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:10 pm

Numbers,

My personal use of “legal Certainty” intended that something had been finalized by the ISC and therefore could no longer be contested in an Italian court.

I hope you are right about the ECHR. Marasca argues that ECHR is only reviewing the accusation made at the interrogation. He writes she admitted to the offense several times afterward; the spontaneous memorale (which I can’t believe hurt her), but also in the meeting she insisted upon – against advice of her lawyers – with Mignini to “explain this is all a misunderstanding.” At that meeting, which he taped, he repeatedly asks, “Why did you accuse Patrick?” She becomes flustered and gives several different answers. Maresca argues these occasions make whatever the ECHR rules on the interrogation pointless.

See pp. 22-23 of Marasca:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf
.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:31 am

carlofab wrote:Numbers,

My personal use of “legal Certainty” intended that something had been finalized by the ISC and therefore could no longer be contested [b]in an Italian court.[/b]

I hope you are right about the ECHR. Marasca argues that ECHR is only reviewing the accusation made at the interrogation. He writes she admitted to the offense several times afterward; the spontaneous memorale (which I can’t believe hurt her), but also in the meeting she insisted upon – against advice of her lawyers – with Mignini to “explain this is all a misunderstanding.” At that meeting, which he taped, he repeatedly asks, “Why did you accuse Patrick?” She becomes flustered and gives several different answers. Maresca argues these occasions make whatever the ECHR rules on the interrogation pointless.

See pp. 22-23 of Marasca:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf
.


1. There is some misunderstanding here. Revision, granting a new trial to someone who claims to have been wrongly convicted in an otherwise final judgement, who supports that claim by certain evidence, is a procedure conducted under Italian criminal law in an Italian court.

Italian law assumes that there may be cases of miscarriage of justice - that is, wrongful final conviction - and makes provisions to allow for their correction. However, there are no such laws to revise final acquittals.

The laws governing revision include Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) Articles 629 through 647, and Italian (Supreme - and only) Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011. Revision of wrongful final convictions is an important part of Italian law. (The [Supreme] Constitutional Court is the only court in Italy that is, under the Italian Constitution, allowed to interpret the Italian Constitution and to declare laws unconstitutional, or by its decisions to create binding precedent extending existing law when the Italian Parliament has failed to act. It is a tribunal different from the Supreme Court of Cassation, which is the final appellate court, although cases may become final if there is no appeal within the legal time limits without reaching the Supreme Court of Cassation. When people write about the "Italian Supreme Court" they are being unintentionally ambiguous; usually, the Supreme Court of Cassation is meant.)

2.There is some misunderstanding relating to what the Marasca CSC panel MR is claiming. The Marasca MR does not refer to Amanda's voluntary questioning in prison by Mignini when she had lawyers; it is referring to Mignini questioning her after the police interrogation. That is the questioning that produced Amanda's 5:45 statement of Nov. 6, 2007.

Here is the translated text of the Marasca MR, from Section 2.2 on pages 22 - 23 (numbering in braces added):

"In fact, an eventual pronouncement by the European Court {of Human Rights} in favour of the same Knox, in the sense of a hoped-for recognition of her {1.}unorthodox treatment by the investigators, would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence, considering that the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also {2.} confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures; and were also {3.} confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning; and were even {4.} repeated, some time later, during the validation of Lumumba's arrest, before the GIP [judge of preliminary investigation] who initiated the proceedings."

The added numbering in braces is intended to illustrate the time sequence of the events referred to in this paragraph by the Marasca CSC panel. The sequence occurs over the time period Nov. 5, 2007 - the beginning of the interrogation of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - through November 8, 2007 - the date Amanda appeared for her validation of arrest hearing, and was silent on the advice of her lawyer, which would be also be the date of the validation hearing of Lumumba's arrest. Her actual silence, documented by the arrest hearing judge, is contrary to what the Marasca MR claims; there was no repetition by her of a statement against Lumumba.

The date of the Amanda's voluntary questioning by Mignini was December 17, 2007, and it took place in Capanne prison. Marasca does not refer to this questioning, and Amanda's conviction for calunnia, which was a verdict of the Hellmann appeal court and confirmed by the Chieffi CSC panel, does not include any reference to that questioning.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:12 am

Thanks Numbers,

I sincerely hope you and not Marasca is right regarding the ECHR review. I favor your reasoning.

With regard to my version of "legal certainty," I believe it is still correct that such certainties once established cannot be contested in subsequent remands. But you point out new information of which I was not aware -- once a conviction is finally confirmed by the ISC, the defendant still has access to a wrongful conviction appeal in which all such "certainties" would be up for review along with everything else in the original trials. My sense, in the USA at least, is that such "wrongful conviction" revues are rarely granted and require extraordinary new evidence. Otherwise, everyone convicted would request one.

For example, there are still parents and others in prison in the U.S. due to the testimony of children in the great U.S. child molestation hysteria of the 1980s. Many such children have since grown to adulthood and renounced the testimony, saying it was encouraged by court psychologists whom they wished to please. Prosecutors block most such appeals on the ground that the defendants were convicted on testimony of victims. "If the victims are renouncing that testimony today for whatever reason, it's irrelevant. It was their testimony at the time of the trial."

Anyway, thanks numbers. You've enlightened me on several points of which I was unaware.

:)
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:55 pm

carlofab wrote:Thanks Numbers,

I sincerely hope you and not Marasca is right regarding the ECHR review. I favor your reasoning.

With regard to my version of "legal certainty," I believe it is still correct that such certainties once established cannot be contested in subsequent remands. But you point out new information of which I was not aware -- once a conviction is finally confirmed by the ISC, the defendant still has access to a wrongful conviction appeal in which all such "certainties" would be up for review along with everything else in the original trials. My sense, in the USA at least, is that such "wrongful conviction" revues are rarely granted and require extraordinary new evidence. Otherwise, everyone convicted would request one.

For example, there are still parents and others in prison in the U.S. due to the testimony of children in the great U.S. child molestation hysteria of the 1980s. Many such children have since grown to adulthood and renounced the testimony, saying it was encouraged by court psychologists whom they wished to please. Prosecutors block most such appeals on the ground that the defendants were convicted on testimony of victims. "If the victims are renouncing that testimony today for whatever reason, it's irrelevant. It was their testimony at the time of the trial."

Anyway, thanks numbers. You've enlightened me on several points of which I was unaware.

:)


In my post, I summarized information. Thus, there may be some misunderstanding of the paths available for revision. While a finally convicted person is always free to petition an Italian appeal court for revision, only cases where certain conditions hold are accepted for revision under the law. These conditions are laid out in CPP Article 630 and in Constitutional Court decision 113 of 2011. Briefly, the conditions must include one of the following: 1. the facts underlying the criminal judgment conflict or are incompatible with the facts underlying a different criminal judgment; 2. because of a judgment in a civil or administrative trial, the actions deemed an offense in the criminal judgment must be no longer considered an offense; 3. new evidence is found or discovered after the criminal conviction, and either independently or together with other evidence, proves that the convicted person must be dismissed (that is, there should never have been a case, or there should be an acquittal under one of the five legal specifications, or the statute of limitations was exceeded); 4. it is proven that the judgment of conviction resulted from false documents or false statements provided during the trial, or from any other criminal act deemed an offense under the law; 5. when it is necessary to reopen the proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

The revision process is relevant to this case so far in two instances.

First, Amanda Knox's case pending before the ECHR would result in allowing her to request a revision trial for her calunnia against Lumumba conviction, with full legal basis under Italian law, if and when the ECHR decides in her favor.

Second, Rudy Guede has requested a revision trial on the basis that his final conviction for the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher was not compatible with the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. This request was refused by the appeal court, apparently on the basis that there was no incompatibility, and Guede has appealed (as is allowed under Italian law) to the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC). The CSC decision on the request is expected before the end of November, 2017.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:08 am

The whole idea of Judicial Truths derived from results of other trials, is and of itself is incompatible with Italy's own laws! There is a section of Italian law that states (Paraphrasing) that the outcome of trials should not be subject to evidence outside and not presented in court. This should in my opinion include these so-called judicial truths. The idea that lesser trials (summary convictions) of other individuals, without the participation of all parties involved, is a procedural injustice!

I really doubt their will be any revision to the culunia charge, it is directly and indirectly the only reason for the "Acted with Others" claim, and without it, Rudy Would easily be considered the lone killer. Hellman and more importantly Marasca would have no need to stick-handle, the "Acted with others" notion.

I think what you will see from the ECHR is a whole lot of nothing, they may condem the rulings but they are really powerless to force any action!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:37 pm

anonshy wrote:The whole idea of Judicial Truths derived from results of other trials, is and of itself is incompatible with Italy's own laws! There is a section of Italian law that states (Paraphrasing) that the outcome of trials should not be subject to evidence outside and not presented in court. This should in my opinion include these so-called judicial truths. The idea that lesser trials (summary convictions) of other individuals, without the participation of all parties involved, is a procedural injustice!

I really doubt their will be any revision to the culunia charge, it is directly and indirectly the only reason for the "Acted with Others" claim, and without it, Rudy Would easily be considered the lone killer. Hellman and more importantly Marasca would have no need to stick-handle, the "Acted with others" notion.

I think what you will see from the ECHR is a whole lot of nothing, they may condem the rulings but they are really powerless to force any action!

Anon



Anon,

I agree with you, but many most "judicial truths" came from within Amanda's trial; specifically, in the ISC ruling that overturned the Hellmann acquittal but confirmed her conviction for calumny. Chieffi's ISC motivation lays some narrow instructions for the Nencini court. Marasca, in his motivation, acknowledges but steps gingerly around them.

I thought it extremely stupid that Amanda was charged with stealing Meredith's rent money. The only source for this was Rude Guede's "hearsay" testimony that Meredith told him this. I believe they did find the amount withdrawn from her account, but had no evidence other than Rudy that it had been stolen.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:48 pm

Numbers,

Rudy should hope his request for a revision trial is denied. If granted, the new trial would throw a mountain of evidence at him that was omitted in fast track, and likely result in a verdict that omits "acting with others" while adding another 14 years to his sentence.

Marasca, I hope wrongly, writes in his motivation that an ECHR decision in Amanda's favor will not help her because it addresses only the interrogation. He says -- I personally believe wrongly -- that she confirmed the offense on other occasions after the interrogation, so the conviction would stand even if the interrogation is thrown out.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:44 pm

carlofab wrote:Numbers,

Rudy should hope his request for a revision trial is denied. If granted, the new trial would throw a mountain of evidence at him that was omitted in fast track, and likely result in a verdict that omits "acting with others" while adding another 14 years to his sentence.

Marasca, I hope wrongly, writes in his motivation that an ECHR decision in Amanda's favor will not help her because it addresses only the interrogation. He says -- I personally believe wrongly -- that she confirmed the offense on other occasions after the interrogation, so the conviction would stand even if the interrogation is thrown out.


carlofab, I'm going to be a spoilsport again.

A revision trial cannot legally increase the penalty a finally convicted person has been sentenced to, nor can any other Italian court trial. Italy's version of the law against double jeopardy, CPP Article 649, specifically states: "The accused person who has been dismissed {that term includes acquitted} or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offense, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offense, or circumstances...."

And here is the Italian legal definition of "final" judgment, CPP Article 648:

"1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appellate remedy other than revision are final.

2. If an appellate remedy may be invoked, the judgment becomes final upon expiry of the time limit set to lodge the remedy or to appeal the order declaring its inadmissibility. In case of an appeal in Cassation, the judgment becomes final from the day of delivery of the order or judgment rejecting the appeal or declaring it inadmissible."
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:50 pm

anonshy wrote:The whole idea of Judicial Truths derived from results of other trials, is and of itself is incompatible with Italy's own laws! There is a section of Italian law that states (Paraphrasing) that the outcome of trials should not be subject to evidence outside and not presented in court. This should in my opinion include these so-called judicial truths. The idea that lesser trials (summary convictions) of other individuals, without the participation of all parties involved, is a procedural injustice!

I really doubt their will be any revision to the culunia charge, it is directly and indirectly the only reason for the "Acted with Others" claim, and without it, Rudy Would easily be considered the lone killer. Hellman and more importantly Marasca would have no need to stick-handle, the "Acted with others" notion.

I think what you will see from the ECHR is a whole lot of nothing, they may condem the rulings but they are really powerless to force any action!

Anon


The ECHR, the human rights court of the Council of Europe, does not have the authority to enforce its decisions and judgments. The organization that has that authority - insofar as the authority exists - is the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. And the CoM's power is mostly diplomatic pressure.

So it is entirely possible for a CoE member state to defy the judgment of the ECHR, and the only action that may be visible is another ECHR judgment. The new judgment would be delivered because the member states have each agreed by treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights, to follow the final judgments of the ECHR, and not to do so is a violation of that treaty. A new violation would lead to additional diplomatic pressure from the CoM.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby schmidt53 » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:32 pm

carlofab wrote:
anonshy wrote:The whole idea of Judicial Truths derived from results of other trials, is and of itself is incompatible with Italy's own laws! There is a section of Italian law that states (Paraphrasing) that the outcome of trials should not be subject to evidence outside and not presented in court. This should in my opinion include these so-called judicial truths. The idea that lesser trials (summary convictions) of other individuals, without the participation of all parties involved, is a procedural injustice!

I really doubt their will be any revision to the culunia charge, it is directly and indirectly the only reason for the "Acted with Others" claim, and without it, Rudy Would easily be considered the lone killer. Hellman and more importantly Marasca would have no need to stick-handle, the "Acted with others" notion.

I think what you will see from the ECHR is a whole lot of nothing, they may condem the rulings but they are really powerless to force any action!

Anon



Anon,

I agree with you, but many most "judicial truths" came from within Amanda's trial; specifically, in the ISC ruling that overturned the Hellmann acquittal but confirmed her conviction for calumny. Chieffi's ISC motivation lays some narrow instructions for the Nencini court. Marasca, in his motivation, acknowledges but steps gingerly around them.

I thought it extremely stupid that Amanda was charged with stealing Meredith's rent money. The only source for this was Rude Guede's "hearsay" testimony that Meredith told him this. I believe they did find the amount withdrawn from her account, but had no evidence other than Rudy that it had been stolen.


In Massei decision Amanda/Raffaele were acquitted of thief. That decision was not appealed by the prosecution which was the end for that charge. Nencini trial didn't trial them again for thief. Nencini used the idea of thief in his ruling as Amanda's motive which would be wrong.
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:24 am

carlofab wrote:
anonshy wrote:The whole idea of Judicial Truths derived from results of other trials, is and of itself is incompatible with Italy's own laws! There is a section of Italian law that states (Paraphrasing) that the outcome of trials should not be subject to evidence outside and not presented in court. This should in my opinion include these so-called judicial truths. The idea that lesser trials (summary convictions) of other individuals, without the participation of all parties involved, is a procedural injustice!

I really doubt their will be any revision to the culunia charge, it is directly and indirectly the only reason for the "Acted with Others" claim, and without it, Rudy Would easily be considered the lone killer. Hellman and more importantly Marasca would have no need to stick-handle, the "Acted with others" notion.

I think what you will see from the ECHR is a whole lot of nothing, they may condem the rulings but they are really powerless to force any action!

Anon



Anon,

I agree with you, but many most "judicial truths" came from within Amanda's trial; specifically, in the ISC ruling that overturned the Hellmann acquittal but confirmed her conviction for calumny. Chieffi's ISC motivation lays some narrow instructions for the Nencini court. Marasca, in his motivation, acknowledges but steps gingerly around them.

I thought it extremely stupid that Amanda was charged with stealing Meredith's rent money. The only source for this was Rude Guede's "hearsay" testimony that Meredith told him this. I believe they did find the amount withdrawn from her account, but had no evidence other than Rudy that it had been stolen.


To Carlo

Hey Carlo I do agree with you. But I am not going to agree with Anon even why? Because he doesn't understand me! I believe the evidence was there, even it was never found and the whole thing that bother me of this case was a sloppy Joe case, of mess with the DNA evidence and since it all started not with the rent of money. One of the police woman name Monica said: Hey look at them!!!

She was pointing at Amanda & Raffaele while they were kissing and it means comfort. So what it bother you. Grow up. My cousin does this all the time. People who are madly in love kiss each other, even it not going to work!!!

Image

I think the weapon was missing and stolen even it pointed to Rudy Guede to be the lone killer and the way the science worked with them, was contain of mix evidence and it was ruin, even I follow the law of reading a novel and it who I am and it were I stand!!!

The other thing that bother me is why did Amanda dated men of so many even one of those men could knew Rudy Guede and join him even I wanted to know more about the boys in the basement, even that what bother me, even I am going with my guts of 2 men killed Meredith. I know for a factor Rudy join a basketball league into Italy and if Meredith dated him. 2 men know something even Amanda & Raffaele are out of the picture. But I enjoy Raffaele novel better then Amanda because it explain clear to me of what he was saying and it explain every detail even it made sense, even if Rudy was the lone killer!!!

But was there 2 men who committed this crime. I am going with 2 men to commit this crime!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

I am willing to walk 2,508 miles to Norfolk VA to Las Vegas NV!

Free: Kirstin Lobato, in Las Vegas NV
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4683
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:10 am

Stacyhs, posting on ISF, found a 26 June 2017 Cronaca article about Monica Napoleoni and some of her colleagues going on trial for alleged crimes against Napoleoni's ex-husband and the court psychologist who testified against her. Within that article is a link to a previous article, dated 6 April 2016, that is also very interesting. Here's the headline:

"Amanda Knox assolta da calunnie a polizia: notte drammatica nella questura di Perugia

Per il giudice di Firenze nessun reato ma ‘diritti negati’, ‘omissioni’ e ‘verbali inaffidabili’. ‘Perché Lumumba? Per uscire dal tormento’"

Source: http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/meredith ... rrogatorio

Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox acquitted of calunnia [false accusation] against the police: a dramatic night in the police station of Perugia

For the judge of Florence there was no offense but 'denied rights', 'omissions' and 'unreliable minutes [records of the interrogation]'. 'Why Lumumba? To get out of torment '

Here's the first paragraph of the article:

"Il primo racconto di Amanda Knox sull’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher è «la narrazione confusa di un sogno macabro» piuttosto che «la descrizione di una vicenda davvero accaduta». In questura, la notte tra il 5 e il 6 novembre 2007, la «condizione psicologica» dell’americana era «divenuta per lei un peso davvero insopportabile». «In quel contesto è comprensibile che Amanda, cedendo alla pressione e alla stanchezza, abbia sperato di mettere fine a quella situazione dando agli investigatori ciò che in fondo volevano sentirsi dire: un nome, un assassino». E «poiché Patrick Lumumba era davvero estraneo» al delitto di via della Pergola «lo shock emotivo non poteva essere determinato dall’essere scoperta quanto dall’aver ormai raggiunto il massimo della tensione emotiva». Il processo ad Amanda Knox, prima assolta dall’omicidio e poi dall’accusa di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti che indagavano sul giallo di Perugia, si trasforma in un processo alle tecniche di indagine della polizia. Il tribunale di Firenze attacca i «verbali inaffidabili» della questura, contesta le «scelte inopportune» degli interpreti «appartenenti alla stessa questura di Perugia» e «il metodo apparentemente edulcorato adottato dagli investigatori e dai loro ausiliari» con Amanda, «trattata con fare materno ed amichevole affetto» nonostante gli «elementi indiziari emersi a suo carico»."

Here is a Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox's first narrative about the murder of English student Meredith Kercher is "the confused narrative of a macabre dream" rather than "the description of a story that truly happened." In the police station, the night between November 5 and 6, 2007, the American's 'psychological condition' had become a "really unbearable weight for her." "In that context, it is understandable that Amanda, surrendering to pressure and fatigue, hoped to put an end to that situation by giving investigators what they wanted to say: a name, a killer." And "since Patrick Lumumba was really a stranger" to {that is, fully innocent of} the crime of Pergola Street, "the emotional shock could not be determined by {her fear of} being discovered, but by having reached the maximum of emotional tension." The trial of Amanda Knox, first finally acquitted for the murder and then facing a criminal accusation of calunnia {false accusation} against some police agents who investigated the sensational crime of Perugia, turns into a trial of the police investigation techniques. The Florence court attacks the "unreliable minutes [interrogation records]" of the police, disputes the "unreasonable choices" of the interpreter "belonging to the same police station in Perugia," and "the seemingly [supposedly] sweetened method adopted by investigators and their auxiliaries" with Amanda, "who was treated with maternal and friendly affection" despite the {alleged} "circumstantial evidence that emerged against her".

Here's the second paragraph of the article on the acquittal of Amanda Knox for calunnia against the police:

Diritti negati Scrive il giudice Giampaolo Boninsegna nelle motivazioni della sentenza: «In un contesto professionale del genere probabilmente non ci si è resi conto che l’unico attento approccio richiesto verso la Knox, anzi, imposto, doveva essere quello di informare l’indagata dei suoi diritti di difesa, dichiarati inviolabili, non a caso, dalla nostra Costituzione. Ciò per l’evidente e scolastico motivo che si trattava di soggetto che doveva essere posto nelle condizioni di difendere la propria libertà personale a fronte del potere autoritativo dello Stato». Ancora: «La dignità personale e i diritti fondamentali di un soggetto al cospetto dell’autorità che procede nei suoi confronti vanno tutelati proprio al fine di impedire prevaricazioni dell’autorità medesima, magari con modalità oblique e surrettizie. E’ questo infatti lo scopo e lo spirito delle regole processuali vigenti, sin dalle prime battute delle indagini. Non trattamenti amichevoli, amorevoli o materni, dunque, erano dovuti né consentiti, ma solo il rispetto dei diritti strumentali di difesa. Era richiesto solo il rispetto delle regole che governano le indagini ma tali limiti sono stati travalicati determinando contaminazioni delle procedure che hanno portato alla loro invalidità».

Google translation:

Denial of Rights The judge Giampaolo Boninsegna writes in the grounds of the judgment: "In a professional context of this kind, it was probably not realized that the only careful approach required to Knox was, indeed, imposed, to inform the investigation of the his defense rights, declared inviolable, not by chance, by our constitution. This is because of the obvious and scholastic reason that it was a subject that was to be placed in the condition of defending one's own liberty in the face of the authoritarian power of the state. " Furthermore: "The personal dignity and fundamental rights of a person before the authority proceeding against him must be safeguarded precisely in order to prevent the perversion of the authority itself, perhaps by oblique and surreptitious ways. This is in fact the purpose and spirit of the rules of procedure in force since the beginning of the investigation. No friendly, loving or maternal treatments, therefore, were due or permitted, but only the respect of the instrumental rights of defense. Only the respect of the rules governing the investigation was required, but such limitations have been overcome [exceeded], resulting in contamination of the procedures leading to their invalidity.

Here is the fourth paragraph (skipping the third for [an attempt at] brevity):

Le omissioni della polizia La sentenza fiorentina mette in risalto le «singolari omissioni» delle attività di indagine. «Oltre al mancato rispetto della procedura relativa all’assunzione di informazioni da soggetto già indiziato – è spiegato – manca in tutti i verbali l’orario di chiusura». E’ stata «omessa anche la circostanza relativa al telefono di Amanda, esaminato senza un formale provvedimento di sequestro. Tutti i verbali e le dichiarazioni spontanee rese al pm sono molto brevi a fronte di attività durate ore in alcuni casi; tale approssimazione ha finito inevitabilmente per non rappresentare fedelmente l’attività svolta nei suoi dettagli»

Google translation with my help:

Police omissions: The Florentine ruling emphasizes the "singular omissions" of the investigative activities. "Apart from the failure to comply with the procedure for obtaining information from an already suspected subject - it is explained - there is no closing time in all the minutes." The circumstances surrounding Amanda's telephone, examined without a formal seizure order, was also omitted. All the interrogation minutes and the spontaneous statement made to the prosecutor are very short in terms of hours of activity in some cases; this approximation has inevitably resulted in not representing faithfully the activity carried out in its details. "

There are several other paragraphs which I omit for brevity. The article appears to accurately reflect the Boninsegna court motivation report as translated for amandaknoxcase.com.

Here are some comments by "Corrado" attached to the above 6 April 2016 article about Amanda Knox being acquitted of calunnia against the police.

1. Bisogna aggiungere alcuni particolari importanti: prima di tutto, la videoregistrazione dell’interrogatorio, che venne fatta in quanto obbligatoria per legge, è stata sempre tenuta nascosta, e probabilmente non verrà mai fuori: è sufficiente questo particolare per distruggere la versione della polizia e confermare quella di Amanda Knox.

Google translation:

We need to add some important details: first of all, the video recording of the interrogation, which was made as mandatory by law, has always been kept hidden, and will probably never come out: this is enough to destroy the police version and confirm that of Amanda Knox.

2. Un secondo particolare importante è la ritrattazione scritta da Amanda poche ore dopo la fine dell’interrogatorio; fu una ritrattazione spontanea perché fatta prima di consultarsi con gli avvocati. In questa lettera, diretta allo stesso staff di investigatori che avevano assistito all’interrogatorio, cioè a persone che conoscevano benissimo la verità su come l’interrogatorio era stato condotto e che quindi non potevano essere ingannate a riguardo, Amanda dice di aver fatto il nome di Lumumba a causa delle pressioni e delle minacce degli inquirenti, che l’avevano terrorizzata e suggestionata inducendo in lei dubbi e falsi ricordi. E avverte la polizia di non tener conto di quanto detto contro Lumumba, in quanto le sue parole non erano venute da lei ma dalla sua mente confusa dalle violenze fisiche e verbali usate contro di lei. La ritrattazione fu ripetuta, sempre per iscritto, in un secondo memoriale scritto il giorno dopo.

Google translation with my help:

Another important detail is the retraction written by Amanda a few hours after the end of the interrogation; it was a spontaneous retraction because it was done before consulting with lawyers. In this letter, directed to the same staff of investigators who had taken part in the interrogation, that is, to people who knew the truth about how the interrogation had been conducted and could not therefore be deceived, Amanda said that she had named Lumumba because of the pressures and threats of the inquisitors, who had frightened her and suggested it, causing doubts and false memories in her. She warns the police not to take account of what she said against Lumumba, as her words did not come from her willingly but from her mind confused by the physical and verbal violence that had been used against her. The retraction was repeated, again in writing, in a second memorial written the following day.

3. La polizia non ha mai ammesso ufficialmente di aver fatto la registrazione, ma è estremamente probabile che l’abbia fatta dato che è obbligatoria per legge e non c’era motivo per non farla, dato che quell’interrogatorio aveva agli occhi degli investigatori un’importanza cruciale. Quando nel corso dell’interrogatorio il clima si riscaldò e Amanda venne sempre più maltrattata, la procura decise di secretare la registrazione (e forse addirittura di distruggerla): questa mi sembra la versione più ragionevole dei fatti. E’ vero che Amanda non ha mai detto di essere stata registrata, ma può darsi che la registrazione sia stata presa a sua insaputa (con una telecamera nascosta). Secondo Mignini la videoregistrazione non fu fatta perché non c’era più nastro e la procura non aveva denaro a sufficienza per procurarsene dell’altro. La motivazione di Mignini è assolutamente ridicola, perché la Procura di Perugia non era affatto povera e infatti poco dopo spese la somma enorme di 180 mila euro per costruire un video (da mostrare al processo per suggestionare i giurati) che raffigurava, con cartoni animati, lo scenario del delitto secondo le fantasie dell’accusa. Inoltre la spesa per una videoregistrazione è molto contenuta e alla portata di qualunque Procura. Un’altra versione (sempre fornita dalla Procura ma diversa dalla versione di Mignini) afferma che la registrazione non fu fatta perché Amanda era interrogata come persona informata dei fatti, e non come sospetta, e quindi la registrazione non era obbligatoria. Ma anche questa versione è ridicola, perché in realtà la ragazza fu considerata persona sospetta già nei primissimi giorni di novembre, secondo l’ammissione pubblica (che si trova anche su youtube) dello stesso vicecapo della polizia romana Edgardo Giobbi, e dunque già prima dell’ interrogatorio del 5-6 novembre. Inoltre, si vede subito che quest’ interrogatorio non aveva niente in comune con i colloqui che si svolgono tra la polizia e le persone informate sui fatti. Fu condotto di notte, e coinvolse almeno dodici poliziotti, alcuni di loro chiamati apposta da Roma ed esperti nella tecnica di interrogatorio Reid, che si usa unicamente con le persone fortemente sospette e ha lo scopo di suggestionare l’inquisito fino a fargli dire ciò che gli investigatori vogliono sentirsi dire. Concludendo, possiamo dire con sicurezza che o la registrazione c’è stata e poi fu nascosta (o distrutta) e questa mi sembra la cosa più probabile, oppure, come dice lei signor BourgeoisViews, non venne fatta perché fin dall’inizio si aveva l’intenzione di trattare Amanda in modo violento e illegale. Si può credere all’una o all’altra possibilità, ma in entrambi i casi una cosa è certissima: la registrazione nessuno l’ha mai vista, nè in tribunale nè alla TV, nonostante la legge la richieda, e questa mancanza è una prova schiacciante che la polizia ha mentito e che Amanda Knox ha detto la verità.

Google translation with my help:

The police have never officially admitted to having made a recording, but it is extremely likely that they did so because it was compulsory by law and there was no reason not to do so, since that interrogation had in the eyes of investigators a crucial importance. When the climate warmed up during the interrogation and Amanda was increasingly ill-treated, the prosecutor decided to hide the recording (and perhaps even to destroy it): this seems to me to be the most reasonable version of the facts. It is true that Amanda has never said it has been recorded, but it may be that the recording has been taken without her knowing it (with a hidden camera). According to Mignini, video recording was not done because there was no tape and the prosecutor did not have enough money to get any. Mignini's motivation is absolutely ridiculous, for the Procuratore di Perugia was not poor at all and in fact shortly afterwards spent the huge sum of 180 thousand euros to create a video (to show at the trial for influencing the jurors) depicting, with cartoons, the scenario of the crime according to the fantasy of the charge. In addition, the cost of video recording is very small and well within the reach of any Prosecutor. Another version (always provided by the Prosecution but different from the Mignini version) claims that the recording was not made because Amanda was questioned as a witness [a person informed of the facts], and not as a suspect, and therefore making a recording was not compulsory. But this version is ridiculous, because in reality the girl was considered a suspect already in the early days of November, according to the public admission {which was in his court testimony} (which is also on youtube) of the same deputy head of the Roman police Edgardo Giobbi, and therefore she was a suspect before interrogation of 5-6 November. Moreover, it is immediately apparent that this interrogation had nothing in common with the interviews conducted between the police and the witnesses [people informed about the facts]. It was conducted at night, involving at least twelve police officers, some of them called from Rome and experts in Reid's interrogation technique, which is used solely with suspects and is intended to suggest to the person under investigation to induce him to say what the investigators want to hear. To conclude, we can safely say that either the recording was there and then it was hidden (or destroyed) and this seems to me the most likely thing, or, as Mr BourgeoisViews {another commenter} states, it was not done because from the beginning it was the intention to treat Amanda violently and illegally. One can believe one or the other possibility, but in both cases one thing is very certain: no one has ever seen it, either in court or on TV, even though the law requires it, and this lack is overwhelming evidence that the police lied and Amanda Knox said the truth.

My comment: If a video recording was required by law, or even if it was merely customary (almost always done by police/prosecution practice), the failure to produce it would lead to ECHR inferences against Italy and in favor of Amanda.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:29 am

Here's the last paragraph of the 6 April 2016 article on the acquittal of Amanda Knox on the charge of calunnia against the police.

Non ci sono le prove «Le scelte investigative hanno indotto nell’imputata il convincimento di aver subìto una pianificata azione investigativa vessatoria e ingiusta. Manca la prova che i fatti non si siano svolti, in effetti, come narrato dalla ragazza e che lei fosse pienamente consapevole dell’estraneità del pm alle modalità di conduzione delle indagini. E’ verosimile che la Knox fosse convinta di essere vittima di un meccanismo ingiustamente vessatorio e prevaricatorio. Quanto alla posizione del magistrato, evidentemente ritenuto l’ispiratore gerarchico, sia pure erroneamente lo riteneva primo artefice ed ideatore del suo stato di soggezione».

Google translated with help from Collins Reverso and me:

There is no evidence: "Investigative decisions have led the accused [defendant] to the conviction of having been subjected to a planned and unjustified investigative action. There is no evidence that the facts did not take place, in fact, as described by the girl, nor that she was fully aware of the non-involvement of the prosecutor in conducting the investigations. It is likely that Knox was convinced that she was the victim of an unfair and perverse system. Regarding the position of the magistrate, apparently because of his position in the hierarchy, {she considered him the inspiration of the events, so that} she mistakenly considered him the first author and designer of her state of subjection.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:55 pm

Numbers wrote:Stacyhs, posting on ISF, found a 26 June 2017 Cronaca article about Monica Napoleoni and some of her colleagues going on trial for alleged crimes against Napoleoni's ex-husband and the court psychologist who testified against her. Within that article is a link to a previous article, dated 6 April 2016, that is also very interesting. Here's the headline:

"Amanda Knox assolta da calunnie a polizia: notte drammatica nella questura di Perugia

Per il giudice di Firenze nessun reato ma ‘diritti negati’, ‘omissioni’ e ‘verbali inaffidabili’. ‘Perché Lumumba? Per uscire dal tormento’"

Source: http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/meredith ... rrogatorio

Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox acquitted of calunnia [false accusation] against the police: a dramatic night in the police station of Perugia

For the judge of Florence there was no offense but 'denied rights', 'omissions' and 'unreliable minutes [records of the interrogation]'. 'Why Lumumba? To get out of torment '

Here's the first paragraph of the article:

"Il primo racconto di Amanda Knox sull’omicidio della studentessa inglese Meredith Kercher è «la narrazione confusa di un sogno macabro» piuttosto che «la descrizione di una vicenda davvero accaduta». In questura, la notte tra il 5 e il 6 novembre 2007, la «condizione psicologica» dell’americana era «divenuta per lei un peso davvero insopportabile». «In quel contesto è comprensibile che Amanda, cedendo alla pressione e alla stanchezza, abbia sperato di mettere fine a quella situazione dando agli investigatori ciò che in fondo volevano sentirsi dire: un nome, un assassino». E «poiché Patrick Lumumba era davvero estraneo» al delitto di via della Pergola «lo shock emotivo non poteva essere determinato dall’essere scoperta quanto dall’aver ormai raggiunto il massimo della tensione emotiva». Il processo ad Amanda Knox, prima assolta dall’omicidio e poi dall’accusa di calunnia nei confronti di alcuni agenti che indagavano sul giallo di Perugia, si trasforma in un processo alle tecniche di indagine della polizia. Il tribunale di Firenze attacca i «verbali inaffidabili» della questura, contesta le «scelte inopportune» degli interpreti «appartenenti alla stessa questura di Perugia» e «il metodo apparentemente edulcorato adottato dagli investigatori e dai loro ausiliari» con Amanda, «trattata con fare materno ed amichevole affetto» nonostante gli «elementi indiziari emersi a suo carico»."

Here is a Google translation, with help from Collins Reverso and me:

Amanda Knox's first narrative about the murder of English student Meredith Kercher is "the confused narrative of a macabre dream" rather than "the description of a story that truly happened." In the police station, the night between November 5 and 6, 2007, the American's 'psychological condition' had become a "really unbearable weight for her." "In that context, it is understandable that Amanda, surrendering to pressure and fatigue, hoped to put an end to that situation by giving investigators what they wanted to say: a name, a killer." And "since Patrick Lumumba was really a stranger" to {that is, fully innocent of} the crime of Pergola Street, "the emotional shock could not be determined by {her fear of} being discovered, but by having reached the maximum of emotional tension." The trial of Amanda Knox, first finally acquitted for the murder and then facing a criminal accusation of calunnia {false accusation} against some police agents who investigated the sensational crime of Perugia, turns into a trial of the police investigation techniques. The Florence court attacks the "unreliable minutes [interrogation records]" of the police, disputes the "unreasonable choices" of the interpreter "belonging to the same police station in Perugia," and "the seemingly [supposedly] sweetened method adopted by investigators and their auxiliaries" with Amanda, "who was treated with maternal and friendly affection" despite the {alleged} "circumstantial evidence that emerged against her".

Here's the second paragraph of the article on the acquittal of Amanda Knox for calunnia against the police:

Diritti negati Scrive il giudice Giampaolo Boninsegna nelle motivazioni della sentenza: «In un contesto professionale del genere probabilmente non ci si è resi conto che l’unico attento approccio richiesto verso la Knox, anzi, imposto, doveva essere quello di informare l’indagata dei suoi diritti di difesa, dichiarati inviolabili, non a caso, dalla nostra Costituzione. Ciò per l’evidente e scolastico motivo che si trattava di soggetto che doveva essere posto nelle condizioni di difendere la propria libertà personale a fronte del potere autoritativo dello Stato». Ancora: «La dignità personale e i diritti fondamentali di un soggetto al cospetto dell’autorità che procede nei suoi confronti vanno tutelati proprio al fine di impedire prevaricazioni dell’autorità medesima, magari con modalità oblique e surrettizie. E’ questo infatti lo scopo e lo spirito delle regole processuali vigenti, sin dalle prime battute delle indagini. Non trattamenti amichevoli, amorevoli o materni, dunque, erano dovuti né consentiti, ma solo il rispetto dei diritti strumentali di difesa. Era richiesto solo il rispetto delle regole che governano le indagini ma tali limiti sono stati travalicati determinando contaminazioni delle procedure che hanno portato alla loro invalidità».

Google translation:

Denial of Rights The judge Giampaolo Boninsegna writes in the grounds of the judgment: "In a professional context of this kind, it was probably not realized that the only careful approach required to Knox was, indeed, imposed, to inform the investigation of the his defense rights, declared inviolable, not by chance, by our constitution. This is because of the obvious and scholastic reason that it was a subject that was to be placed in the condition of defending one's own liberty in the face of the authoritarian power of the state. " Furthermore: "The personal dignity and fundamental rights of a person before the authority proceeding against him must be safeguarded precisely in order to prevent the perversion of the authority itself, perhaps by oblique and surreptitious ways. This is in fact the purpose and spirit of the rules of procedure in force since the beginning of the investigation. No friendly, loving or maternal treatments, therefore, were due or permitted, but only the respect of the instrumental rights of defense. Only the respect of the rules governing the investigation was required, but such limitations have been overcome [exceeded], resulting in contamination of the procedures leading to their invalidity.

Here is the fourth paragraph (skipping the third for [an attempt at] brevity):

Le omissioni della polizia La sentenza fiorentina mette in risalto le «singolari omissioni» delle attività di indagine. «Oltre al mancato rispetto della procedura relativa all’assunzione di informazioni da soggetto già indiziato – è spiegato – manca in tutti i verbali l’orario di chiusura». E’ stata «omessa anche la circostanza relativa al telefono di Amanda, esaminato senza un formale provvedimento di sequestro. Tutti i verbali e le dichiarazioni spontanee rese al pm sono molto brevi a fronte di attività durate ore in alcuni casi; tale approssimazione ha finito inevitabilmente per non rappresentare fedelmente l’attività svolta nei suoi dettagli»

Google translation with my help:

Police omissions: The Florentine ruling emphasizes the "singular omissions" of the investigative activities. "Apart from the failure to comply with the procedure for obtaining information from an already suspected subject - it is explained - there is no closing time in all the minutes." The circumstances surrounding Amanda's telephone, examined without a formal seizure order, was also omitted. All the interrogation minutes and the spontaneous statement made to the prosecutor are very short in terms of hours of activity in some cases; this approximation has inevitably resulted in not representing faithfully the activity carried out in its details. "

There are several other paragraphs which I omit for brevity. The article appears to accurately reflect the Boninsegna court motivation report as translated for amandaknoxcase.com.

Here are some comments by "Corrado" attached to the above 6 April 2016 article about Amanda Knox being acquitted of calunnia against the police.

1. Bisogna aggiungere alcuni particolari importanti: prima di tutto, la videoregistrazione dell’interrogatorio, che venne fatta in quanto obbligatoria per legge, è stata sempre tenuta nascosta, e probabilmente non verrà mai fuori: è sufficiente questo particolare per distruggere la versione della polizia e confermare quella di Amanda Knox.

Google translation:

We need to add some important details: first of all, the video recording of the interrogation, which was made as mandatory by law, has always been kept hidden, and will probably never come out: this is enough to destroy the police version and confirm that of Amanda Knox.

2. Un secondo particolare importante è la ritrattazione scritta da Amanda poche ore dopo la fine dell’interrogatorio; fu una ritrattazione spontanea perché fatta prima di consultarsi con gli avvocati. In questa lettera, diretta allo stesso staff di investigatori che avevano assistito all’interrogatorio, cioè a persone che conoscevano benissimo la verità su come l’interrogatorio era stato condotto e che quindi non potevano essere ingannate a riguardo, Amanda dice di aver fatto il nome di Lumumba a causa delle pressioni e delle minacce degli inquirenti, che l’avevano terrorizzata e suggestionata inducendo in lei dubbi e falsi ricordi. E avverte la polizia di non tener conto di quanto detto contro Lumumba, in quanto le sue parole non erano venute da lei ma dalla sua mente confusa dalle violenze fisiche e verbali usate contro di lei. La ritrattazione fu ripetuta, sempre per iscritto, in un secondo memoriale scritto il giorno dopo.

Google translation with my help:

Another important detail is the retraction written by Amanda a few hours after the end of the interrogation; it was a spontaneous retraction because it was done before consulting with lawyers. In this letter, directed to the same staff of investigators who had taken part in the interrogation, that is, to people who knew the truth about how the interrogation had been conducted and could not therefore be deceived, Amanda said that she had named Lumumba because of the pressures and threats of the inquisitors, who had frightened her and suggested it, causing doubts and false memories in her. She warns the police not to take account of what she said against Lumumba, as her words did not come from her willingly but from her mind confused by the physical and verbal violence that had been used against her. The retraction was repeated, again in writing, in a second memorial written the following day.

3. La polizia non ha mai ammesso ufficialmente di aver fatto la registrazione, ma è estremamente probabile che l’abbia fatta dato che è obbligatoria per legge e non c’era motivo per non farla, dato che quell’interrogatorio aveva agli occhi degli investigatori un’importanza cruciale. Quando nel corso dell’interrogatorio il clima si riscaldò e Amanda venne sempre più maltrattata, la procura decise di secretare la registrazione (e forse addirittura di distruggerla): questa mi sembra la versione più ragionevole dei fatti. E’ vero che Amanda non ha mai detto di essere stata registrata, ma può darsi che la registrazione sia stata presa a sua insaputa (con una telecamera nascosta). Secondo Mignini la videoregistrazione non fu fatta perché non c’era più nastro e la procura non aveva denaro a sufficienza per procurarsene dell’altro. La motivazione di Mignini è assolutamente ridicola, perché la Procura di Perugia non era affatto povera e infatti poco dopo spese la somma enorme di 180 mila euro per costruire un video (da mostrare al processo per suggestionare i giurati) che raffigurava, con cartoni animati, lo scenario del delitto secondo le fantasie dell’accusa. Inoltre la spesa per una videoregistrazione è molto contenuta e alla portata di qualunque Procura. Un’altra versione (sempre fornita dalla Procura ma diversa dalla versione di Mignini) afferma che la registrazione non fu fatta perché Amanda era interrogata come persona informata dei fatti, e non come sospetta, e quindi la registrazione non era obbligatoria. Ma anche questa versione è ridicola, perché in realtà la ragazza fu considerata persona sospetta già nei primissimi giorni di novembre, secondo l’ammissione pubblica (che si trova anche su youtube) dello stesso vicecapo della polizia romana Edgardo Giobbi, e dunque già prima dell’ interrogatorio del 5-6 novembre. Inoltre, si vede subito che quest’ interrogatorio non aveva niente in comune con i colloqui che si svolgono tra la polizia e le persone informate sui fatti. Fu condotto di notte, e coinvolse almeno dodici poliziotti, alcuni di loro chiamati apposta da Roma ed esperti nella tecnica di interrogatorio Reid, che si usa unicamente con le persone fortemente sospette e ha lo scopo di suggestionare l’inquisito fino a fargli dire ciò che gli investigatori vogliono sentirsi dire. Concludendo, possiamo dire con sicurezza che o la registrazione c’è stata e poi fu nascosta (o distrutta) e questa mi sembra la cosa più probabile, oppure, come dice lei signor BourgeoisViews, non venne fatta perché fin dall’inizio si aveva l’intenzione di trattare Amanda in modo violento e illegale. Si può credere all’una o all’altra possibilità, ma in entrambi i casi una cosa è certissima: la registrazione nessuno l’ha mai vista, nè in tribunale nè alla TV, nonostante la legge la richieda, e questa mancanza è una prova schiacciante che la polizia ha mentito e che Amanda Knox ha detto la verità.

Google translation with my help:

The police have never officially admitted to having made a recording, but it is extremely likely that they did so because it was compulsory by law and there was no reason not to do so, since that interrogation had in the eyes of investigators a crucial importance. When the climate warmed up during the interrogation and Amanda was increasingly ill-treated, the prosecutor decided to hide the recording (and perhaps even to destroy it): this seems to me to be the most reasonable version of the facts. It is true that Amanda has never said it has been recorded, but it may be that the recording has been taken without her knowing it (with a hidden camera). According to Mignini, video recording was not done because there was no tape and the prosecutor did not have enough money to get any. Mignini's motivation is absolutely ridiculous, for the Procuratore di Perugia was not poor at all and in fact shortly afterwards spent the huge sum of 180 thousand euros to create a video (to show at the trial for influencing the jurors) depicting, with cartoons, the scenario of the crime according to the fantasy of the charge. In addition, the cost of video recording is very small and well within the reach of any Prosecutor. Another version (always provided by the Prosecution but different from the Mignini version) claims that the recording was not made because Amanda was questioned as a witness [a person informed of the facts], and not as a suspect, and therefore making a recording was not compulsory. But this version is ridiculous, because in reality the girl was considered a suspect already in the early days of November, according to the public admission {which was in his court testimony} (which is also on youtube) of the same deputy head of the Roman police Edgardo Giobbi, and therefore she was a suspect before interrogation of 5-6 November. Moreover, it is immediately apparent that this interrogation had nothing in common with the interviews conducted between the police and the witnesses [people informed about the facts]. It was conducted at night, involving at least twelve police officers, some of them called from Rome and experts in Reid's interrogation technique, which is used solely with suspects and is intended to suggest to the person under investigation to induce him to say what the investigators want to hear. To conclude, we can safely say that either the recording was there and then it was hidden (or destroyed) and this seems to me the most likely thing, or, as Mr BourgeoisViews {another commenter} states, it was not done because from the beginning it was the intention to treat Amanda violently and illegally. One can believe one or the other possibility, but in both cases one thing is very certain: no one has ever seen it, either in court or on TV, even though the law requires it, and this lack is overwhelming evidence that the police lied and Amanda Knox said the truth.

My comment: If a video recording was required by law, or even if it was merely customary (almost always done by police/prosecution practice), the failure to produce it would lead to ECHR inferences against Italy and in favor of Amanda.



I agree. It is overwhelmingly most likely that there was a recording and that the reason it was intentionally "lost" or destroyed is that it would have undermined the prosecution's case. As a matter of law, the failure of the prosecution to produce a recording should lead to the suppression of the interrogation and the "fruits of the poisoned tree" (the subsequent memos by Amanda). An investigation should be commenced on the matter and all involved should be deposed under oath.
This case has all of the hallmarks of a botched/biased "investigation" - the failure to produce a recording of the most important interrogation, the erasure of the computer hard drives, the slovenly evidence collection process, the "miraculous" discovery of a key piece of "incriminating" evidence weeks after an initial search of the crime scene, the surfacing of witnesses long after the events at issue, the ludicrous attempt to manipulate the time of death, the failure to take the temperature of the corpse immediately, and the tenacious refusal to turn over back up data supporting the DNA testing. This is a key reason that the SC realized that no amount of reexamination upon remand to a lower court could possibly ever lead to a verdict of guilt. The SC's scolding of the police for the deficiencies in the investigation was extraordinary and reveals that objective observers recognize the investigation to be not only woefully incompetent but hopelessly biased.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:53 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I agree. It is overwhelmingly most likely that there was a recording and that the reason it was intentionally "lost" or destroyed is that it would have undermined the prosecution's case. As a matter of law, the failure of the prosecution to produce a recording should lead to the suppression of the interrogation and the "fruits of the poisoned tree" (the subsequent memos by Amanda). An investigation should be commenced on the matter and all involved should be deposed under oath.

This case has all of the hallmarks of a botched/biased "investigation" - the failure to produce a recording of the most important interrogation, the erasure of the computer hard drives, the slovenly evidence collection process, the "miraculous" discovery of a key piece of "incriminating" evidence weeks after an initial search of the crime scene, the surfacing of witnesses long after the events at issue, the ludicrous attempt to manipulate the time of death, the failure to take the temperature of the corpse immediately, and the tenacious refusal to turn over back up data supporting the DNA testing. This is a key reason that the SC realized that no amount of reexamination upon remand to a lower court could possibly ever lead to a verdict of guilt. The SC's scolding of the police for the deficiencies in the investigation was extraordinary and reveals that objective observers recognize the investigation to be not only woefully incompetent but hopelessly biased.

Add to this the negligence of the police/prosecution not to test a presumed semen stain located on the pillow under the victims hips.

Add to this the excuses made by the convicting judges in 2009 and 2014. One said (presumably with a straight face) that since the victim had been sexually active herself, that it would not add anything to the investigation to have had the presumed semen stain tested. The judge implied that it was either Rudy's, Raffaele's, or the victim's boyfriend's - but said specifically that since DNA can not be "time stamped", it was useless as evidence. This was the same judge who believed that finding Knox's DNA in her own bathroom was incriminating; and the judge forgot about what he'd said about DNA not being time-stamped.

Massei report wrote:
    In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind; with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation, as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e. establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts), might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:30 pm

Numbers wrote:
carlofab wrote:Numbers,

Rudy should hope his request for a revision trial is denied. If granted, the new trial would throw a mountain of evidence at him that was omitted in fast track, and likely result in a verdict that omits "acting with others" while adding another 14 years to his sentence.

Marasca, I hope wrongly, writes in his motivation that an ECHR decision in Amanda's favor will not help her because it addresses only the interrogation. He says -- I personally believe wrongly -- that she confirmed the offense on other occasions after the interrogation, so the conviction would stand even if the interrogation is thrown out.


carlofab, I'm going to be a spoilsport again.

A revision trial cannot legally increase the penalty a finally convicted person has been sentenced to, nor can any other Italian court trial. Italy's version of the law against double jeopardy, CPP Article 649, specifically states: "The accused person who has been dismissed {that term includes acquitted} or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offense, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offense, or circumstances...."

And here is the Italian legal definition of "final" judgment, CPP Article 648:

"1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appellate remedy other than revision are final.

2. If an appellate remedy may be invoked, the judgment becomes final upon expiry of the time limit set to lodge the remedy or to appeal the order declaring its inadmissibility. In case of an appeal in Cassation, the judgment becomes final from the day of delivery of the order or judgment rejecting the appeal or declaring it inadmissible."


Thank you for this, Numbers.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:47 pm

Numbers,

Re Your:

"In Massei decision Amanda/Raffaele were acquitted of thief. That decision was not appealed by the prosecution which was the end for that charge. Nencini trial didn't trial them again for thief. Nencini used the idea of thief in his ruling as Amanda's motive which would be wrong.[/quote]"

I'm looking at the Maresca acquittal, and D is among the offenses for which they are acquitted. At the top of this document it says D was the theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, and 2 phones.

Am I missing something?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:54 pm

carlofab wrote:Numbers,

Re Your:

"In Massei decision Amanda/Raffaele were acquitted of thief. That decision was not appealed by the prosecution which was the end for that charge. Nencini trial didn't trial them again for thief. Nencini used the idea of thief in his ruling as Amanda's motive which would be wrong.
"

I'm looking at the Maresca acquittal, and D is among the offenses for which they are acquitted. At the top of this document it says D was the theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, and 2 phones.

Am I missing something?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf[/quote]

carlofab, thanks for catching what appears to be my error. In writing that I relied on my memory and did not look again at the verdicts of the Hellmann appeal court, Chieffi CSC panel, and Nencini appeal court for how charge D was handled.

Charge D alleged the theft, by Knox and Sollecito, of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones from Kercher.

Massei indeed acquitted Knox and Sollecito of part of Charge D (the theft of 300 euros and two credit cards) on the specification "because the fact [act of the crime] had not occurred" ("perche il fatto non sussiste"), under CPP Article 530 (the paragraph not being referenced, for those interested in that alleged controversy.)

However, Massei convicted them of the "residual" part of Charge D, the theft of two cell phones.

But this acquittal of part of Charge D I thought must not have been counter-appealed by the prosecution, because only the residual part of Charge D appears at the beginning of the Hellmann motivation report, that is, the theft of two cell phones. The theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards are intentionally omitted (the word "OMISSIS" [= omission, deletion] is substituted for those items). Hellmann acquitted on this revised Charge D with the specification "because the accused had not committed the act".

I am unsure why part of Charge D - Hellmann's deletion, consisting of the theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards, was actually omitted in Hellmann's motivation report. I had assumed it was due to a failure of the prosecution to counter-appeal that part, for which Massei had acquitted them; perhaps that assumption is not correct.

Now the Chieffi verdict quashed all the Hellmann acquittals, including the acquittal for Charge D, only maintaining the conviction of Knox on Charge F, "simple" [rather than aggravated] calunnia against Lumumba. As far as I can tell from a brief review of each page of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report, nowhere in the report are the charges written out. I am unsure whether the Chieffi verdict reinstated Charge D only for the theft of the two cell phones or whether it reinstated it for the full Charge D as it appeared in Massei.

For the Nencini verdict, the motivation report repeats all the charges, including Charge D, as they first appeared in the Massei report, so that Charge D includes the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. Was this inclusion a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 648? I am unsure, because I recognize now that I don't know for sure if the prosecution had not appealed the Massei acquittal verdict in whole or part for Charge D within the legal time limit. If the prosecution had not appealed within the legal time limit, it would be a violation of CPP Article 648. If it was a violation of Italian procedural law, and if this part of the Nencini court verdict were ever to be reviewed by the ECHR, it would therefore be considered arbitrary. (It is not at all likely to be part of the pending current Knox v. Italy case, which is directed toward the calunnia verdict, Charge F.)

At any rate, the final, definitive verdict of the Marasca CSC panel acquits Knox and Sollecito on all charges including Charge D, except Charge B, carrying a knife, which is dismissed as past the statute of limitations, and thus in effect an acquittal, while reaffirming the conviction of Knox on Charge F, but only for simple calunnia with the Hellmann court's sentence (Nencini had convicted her of aggravated calunnia with an increased sentence). The Marasca motivation report lists Charge D as including the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. I am relatively confident that even if there had been a violation of Italian procedural law in listing the full original Charge D in Nencini, Marasca would likewise list it that way to achieve legal certainty.

So I am now puzzled as to the legal approach of the Italian courts - in particular, the Hellmann appeal court, the Chieffi CSC panel, and the Nencini appeal court - to Charge D.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:09 am

Here's a brief Italian media article on Amanda's acquittal of the charge of calunnia against the police and on the ECHR's communication to Italy of her pending case, which alleges, overall, that she had been subjected to an unfair trial in her conviction for calunnia [false accusation] against Patrick Lumumba:

“Meredith Kercher, accolto il ricorso di Amanda Knox alla Corte di Strasburgo: “Processo iniquo e maltrattamenti”

La studentessa americana era finita a giudizio, tra l'altro, anche per la calunnia nei confronti degli agenti che l'avevano interrogata, ma era stata assolta. Il giudice ha scritto tra l'altro che l'inchiesta era stata caratterizzata da "numerose irritualità procedurali" e dalla durata "ossessiva" degli interrogatori.

La Corte europea dei diritti umani ha accolto in via preliminare il ricorso contro l'Italia presentato da Amanda Knox , la ragazza prosciolta in Cassazione dall'accusa di aver partecipato all'uccisione di Meredith Kercher . La giovane sostiene di aver subito un processo iniquo e di essere stata maltrattata durante l'interrogatorio. La Corte di Strasburgo ha ritenuto valido il dossier presentato dai legali della Knox ed ha comunicato il ricorso al governo italiano affinché possa difendersi.”

Source: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/0 ... i/2739101/

The article was published 17 May 2016.


Google translation with my help:

Meredith Kercher: the Strasbourg Court welcomed Amanda Knox's application on: "Injury and ill-treatment"

The trial of the American student, for among other things, the alleged false accusations against the agents who had questioned her, has ended because she has been {finally} acquitted. The judge wrote, among other things, that the investigation was characterized by "numerous procedural irregularities" and the "obsessive" duration of the interrogations.

The European Court of Human Rights has initially received the application against Italy submitted by Amanda Knox, the girl who was acquitted in the Supreme Court on charges of participating in the killing of Meredith Kercher. The young woman claims to have been subjected to an unfair trial and to have been mistreated during the interrogation. The Court of Strasbourg considered the dossier submitted by Knox's lawyers to be valid and informed the Italian Government that it could {choose to} defend itself.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:08 pm

Thanks Numbers. All these clarifications are very helpful.

One last question --

(1) Some time back Amanda was acquitted of calunnia against both police and Mignini. Was Mignini a part of that police suit from the beginning or did he join it later? It appears that his complaint was separate from the police, having to do with things she had written or said about him, but tried simultaneously with the police suit.

(2) More recently, during Raffele's trial for calunnia against police in "Honor Bound," PMF was gloating that Mignini's suit at least was going very well. They suggested Raffaele's attorney was trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Mignini. Now that Raffaele is acquitted, they are saying the acquittal is only against the police, because Mignini had withdrawn his complaint. If Mignini had not withdrawn, they suggest, he would certainly have prevailed about certain passages in "Honor Bound".

Do you know anything about the above?
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:12 pm

Numbers wrote:
carlofab wrote:Numbers,

Re Your:

"In Massei decision Amanda/Raffaele were acquitted of thief. That decision was not appealed by the prosecution which was the end for that charge. Nencini trial didn't trial them again for thief. Nencini used the idea of thief in his ruling as Amanda's motive which would be wrong.
"

I'm looking at the Maresca acquittal, and D is among the offenses for which they are acquitted. At the top of this document it says D was the theft of 300 euros, 2 credit cards, and 2 phones.

Am I missing something?

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-conten ... Report.pdf


carlofab, thanks for catching what appears to be my error. In writing that I relied on my memory and did not look again at the verdicts of the Hellmann appeal court, Chieffi CSC panel, and Nencini appeal court for how charge D was handled.

Charge D alleged the theft, by Knox and Sollecito, of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones from Kercher.

Massei indeed acquitted Knox and Sollecito of part of Charge D (the theft of 300 euros and two credit cards) on the specification "because the fact [act of the crime] had not occurred" ("perche il fatto non sussiste"), under CPP Article 530 (the paragraph not being referenced, for those interested in that alleged controversy.)

However, Massei convicted them of the "residual" part of Charge D, the theft of two cell phones.

But this acquittal of part of Charge D I thought must not have been counter-appealed by the prosecution, because only the residual part of Charge D appears at the beginning of the Hellmann motivation report, that is, the theft of two cell phones. The theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards are intentionally omitted (the word "OMISSIS" [= omission, deletion] is substituted for those items). Hellmann acquitted on this revised Charge D with the specification "because the accused had not committed the act".

I am unsure why part of Charge D - Hellmann's deletion, consisting of the theft of the 300 euros and the two credit cards, was actually omitted in Hellmann's motivation report. I had assumed it was due to a failure of the prosecution to counter-appeal that part, for which Massei had acquitted them; perhaps that assumption is not correct.

Now the Chieffi verdict quashed all the Hellmann acquittals, including the acquittal for Charge D, only maintaining the conviction of Knox on Charge F, "simple" [rather than aggravated] calunnia against Lumumba. As far as I can tell from a brief review of each page of the Chieffi CSC panel motivation report, nowhere in the report are the charges written out. I am unsure whether the Chieffi verdict reinstated Charge D only for the theft of the two cell phones or whether it reinstated it for the full Charge D as it appeared in Massei.

For the Nencini verdict, the motivation report repeats all the charges, including Charge D, as they first appeared in the Massei report, so that Charge D includes the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. Was this inclusion a violation of Italian procedural law CPP Article 648? I am unsure, because I recognize now that I don't know for sure if the prosecution had not appealed the Massei acquittal verdict in whole or part for Charge D within the legal time limit. If the prosecution had not appealed within the legal time limit, it would be a violation of CPP Article 648. If it was a violation of Italian procedural law, and if this part of the Nencini court verdict were ever to be reviewed by the ECHR, it would therefore be considered arbitrary. (It is not at all likely to be part of the pending current Knox v. Italy case, which is directed toward the calunnia verdict, Charge F.)

At any rate, the final, definitive verdict of the Marasca CSC panel acquits Knox and Sollecito on all charges including Charge D, except Charge B, carrying a knife, which is dismissed as past the statute of limitations, and thus in effect an acquittal, while reaffirming the conviction of Knox on Charge F, but only for simple calunnia with the Hellmann court's sentence (Nencini had convicted her of aggravated calunnia with an increased sentence). The Marasca motivation report lists Charge D as including the theft of 300 euros, two credit cards, and two cell phones. I am relatively confident that even if there had been a violation of Italian procedural law in listing the full original Charge D in Nencini, Marasca would likewise list it that way to achieve legal certainty.

So I am now puzzled as to the legal approach of the Italian courts - in particular, the Hellmann appeal court, the Chieffi CSC panel, and the Nencini appeal court - to Charge D.[/quote]

I should add that an appeal of the Massei verdict and sentence by the prosecution is available on amandaknoxcase.com. This appeal, by Mignini and Comodi, dated 13 April 2010, is available in Italian and English translation. There is no mention of the Charge D verdict at all in that appeal. The entire appeal is devoted to arguing that there should have been no extenuating circumstances granted to Knox and Sollecito by the Massei court in their sentence, and thus the sentence should have been increased. This suggests that the revision of Charge D to theft of the telephones only was finalized by the time the Hellmann court heard the appeal.

Then indeed the Nencini appeal court violated CPP Articles 648 and 649 - the Italian procedural law against double jeopardy - by convicting Knox and Sollecito on the theft of Kercher's 300 euros and two credit cards, for which they had been finally and definitively acquitted by the Massei court. The only exception I can think of would be if there were a second prosecution appeal of the Massei verdict relating to Charge D issued after the 13 April one, but based on the Hellmann's court treatment of the topic, I am confident that there was no such second prosecution appeal.

See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivatio ... documents/
Link to PDF: 2010 Mignini-Comodi Massei Trial Appeal
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:21 pm

carlofab wrote:Thanks Numbers. All these clarifications are very helpful.

One last question --

(1) Some time back Amanda was acquitted of calunnia against both police and Mignini. Was Mignini a part of that police suit from the beginning or did he join it later? It appears that his complaint was separate from the police, having to do with things she had written or said about him, but tried simultaneously with the police suit.

(2) More recently, during Raffele's trial for calunnia against police in "Honor Bound," PMF was gloating that Mignini's suit at least was going very well. They suggested Raffaele's attorney was trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with Mignini. Now that Raffaele is acquitted, they are saying the acquittal is only against the police, because Mignini had withdrawn his complaint. If Mignini had not withdrawn, they suggest, he would certainly have prevailed about certain passages in "Honor Bound".

Do you know anything about the above?


1. I don't know the exact timing of Mignini's lawsuit joining of the criminal calunnia case against the police. Mignini was well aware of the calunnia case from the beginning and, as far as I know, helped initiate it.

2. I am confident Mignini withdrew the lawsuit because it could not succeed in court. In fact, by joining the lawsuit to the criminal prosecution of calunnia, with the acquittal of Amanda for calunnia against the police, the lawsuit would have been dismissed according to Italian procedural law (CPP Article 652), and it could not be resumed, as long as the acquittal is final. This is the same law that ended the Kerchers' suits against Amanda and Raffaele, and prevents them from reopening the suits, with the final and definitive acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:00 pm

The Marasca CSC panel motivation report does have these comments about the Nencini appeal court's use of the theft of the money and credit cards, showing that Marasca is aware that the alleged theft of these items never occurred, in terms of Italian final judicial truth; Marasca criticizes as well some other alleged items of evidence:

"Furthermore, it is glaringly illogical - and also scarcely respectful of trial facts - to reconstruct the motive of the murder {by the fact-finding judge, Nencini} on the basis of alleged disagreements between Kercher and Knox, intensified also by the grievance the English girl had towards the flatmate for having the latter let Guede into the house, who had improperly used the bathroom (page 312). The “truth” offered by the Ivorian in one of the statements made at his trial (and usable, as previously said, exclusively for what does not concern the responsibilities of others) is, instead, another. The young man was in the bathroom when, according to him, he heard Kercher arguing with another person, whose voice he perceived as being female, and so the reason of the quarrel could not certainly be the use he had made of the bathroom.

Also illogical and contradictory is the argument that, in an attempt to give substance to those disagreements (moreover belied by other testimonies), he {the fact-finding judge, Nencini} does not hesitate to retrieve the hypothesis of the theft of money and credit cards that Kercher would allegedly have blamed on Knox, in spite of the fact that Knox, as well as Sollecito, had been acquitted for the charge of theft, limited to the aforementioned goods, because “the fact does not exist” (page 316)."

Source: Marasca CSC panel motivation report, English translation, page 44.

Also, from page 55 of the Marasca motivation report, Marasca notes that Charge D only covers the alleged theft of the two cell phones:

"9.4.3. It can easily be observed that the conclusion that there was a lack of an evidentiary framework consistent and sufficient to support the prosecution’s hypothesis regarding the more serious case of murder certainly reverberates on the residual, secondary accusations, listed here, d) theft of mobile phones and e) simulation of a crime."
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:47 am

As has been discussed, the execution of ECHR judgments is supervised by the Committee of Ministers (CoM); both ECHR and CoM are organizations within the Council of Europe (CoE). The CoE member states, including Italy, have solemnly pledged in a binding treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), to follow the final judgments of the ECHR.

Italy revised its Constitution, in particular Article 111, in 1999, to better conform to the requirements of the Convention. It is possible that some judges in Italy during the relevant period of the Knox - Sollecito case had not fully understood how the revised Italian Constitution, and the new or revised laws enacted to conform to it, should be implemented. That would be one explanation for the arbitrary and illegal procedures followed by the Massei, Chieffi CSC panel and Nencini tribunals.

Here is an extract from the CoM report* on the revision of the Italian Constitution and some laws to meet a judgment of the ECHR:

"As regards the general measures, the government recalls that, subsequent to the violation in this case, important measures have been adopted by Italy with a view to ensuring the fairness of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

Constitutional reform of 1999

Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gave Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention and, in its new wording, it provides in particular that:

“1. Jurisdiction shall be exercised through fair proceedings, conducted in accordance with the law.

2. All proceedings shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of adversarial process and equality of arms before a neutral and impartial court. The right to be tried within a reasonable time shall be guaranteed by law.

3. In criminal proceedings, the law shall guarantee that the person accused of an offence is informed promptly and in confidence of the nature and grounds of the charge against him; that he shall have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; that he shall be given an opportunity before the court to examine or to have examined anyone giving evidence against him, to obtain the attendance and examination of any defence witnesses on the same conditions as witnesses called by the prosecution and to obtain the production of any other evidence in his favour; and that he will have the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used at the trial.

4. The principle of adversarial process shall be observed during criminal proceedings with regard to the examination of evidence. The guilt of an accused cannot be established on the basis of statements made by a person who has freely and willfully eluded examination by the accused or his lawyer.

5. Rules shall be made governing the circumstances in which adversarial examination of the evidence is to be dispensed with, either because the accused has consented or because there is due evidence that such examination is objectively impossible or that there has been unlawful conduct.”

Legislative reform of 2001

A law implementing the new constitutional provision was adopted by Parliament in 2001 (Law No. 63 of 1/03/2001), which amended inter alia Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, application of which was at the basis of the violation found in this case.

According to the law now in force, pre-trial statements made by a person who subsequently avails himself of his right to remain silent in the debate, may be read and used by the judge only if all the interested parties consent to it unless the judge establishes that the refusal to be cross-questioned in the proceedings is the result of bribery or threats.

This rule applies not only to statements made in the same proceedings but also to those made in other proceedings and, in this last case, the statements may not even be read without the consent of the accused person concerned. ...."
_____

Violations of the Italian law on use of statements made by those refusing to be cross-examined, and use of such uncross-examined statements from an earlier trial, were seen in the Knox - Sollecito trials and were criticized in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, which finally and definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito.

*Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-68986%22]}

CASE OF CRAXI No. 2 AGAINST ITALIE 34896/97 Committee of Ministers 25/04/2005
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:20 am

Here's a summary of the current status of the trials in this case:

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been finally and definitively acquitted of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher by the March, 2015 verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy. According to Italian law, they can face no other legal action, criminal or civil, regarding the matters for which they have been acquitted.

Amanda Knox was finally convicted of the crime of calunnia (false accusation) against Patrick Lumumba by the March, 2013 verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation. However, convictions in Italy are not necessarily definitive, and may be retried by an Italian revision court (a court of appeal) under certain conditions. One such condition, according to Italian law (a judgment of the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court) is a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that the conviction was the result of an unfair trial, or was otherwise unfair, and that the legal proceedings must be reopened at the request of the convicted person. The ECHR is an international court that hears claims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), a treaty to which Italy is a charter signatory. Italy is obligated to follow the terms of the Convention under international and Italian law.

Amanda Knox lodged an application with the ECHR in November, 2013 (within the deadline, which is based on the date of delivery of the motivation report, and not the short-form verdict) claiming that Italy violated her rights under the Convention. The case was communicated to Italy by the ECHR in April, 2015, to allow Italy to prepare a defense, if it so chooses. The ECHR considers this case a "noteworthy pending case", meaning it considers the claims and potential outcome of significance for human rights in the Council of Europe states (that is, all the states that are signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights). A date for the publication of the ECHR judgment has not been announced; the ECHR has tens of thousands of pending cases before it, and it can be quite slow in reaching judgments.

There have also been some satellite cases in Italy related to the main Knox - Sollecito trials. These include, but are not limited to:

1. A case accusing Amanda Knox of false accusation against the police, regarding her statements in court, at her trial, about their behavior toward her during the Nov. 5-6, 2007 interrogation. Knox was finally acquitted on these charges in January, 2016.

2. A case accusing Raffaele Sollecito of criminal defamation against the police, regarding certain statements he had published in a book (which was not publicly available in Italy) he co-authored with Andrew Gumbel. Sollecito and Gumbel were acquitted in October, 2017 on these charges. Prosecutor Mignini had joined this case with a civil lawsuit, as allowed and rather usual in Italian cases. Mignini has withdrawn his suit. I suspect this will be a final acquittal, but I don't believe the time limit for an appeal by the prosecution has run out (I think it will by the end of December, 2017), and I am not sure when the statute of limitations will expire on the charges.

3. There were some additional cases, such as a defamation suit against Knox's parents by Mignini. I am not sure what has happened to those; I suspect the case against Knox's parents and any other such cases have been allowed to expire. But I'm not sure of that.

4. The request by Sollecito for compensation on account of unjust detention was recently finally denied by the Supreme Court of Cassation. His lawyers indicated that this will be taken to the ECHR, because the Convention mandates that there be acknowledgment and compensation for unfair detentions.

5. Rudy Guede, the only person convicted of the murder/rape of Kercher, has appealed the first rejection of his request for revision of his conviction. I believe that the Supreme Court of Cassation is expected to issue a ruling on this appeal by the end of November, 2017.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby carlofab » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:59 pm

Many thanks for this update and summary. :)
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby anonshy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:24 pm

carlofab wrote:
anonshy wrote:The whole idea of Judicial Truths derived from results of other trials, is and of itself is incompatible with Italy's own laws! There is a section of Italian law that states (Paraphrasing) that the outcome of trials should not be subject to evidence outside and not presented in court. This should in my opinion include these so-called judicial truths. The idea that lesser trials (summary convictions) of other individuals, without the participation of all parties involved, is a procedural injustice!

I really doubt their will be any revision to the culunia charge, it is directly and indirectly the only reason for the "Acted with Others" claim, and without it, Rudy Would easily be considered the lone killer. Hellman and more importantly Marasca would have no need to stick-handle, the "Acted with others" notion.

I think what you will see from the ECHR is a whole lot of nothing, they may condem the rulings but they are really powerless to force any action!

Anon



Anon,

I agree with you, but many most "judicial truths" came from within Amanda's trial; specifically, in the ISC ruling that overturned the Hellmann acquittal but confirmed her conviction for calumny. Chieffi's ISC motivation lays some narrow instructions for the Nencini court. Marasca, in his motivation, acknowledges but steps gingerly around them.

I thought it extremely stupid that Amanda was charged with stealing Meredith's rent money. The only source for this was Rude Guede's "hearsay" testimony that Meredith told him this. I believe they did find the amount withdrawn from her account, but had no evidence other than Rudy that it had been stolen.


The truth that "Rudy Acted With Others" was no the product of Amanda's trial and what little Rudy did say was not subject to cross examination and should have been stricken!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:09 pm

In MARTIN v. ESTONIA 35985/09 30/05/2013, the ECHR found a violation of Articles 6.1 with 6.3c. The relevance to the AK – RS case includes a demonstration of how the ECHR infers police misconduct from even seemingly subtle violations of legally authorized procedures by the authorities.

Martin, 18 years old on July 1, 2006, was arrested July 19, 2006 and detained on suspicion of murdering a 16-year old schoolmate. Martin initially denied having committed a murder, but after about 2 weeks in police custody had been apparently induced by the police to waive his right in a writing (two differing copies exist in the file) to the defense lawyer, Javre, chosen by his parents, and instead accepted a public-aid lawyer, R., chosen by the police. On the day the public-aid lawyer met with him, Martin confessed to the murder and demonstrated how he had committed it during a police-guided reconstruction at the crime scene on that day (Aug. 7) and the next (Aug. 8). The police had not followed the prescribed legal procedures of notifying the private lawyer that he had been replaced, which would include a court hearing to verify that the accused had replaced his private lawyer on his own volition, and then obtaining a public-aid lawyer selected by the bar association, rather than by the police.

Further details of the case shows varying statements by Martin. The case file contains two documents dated Aug. 7 and 8, respectively, the first denying the crime and the second confessing to it. Police videotaped a confession by Martin in the presence of lawyer R on Aug. 10. However, on Aug. 11, a new lawyer, G., was authorized for Martin by a client agreement. On Aug. 28 Martin was interrogated in the presence of lawyer G. and denied committing the murder. Martin was brought to trial, with lawyer Javre as defense counsel, and was convicted of murder largely on the basis of his confessions. On appeal, the appeal court found that the specific details of Martin's confessions were not admissible, but affirmed Martin's conviction in large part upon the “general knowledge” that he had confessed.

The ECHR inferred that because the police had not followed the formal, legal procedures for the replacement of the lawyer, but rather informal and irregular procedures, Martin had been deprived of the legal representation of his choice during the interrogation in which he confessed. The conviction, even relying only on the “general knowledge” that he had confessed, was thus unfair. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 6.1 with 6.3c.

Here are some excerpts from the judgment:

91. The Court further notes, in this connection, that the haste with which the procedural measures were carried out on 7 August 2006 is unexplained. It appears that the investigation proceeded immediately after the applicant had terminated Mr Järve’s services: his interrogation started at 8.05 p.m. and the subsequent crime scene reconstruction lasted until almost midnight (see paragraph 17 above). Against that background, the applicant’s allegation about pressure exerted by the investigator does not appear misplaced.
....
93. Based on the above elements, in particular the authorities’ failure to make use of the formal procedure for the removal of counsel in case there were doubts about a conflict of interests on his part and their reliance, instead, on informal talks with the applicant, the applicant’s young age as well as his apparent instability, which prompted his subsequent psychiatric and psychological expert examination on two occasions, and also the seriousness of the charges, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant’s wish to replace counsel of his own (his parents’) choosing could be considered genuine in the circumstances of the present case. It considers that there was an infringement of the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing. Having made that finding, the Court considers it unnecessary to further deal with the issue that at a later stage of the pre-trial proceedings the applicant was interrogated twice without the presence of counsel.
94. The Court recalls in this connection that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision, which must be taken into account in any assessment of the fairness of proceedings. In addition, the Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, ECHR 2010, both with further references). The Court has also had regard to the subsequent use of statements made by the applicant during the preliminary investigation in breach of his defence rights. The Court notes that there is no dispute that that evidence was used against the applicant by the County Court. The Court of Appeal, having found that the County Court had unduly relied on the applicant’s pre-trial statements, excluded all such statements from the body of evidence. However, on the basis of an analysis of the remaining evidence it found that the applicant’s conviction was nevertheless safe.
95. The Court notes in this context that, despite excluding the applicant’s pre-trial statements, the Court of Appeal considered that there was nothing to prevent the use of such “general knowledge”. It went on to observe that the confession of murder had to a large extent been the reason why the applicant had been committed to trial with a murder charge, and the investigative measures had been carried out on the basis of that knowledge (see paragraph 48 above).
96. The Court considers that the exclusion of the pre-trial statements from the body of evidence reveals the importance that the Court of Appeal attaches to securing a suspect’s defence rights from the early stages of the proceedings. Although tainted evidence as such can be left aside in the subsequent proceedings, in the present case the Court of Appeal’s decision nevertheless demonstrated that the consequences of the breach of defence rights had not been totally undone.
97. In the light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that the applicant’s defence rights were irretrievably prejudiced owing to his inability to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing.
It follows that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Postby Numbers » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:04 am

Here's an interesting example of an ECHR judgment, ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
919/15 16/11/2017, which is based on the ECHR's evaluation of how the evidence was treated in a trial. The relevance to the AK – RS case is that the Knox's trial for calunnia against Lumumba, and the preliminary verdicts in the Massei and Nencini courts, and the judgment in the Chieffi CSC panel appeal, had features of arbitrariness broadly similar to those identified in this case against Azerbaijan. Here is the ECHR's press summary of the case:

The case concerned the criminal proceedings brought against a prominent Azerbaijani opposition politician, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov, following protests in the town of Ismayilli in 2013.

Mr Mammadov was subsequently charged and convicted of mass disorder. This is the second case he has brought before the European Court of Human Rights; the first concerned his arrest and pre-trial detention following the same events.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2) (application
no. 919/15) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court found that the domestic courts had either not addressed or remained silent about a
number of inconsistencies in the evidence used to convict Mr Mammadov, despite the defence’s repeated objections about flawed or misrepresented evidence.

In particular, as concerned the witness statements for the prosecution: some of the police officers who testified that Mr Mammadov had incited protestors to violence had only been questioned five months after the protests and one had retracted his pre-trial statement saying that he had signed it without even reading it. As concerned certain video recordings used to convict him: one had shown clashes between protestors whereas another had shown footage of calm streets with very few protestors.

Furthermore, Mr Mammadov’s blog posts and social media posts as well as a transcript of a radio interview, used to prove that he had planned the mass disorder, had dated either from when he had been in Ismayilli or after leaving it, and had contained no incitement to violence. Indeed, in the news coverage on the riots, which the courts found to be in support of the prosecution’s case, there had been no express reporting of any actual outbreak of violence during the afternoon of 24 January 2013 when Mr Mammadov had been present in Ismayilli.

In conclusion, there had been serious shortcomings in the manner in which the evidence used to convict Mr Mammadov had been admitted, examined and/or assessed. Equally, the manner in which the courts had dealt with the defence’s objections concerning that evidence had been inadequate. Indeed, any evidence favourable to him had been systematically dismissed in an inadequately reasoned or manifestly unreasonable manner.

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
See: PDF press release, Chamber judgment concerning Azerbaijan
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Previous

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests