ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old Today, 06:08 PM   #401
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,024
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Your usual gross exaggeration. The persons specifically mentioned by Numbers were "..the police and prosecutor, that is, incriminated on false evidence, during and at the conclusion of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.
If you have to resort to hyperbolic misrepresentation, then you obviously don't have a solid base for your counter-argument.

"False", or at the very least highly misleading, testimony was presented by Stefanoni when she kept using the term "luminol revealed footprints" without revealing the negative TMB results. This omission heavily implied the footprints were in blood. Indeed, that is exactly what Massei concluded...they were Knox's footprints in blood. I assume you find it plausible that Stefanoni simply forgot to mention these very important tests?


What I find amusing is this coming from the person who has repeatedly accused the mafia, the Masons, and the US State Dept. of orchestrating two acquittals including by the Supreme Court of Italy.
It's an interesting question: Who is responsible for the violations of Knox's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, that is, the violations found in the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights?

One way to answer this it to look at the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the preamble (introductory part) of the Convention as well as Article 1 of the Convention, as shown below.

Based on those texts, it is clear that the State of Italy was and is responsible, under Italian and international law, for any violations of Knox's rights under the Convention that occurred in Italy (or the violation of the Convention rights of anyone within the territory or control of Italy).

Under ECHR case-law, it is the responsibility of the State in which a violation has occurred to investigate and hold accountable any of its agents, or other persons, who have violated the Convention rights of any person within the territory or control of that State.

1. The preamble* makes clear that the governments, treaty members of the Council of Europe, by signing the Convention, take the responsibility of the collective enforcement of certain rights listed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Italy was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe and was one of the states active in drafting and enacting the Convention,

2. Text of Article 1:

Obligation to respect Human Rights

The High Contracting Parties {the States who are treaty members of the Council of Europe} shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.


*Text of the preamble:

Quote:
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Rome, 4.XI.1950

The Governments signatory here to, being members of the Council of Europe,

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;

Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for [HILITE[the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration[/hilite],

Have agreed as follows:

Last edited by Numbers; Today at 06:11 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:25 PM   #402
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,384
Originally Posted by Vixen
And why would*whole teams of literally hundreds of staff*conspire together to incriminate*your heroeswith false evidence?

Back to the drawing board.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What I find amusing is this coming from the person who has repeatedly accused the mafia, the Masons, and the US State Dept. of orchestrating two acquittals including by the Supreme Court of Italy.
It is amusing isn't it. Vixen, et al., advances a conspiracy involving not one, not two, not three, but four great "institutions".....
1) Italian judiciary, including the highest court in the land
2) The Mafia
3) The Masons
4) Big Media in the United States
Maybe the middle two can manage a secretive conspiracy, but most certainly both the Italian judiciary and American Media would have middle level managers who'd have no compunction about blowing the whistle on their bosses if they thought the bosses had been engaged in a conspiracy.

I mean, the 1st Chambers of the ISC (which in 2013 annulled the Hellmann acquittals) has been virtually silent about the 5th Chambers acquittal in 2015. That includes lower level staffers supporting the 300+ judges in the ISC in total, none of whom have griped about the eventual acquittals.

The only people theorizing about a massive conspiracy are the guilter-nutters.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:34 PM   #403
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,024
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It's an interesting question: Who is responsible for the violations of Knox's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, that is, the violations found in the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights?

One way to answer this it to look at the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the preamble (introductory part) of the Convention as well as Article 1 of the Convention, as shown below.

Based on those texts, it is clear that the State of Italy was and is responsible, under Italian and international law, for any violations of Knox's rights under the Convention that occurred in Italy (or the violation of the Convention rights of anyone within the territory or control of Italy).

Under ECHR case-law, it is the responsibility of the State in which a violation has occurred to investigate and hold accountable any of its agents, or other persons, who have violated the Convention rights of any person within the territory or control of that State.
....
Given the above information, the legal summary of Knox v. Italy, prepared by the Registry of the ECHR, can provide some insight into the areas the Government of Italy will likely address in the Action Plan that the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR is awaiting. The actions and failures to act of the state agents (specifically the police and prosecutor involved in the interrogation, and of the relevant courts), are key to understanding some of the official misconduct in the case. (The ECHR did not address the murder/rape case itself, so certain official misconduct directly relating only to that case, such as that of Stefanoni, was not considered).

Here is the legal summary (previously posted on ISF):

Quote:
Knox v. Italy - 76577/13

Judgment 24.1.2019 [Section I]

Article 3

Effective investigation

Lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Article 6

Article 6-3-c

Defence through legal assistance

Use in evidence of a malicious accusation, made to the police by a person in a state of shock, without access to a lawyer: violation

Article 6-3-e

Free assistance of interpreter


Interpreter having acted as a mediator and with a motherly attitude during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Facts – At the time of the events Ms Knox, a 20 year-old American student, had been in Italy for about two months. She had found a temporary job in a pub run by D.L. Following the discovery of the body of a girl living in the same flat as the applicant, who was then present on the premises with her boyfriend, they were both interviewed by the police and their telephone conversations were monitored.

On 6 November 2007 at 1.45 a.m., the applicant was interviewed by three police officers and A.D., who had been called as an interpreter. She stated, among other things, that D.L. had committed the crimes. The public prosecutor then interviewed the applicant at 5.45 a.m., with A.D. and some police officers being present. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during that interview. At 8.30 a.m., the applicant, her boyfriend and D.L. were formally arrested on charges of sexual assault and murder. Having provided an alibi, D.L. was later released.

Around 1 p.m. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant spoke of her state of shock and confusion during her last incriminating interview under police pressure, and she retracted her accusation against D.L. However, on 14 May 2008, she was formally charged with bringing a malicious accusation.

Following a hearing on 13 March 2009, at which the applicant again alleged that she had been ill-treated during the interview of 6 November 2007 and complained about the conduct of the interpreter A.D., her defence requested the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor’s office, but nothing happened. Further proceedings were brought against the applicant for falsely accusing the police officers and prosecutor who had questioned her on 6 November 2007.

In September 2015 the Court of Cassation acquitted the applicant on the charges of murder and sexual assault and observed that her conviction and three-year prison sentence for the malicious accusation against D.L. had already become final. The applicant was also acquitted on the charge of falsely accusing the police officers and the prosecutor.

Law

Article 3 (procedural limb): On 6 November 2007, a few hours after making incriminating statements about D.L. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant had clearly explained that she had been in an extreme state of shock and confusion and that the police had put pressure on her. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, had concluded that the applicant had in fact been subjected to a genuine degree of torment, placing her in an unbearable psychological situation from which she had sought to extract herself by incriminating D.L.

In addition, the interpreter had been acting more as a “mediator”, even though she was not required to go beyond her interpreting duties. One of the police officers had even embraced and caressed the applicant and had clasped her hands, thus clearly behaving inappropriately, especially in a context where she had made accusations subsequently characterised as malicious which had resulted in her conviction.

The above-mentioned behaviour, which shed light on the general conditions in which the applicant had been interviewed, should have alerted the national authorities to the possibility that her dignity and capacity for self-determination had been impaired.

In spite of her repeated complaints, the treatment complained of had not led to any investigation capable of shedding light on the facts and on any responsibilities. In particular, her lawyer’s request of 13 March 2009 for the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor had remained unanswered. Moreover, the criminal proceedings against the applicant for bringing a malicious accusation against the authorities – which had in fact led to her acquittal, as there was no evidence that her account of what had happened was inaccurate – could not constitute an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6 1 and 3 (c)

(a) Applicability of Article 6The Court reiterated that a “criminal charge” existed from the moment that an individual was officially notified by the competent authority of an allegation that he had committed a criminal offence, or from the point at which his situation had been substantially affected by actions taken by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him. The applicant could certainly be regarded as a suspect by the time she made her statement to the public prosecutor, at 5.45 a.m. on 6 November 2007. Therefore by 5.45 a.m. at the latest, there had been a criminal charge against her within the meaning of the Convention.

(b) Whether there were any compelling reasons to justify the restriction of her right of access to a lawyer – The Government had relied on the interpretation of domestic case-law to point out that the impugned statements of 6 November 2007, even though no lawyer had been present, could be used in evidence, as they incorporated in themselves a criminal offence. The Court noted, however, that this interpretation was general in scope and the Government had failed to establish that there had been exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify the restrictions on the applicant’s right. Thus there was no compelling reason capable of justifying the restriction on her access to a lawyer.

(c) Overall fairness of the proceedings – [HIILITE]A few hours after the interview of 6 November 2007, the applicant, who was vulnerable as a foreigner and as a young woman of 20, not having been in Italy for long and not being fluent in Italian, had promptly gone back on her statements. Nevertheless, six months later, on 14 May 2008, she was charged with malicious accusation[/hilite].

The impugned statements had been taken in a context of heightened psychological pressure, which had not been investigated. And those statements had constituted in themselves the offence with which she was charged and therefore the real evidence on the basis of which she had been found guilty of bringing a malicious accusation. Lastly, the record of the applicant’s interview at 5.45 a.m. did not indicate that she had been notified of her procedural rights.

Consequently, the restriction of the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her interview of 6 November 2007 at 5.45 a.m. had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
.

Article 6 1 and 3 (e): The fact that the interpreter A.D. had played the role of a mediator, adopting a motherly attitude, while the applicant, having been charged with a criminal offence, was formulating her statement, had gone beyond the duties expected of an interpreter. However, the authorities had failed to assess the conduct of A.D., to examine whether her interpreting assistance had been consistent with the safeguards under Article 6 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, or to consider whether that conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In addition, in the relevant police record there was no mention of the exchanges between the applicant and A.D. during the interview of 6 November 2007.

That initial failure had thus had repercussions for other rights, which were separate but closely related to the right at issue, and had undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
.

The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 3 in its substantive limb, as there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that the applicant had actually sustained the inhuman or degrading treatment of which she had complained.

Last edited by Numbers; Today at 06:46 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.