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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 14th May 2019, 06:00 AM   #3561
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Can Italy raise an issue of admissibility if the Grand Chamber hears the case Knox v. Italy if the request for referral is approved?

Italy can raise the issue of admissibility, but the Grand Chamber will not bother to examine it. Issues of admissibility raised by the respondent state are only reviewed, in accordance with Rule 55 of the ECHR, must be raised in response to the Communication. If such issues are brought out by the state subsequently, they will not be reviewed.

The Communication is the "notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon" of Rule 54.2b

Here is the text of the relevant ECHR Rules of the Court:

Rule 55 – Pleas of inadmissibility
Any plea of inadmissibility must, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application submitted as provided in Rule 51 or 54, as the case may be.

Rule 54 – Procedure before a Chamber
1. The Chamber may at once declare the application inadmissible or strike it out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision of the Chamber may relate to all or part of the application.
2. Alternatively, the Chamber or the President of the Section may decide to
(a) request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Chamber or its President to be relevant;
(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the applicant to submit observations in reply;
(c) invite the parties to submit further observations in writing.
3. In the exercise of the competences under paragraph 2 (b) of this Rule, the President of the Section, acting as a single judge, may at once declare part of the application inadmissible or strike part of the application out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision shall be final. The applicant shall be informed of the decision by letter.
4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Rule shall also apply to Vice-Presidents of Sections appointed as duty judges in accordance with Rule 39 § 4 to decide on requests for interim measures.
5. Before taking a decision on admissibility, the Chamber may decide, either at the request of a party or of its own motion, to hold a hearing if it considers that the discharge of its functions under the Convention so requires. In that event, unless the Chamber shall exceptionally decide otherwise, the parties shall also be invited to address the issues arising in relation to the merits of the application.

Rule 51 applies only to interstate applications and thus does not apply to Knox v. Italy.

BTW, the procedure for not reviewing such pleas of inadmissibility is called "estoppel" (a legal term meaning "barred" or "impeded as by a stopper") by the ECHR, so it will state in a judgment that the claim or plea of inadmissibility is "estopped".

Last edited by Numbers; 14th May 2019 at 06:16 AM.
Numbers is online now   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 14th May 2019, 06:00 AM   #3562
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,862
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Police cannot arrest someone unless they have definitive probable cause. Knox gave them that probable cause.

She willfully accused Lumumba of raping and murdering Meredith and that she was a witness to this.

She told police she met Patrick in the basketball court and took him back to the cottage for sex with Meredith.

What did you expect the police to do???
What police are supposed to do is NOT hit her and call her a liar when she DOESN'T say this.

What translators are supposed to do is NOT say that she has a suppressed memory when she's NOT saying this.

What police ARE supposed to do at an interrogation is to get a confession from a suspect that they already "know" is involved.

"She buckled and told us what we already knew".

Please read up on the basic facts of the case.
__________________
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 14th May 2019, 06:25 AM   #3563
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What police are supposed to do is NOT hit her and call her a liar when she DOESN'T say this.

What translators are supposed to do is NOT say that she has a suppressed memory when she's NOT saying this.

What police ARE supposed to do at an interrogation is to get a confession from a suspect that they already "know" is involved.

"She buckled and told us what we already knew".

Please read up on the basic facts of the case.
I also find it interesting that the "statements" (I refuse to refer to them as confessions, because they weren't) were in Italian.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 14th May 2019 at 06:31 AM.
acbytesla 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 14th May 2019, 06:48 AM   #3564
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,862
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I also find it interesting that the "statements" (I refuse to refer to them as confessions, because they weren't) were in Italian.
...... and that the second one starts, in Italian!, with, "I want to spontaneously say....", which just so happens to be the so-called legal requirement allowing Mignini to deny Knox a lawyer.

It takes about 2 seconds for reasonable people to realize that a 20-year old foreigner would not spontaneously put it that way, esp. without heavy coaching or manipulation.

Over the years, guilter-nutters have never addressed this. I wonder why?
__________________
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 14th May 2019, 07:10 AM   #3565
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Can Italy raise an issue of admissibility if the Grand Chamber hears the case Knox v. Italy if the request for referral is approved?

Italy can raise the issue of admissibility, but the Grand Chamber will not bother to examine it. Issues of admissibility raised by the respondent state are only reviewed, in accordance with Rule 55 of the ECHR, must be raised in response to the Communication. If such issues are brought out by the state subsequently, they will not be reviewed.

The Communication is the "notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon" of Rule 54.2b

Here is the text of the relevant ECHR Rules of the Court:

Rule 55 – Pleas of inadmissibility
Any plea of inadmissibility must, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application submitted as provided in Rule 51 or 54, as the case may be.

Rule 54 – Procedure before a Chamber
1. The Chamber may at once declare the application inadmissible or strike it out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision of the Chamber may relate to all or part of the application.
2. Alternatively, the Chamber or the President of the Section may decide to
(a) request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Chamber or its President to be relevant;
(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the applicant to submit observations in reply;
(c) invite the parties to submit further observations in writing.
3. In the exercise of the competences under paragraph 2 (b) of this Rule, the President of the Section, acting as a single judge, may at once declare part of the application inadmissible or strike part of the application out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision shall be final. The applicant shall be informed of the decision by letter.
4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Rule shall also apply to Vice-Presidents of Sections appointed as duty judges in accordance with Rule 39 § 4 to decide on requests for interim measures.
5. Before taking a decision on admissibility, the Chamber may decide, either at the request of a party or of its own motion, to hold a hearing if it considers that the discharge of its functions under the Convention so requires. In that event, unless the Chamber shall exceptionally decide otherwise, the parties shall also be invited to address the issues arising in relation to the merits of the application.

Rule 51 applies only to interstate applications and thus does not apply to Knox v. Italy.

BTW, the procedure for not reviewing such pleas of inadmissibility is called "estoppel" (a legal term meaning "barred" or "impeded as by a stopper") by the ECHR, so it will state in a judgment that the claim or plea of inadmissibility is "estopped".
Here's an example of the use of the above Rules of the Court by the ECHR Grand Chamber:

"41. In so far as the Government have cited the first of these provisions, the Court reiterates that under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 145, ECHR 2001-VII, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X). However, in their written observations on the admissibility of the application, the Government did not argue that the applicant could have availed himself of the remedy in Article 670 of the CCP. Moreover, the Court cannot discern any exceptional circumstances that could have dispensed the Government from the obligation to raise their preliminary objection before the adoption of the Chamber's admissibility decision of 11 September 2003 (see Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 29, 18 November 2004).

42. Consequently, the Government are estopped at this stage of the proceedings from raising the preliminary objection of failure to use the domestic remedy in Article 670 of the CCP (see, mutatis mutandis, Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, §§ 35-37, 13 October 2005). It follows that the Government's preliminary objection must be dismissed in so far as it concerns the failure to lodge an objection to execution."

Source: SEJDOVIC v. ITALY 56581/00 (Grand Chamber) 01/03/2006
Numbers is online now   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 14th May 2019, 07:51 AM   #3566
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
...... and that the second one starts, in Italian!, with, "I want to spontaneously say....", which just so happens to be the so-called legal requirement allowing Mignini to deny Knox a lawyer.

It takes about 2 seconds for reasonable people to realize that a 20-year old foreigner would not spontaneously put it that way, esp. without heavy coaching or manipulation.

Over the years, guilter-nutters have never addressed this. I wonder why?
It is simple Bill. Their minds are made up. They are intellectually immature. They are incapable of saying they were wrong. Just look at our resident PGP poster. Time and time again when presented with photographic and video evidence demonstrated to be incapable of saying "I was wrong".

This has become a religion for them. They are vested in a unfalsifiable fairy tale. A delicious myth that a pretty and slutty American tramp together with Harry Potter and a stranger got high and murdered her roommate of a month It would be mortifying for them to realize that Amanda was innocent and their own behavior was cruel, atrocious and wrong.

So they double down on their lunacy and reprehensible behavior.

Why is easy. And sad.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 14th May 2019, 08:00 AM   #3567
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,862
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It is simple Bill. Their minds are made up. They are intellectually immature. They are incapable of saying they were wrong. Just look at our resident PGP poster. Time and time again when presented with photographic and video evidence demonstrated to be incapable of saying "I was wrong".

This has become a religion for them. They are vested in a unfalsifiable fairy tale. A delicious myth that a pretty and slutty American tramp together with Harry Potter and a stranger got high and murdered her roommate of a month It would be mortifying for them to realize that Amanda was innocent and their own behavior was cruel, atrocious and wrong.

So they double down on their lunacy and reprehensible behavior.

Why is easy. And sad.
Their account IS falsifiable. When I repetitively cut and paste the section of the 2015 Italian Supreme Court reason for exonerating the pair, ie. the section which says the insurmountable evidence against their guilt, they're reduced to claiming it is a bad translation. When invited to supply their own translation they never do.

Theoretical falsification is the essence of science, as it is in law. For Vixen to say, "What are police supposed to do?" has the advantage of being theoretically falsifiable.

Which it turns out it can be.

So - to nitpick your post.... the guilter-nutters rely on a variation of both. And since at least 2015 they've been presenting patent nonsense.

Ok ok ok, since before that, too.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 14th May 2019 at 08:03 AM.
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 14th May 2019, 08:14 AM   #3568
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here's an example of the use of the above Rules of the Court by the ECHR Grand Chamber:

"41. In so far as the Government have cited the first of these provisions, the Court reiterates that under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 145, ECHR 2001-VII, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X). However, in their written observations on the admissibility of the application, the Government did not argue that the applicant could have availed himself of the remedy in Article 670 of the CCP. Moreover, the Court cannot discern any exceptional circumstances that could have dispensed the Government from the obligation to raise their preliminary objection before the adoption of the Chamber's admissibility decision of 11 September 2003 (see Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 29, 18 November 2004).

42. Consequently, the Government are estopped at this stage of the proceedings from raising the preliminary objection of failure to use the domestic remedy in Article 670 of the CCP (see, mutatis mutandis, Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, §§ 35-37, 13 October 2005). It follows that the Government's preliminary objection must be dismissed in so far as it concerns the failure to lodge an objection to execution."

Source: SEJDOVIC v. ITALY 56581/00 (Grand Chamber) 01/03/2006
One question some may have is how case-law is derived from the judgments and decisions of cases.

It's important to recognize that the general principles laid down in a judgment or decision may be considered the case-law, independent of the specifics of the case. Thus, case-law derived from a case involving a minor, such as Salduz v. Turkey, doesn't necessarily apply only to minors, just as case-law derived from a case involving a male doesn't necessarily apply only to males, nor does case-law derived from a case involving a left-handed person necessarily only apply to left-handed persons. One must look for the general principles expressed in the judgment or decision; those general principles are the case-law and apply broadly, unless there are narrower provisions specifically indicated by the court.

An important concept in case-law is expressed often by the ECHR in the Latin phrase "mutatis mutandis". Here's some information on the meaning and origin of the phrase:

"Mutatis mutandis is a Medieval Latin phrase meaning "having changed what needs to be changed" or "once the necessary changes have been made". It remains unnaturalized in English and is therefore usually italicized in writing. It is used in many countries to acknowledge that a comparison being made requires certain obvious alterations, which are left unstated. .... It is Medieval Latin, first attested in British sources in 1272."

In English, the phrase "with the necessary modifications (or changes)" could be a substitute.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutatis_mutandis

Last edited by Numbers; 14th May 2019 at 08:16 AM.
Numbers is online now   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 14th May 2019, 08:41 AM   #3569
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Their account IS falsifiable. When I repetitively cut and paste the section of the 2015 Italian Supreme Court reason for exonerating the pair, ie. the section which says the insurmountable evidence against their guilt, they're reduced to claiming it is a bad translation. When invited to supply their own translation they never do.

Theoretical falsification is the essence of science, as it is in law. For Vixen to say, "What are police supposed to do?" has the advantage of being theoretically falsifiable.

Which it turns out it can be.

So - to nitpick your post.... the guilter-nutters rely on a variation of both. And since at least 2015 they've been presenting patent nonsense.

Ok ok ok, since before that, too.
Of course it is Bill. But not to them.

It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary. They deny it. It is cognitive dissonance on a major scale. I thought that when I presented video of the commercial
flights that Amanda took back home from Italy that our resident PGP should/would be able
to admit she had been wrong. She/he couldn't.

Think about that Bill. That had nothing to do with Amanda's and Raffaele's possible guilt or innocence and still he/she wouldn't/couldn't admit being wrong.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 14th May 2019 at 08:44 AM.
acbytesla 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 14th May 2019, 09:04 AM   #3570
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
It may be useful to note that there is a brief summary of the details of Knox v. Italy published by the ECHR, as there is for each of its cases. Here is that summary of details. Note that the importance level was raised from 3 (assigned initially) to 2 (meaning the significance for case-law publication is modest), admissibility was examined by the ECHR and dismissed or, for some claims, accepted as manifestly unfounded; also, see the extensive body of case-law cited:


Originating Body
Court (First Section)
Document Type
Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)
Language(s)
French
Italian
Romanian
Title
CASE OF KNOX v. ITALY
App. No(s).
76577/13
Importance Level
2
Represented by
DALLA VEDOVA C.
Respondent State(s)
Italy
Judgment Date
24/01/2019
Conclusion(s)
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
Violation of Article 6+6-3-e - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter)
Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Article(s)
3
6
6+6-3-c
6+6-3-e
6-1
6-3-c
6-3-e
35
35-1
35-3-a
41
Separate Opinion(s)
No
Strasbourg Case-Law
Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 V (extracts)
Baytar v. Turkey, no 45440/04, 14 October 2014
Beuze v. Belgium, [GC], no 71409/10, 9 November 2018
Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no 23380/09, ECHR 2015
Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002
Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no 13205/07, § 25, 5 January 2010
Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010
Güngör v. Germany (dec.), no 31540/96, 17 May 2001
Hermi v. Italy [GC], no 18114/02, § 80, ECHR 2006 XII
Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016
Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, 25 June 2013
Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 74, Series A no 168
Mantovanelli v. France, 18 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II
Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no 38812/97, §§ 125-128, ECHR 2003 V
Protopapa v. Turkey, no 16084/90, § 80, 24 February 2009
Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, 20 March 2018
Salduz v. Turkey, [GC], no 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008
Şaman v. Turkey, no 35292/05, § 30, 5 April 2011
Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no 14416/06, §§ 90-92, 15 May 2018
Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, [GC], no 21980/04, 12 May 2017
Škorjanec v. Croatia, no 25536/14, § 44, 28 March 2017
Uçak v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 44234/98, 24 January 2002
Vizgirda v. Slovenia, no 59868/08, §§ 75-79, 28 August 2018
Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, 17 March 2016
Keywords
(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture
(Art. 3) Degrading treatment
(Art. 3) Effective investigation
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial
(Art. 6) Criminal proceedings
(Art. 6-1) Fair hearing
(Art. 6-3-c) Defence through legal assistance
(Art. 6-3-e) Free assistance of interpreter
(Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded
(Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general}
(Art. 41) Just satisfaction
(Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage
Numbers is online now   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 14th May 2019, 09:08 AM   #3571
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It may be useful to note that there is a brief summary of the details of Knox v. Italy published by the ECHR, as there is for each of its cases. Here is that summary of details. Note that the importance level was raised from 3 (assigned initially) to 2 (meaning the significance for case-law publication is modest), admissibility was examined by the ECHR and dismissed or, for some claims, accepted as manifestly unfounded; also, see the extensive body of case-law cited:


Originating Body
Court (First Section)
Document Type
Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)
Language(s)
French
Italian
Romanian
Title
CASE OF KNOX v. ITALY
App. No(s).
76577/13
Importance Level
2
Represented by
DALLA VEDOVA C.
Respondent State(s)
Italy
Judgment Date
24/01/2019
Conclusion(s)
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
Violation of Article 6+6-3-e - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter)
Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Article(s)
3
6
6+6-3-c
6+6-3-e
6-1
6-3-c
6-3-e
35
35-1
35-3-a
41
Separate Opinion(s)
No
Strasbourg Case-Law
Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 V (extracts)
Baytar v. Turkey, no 45440/04, 14 October 2014
Beuze v. Belgium, [GC], no 71409/10, 9 November 2018
Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no 23380/09, ECHR 2015
Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002
Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no 13205/07, § 25, 5 January 2010
Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010
Güngör v. Germany (dec.), no 31540/96, 17 May 2001
Hermi v. Italy [GC], no 18114/02, § 80, ECHR 2006 XII
Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016
Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, 25 June 2013
Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 74, Series A no 168
Mantovanelli v. France, 18 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II
Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no 38812/97, §§ 125-128, ECHR 2003 V
Protopapa v. Turkey, no 16084/90, § 80, 24 February 2009
Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, 20 March 2018
Salduz v. Turkey, [GC], no 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008
Şaman v. Turkey, no 35292/05, § 30, 5 April 2011
Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no 14416/06, §§ 90-92, 15 May 2018
Simeonovi v. Bulgaria, [GC], no 21980/04, 12 May 2017
Škorjanec v. Croatia, no 25536/14, § 44, 28 March 2017
Uçak v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 44234/98, 24 January 2002
Vizgirda v. Slovenia, no 59868/08, §§ 75-79, 28 August 2018
Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, 17 March 2016
Keywords
(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture
(Art. 3) Degrading treatment
(Art. 3) Effective investigation
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial
(Art. 6) Criminal proceedings
(Art. 6-1) Fair hearing
(Art. 6-3-c) Defence through legal assistance
(Art. 6-3-e) Free assistance of interpreter
(Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded
(Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general}
(Art. 41) Just satisfaction
(Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage
The legal summary provides a shorter case-law list, including the Factsheet on Police arrest and assistance of a lawyer (itself a summary of case-law relevant to the title topic):

See also Salduz v. Turkey [GC], 36391/02, 27 November 2008, Information Note 113; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], 22978/05, 1 June 2010, Information Note 131; Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, 33192/07 and 33194/07, 25 June 2013; Baytar v. Turkey, 45440/04, 14 October 2014, Information Note 178; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 50541/08 et al., 13 September 2016, Information Note 199; Beuze v. Belgium [GC], 71409/10, 9 November 2018, Information Note 223; and the Factsheet on Police arrest and assistance of a lawyer
Numbers is online now   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 14th May 2019, 09:47 AM   #3572
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Knox had not been 'taken into custody' so it falls at the first hurdle.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And if she had attempted to leave, I'm sure that the police would have said, "Oh, Ok...talk to you tomorrow. Have a nice evening!"
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Police cannot arrest someone unless they have definitive probable cause. Knox gave them that probable cause.

She willfully accused Lumumba of raping and murdering Meredith and that she was a witness to this.

She told police she met Patrick in the basketball court and took him back to the cottage for sex with Meredith.

What did you expect the police to do???
Moving the goal post much there? I never claimed they had no reason to arrest her. You claimed she had 'not been taken into custody so it falls at the first hurdle' in reference to Salduz vs Turkey. Long before she accused (by coercion) Lumumba, the police had decided she was guilty as evidenced by the fact that, as Follain writes:

Quote:
It was now after midnight and Raffaele was still being questioned when Napoleoni suddenly slipped out to speak to the Flying Squad chief Profazio. She felt they were at last on to something. ‘Listen, Raffaele isn’t giving Amanda an alibi any more. He’s admitted he told a pack of lies because of Amanda,’ Napoleoni said. With her boss’s approval, Napoleoni instructed her colleague Ficarra: ‘Question Amanda again, on the record. Something’s not right here.’

It was then that they found the text message which they misinterpreted...after they believed Raffaele had pulled her alibi.Do you seriously want to tell me that the police would have let her go home at that point? She may not have been formally arrested, but she sure as hell was in custody and in reality, she was from the time Raff 'pulled her alibi'.

Quote:
The law required serious circumstantial evidence to hold a suspect in preventive custody – proof of guilt was not necessary. He had no proof as yet but the collapse of an alibi was seen as serious evidence of guilt, and this in his eyes applied to both Amanda and Raffaele.
Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case .
Stacyhs 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 14th May 2019, 11:48 AM   #3573
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The Italian government looks so foolish dragging this out. In their earliest court decisions it recognized there were problems inherent in the interrogation. They also seem to understand at the time the final Italian ruling was handed down the ECHR was going to rule this way.
While I don't know what issues the Italian government brought out in their request for referral, the Grand Chamber Panel (assuming it is functioning in accordance with the Convention and ECHR case-law) would only approve a request if the GC Panel found a significant issue important to the Convention in the Chamber judgment that they believed needed to be addressed by the Grand Chamber. An analogy to the US would be the way the US Supreme Court only takes cases on appeal that involve an important Constitutional issue. For the ECHR Grand Chamber Panel, such an issue may be simply the perceived need for the Grand Chamber to re-affirm the Chamber judgment about the violation of Article 6.1 with Article 6.3e (unfair trial as a result of denial of a fair interpreter). Because that violation is relatively rare in ECHR case-law, the GC Panel might consider it important for the Grand Chamber to review the Chamber judgment on that violation.
Numbers is online now   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 14th May 2019, 01:13 PM   #3574
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
...... and that the second one starts, in Italian!, with, "I want to spontaneously say....", which just so happens to be the so-called legal requirement allowing Mignini to deny Knox a lawyer.

It takes about 2 seconds for reasonable people to realize that a 20-year old foreigner would not spontaneously put it that way, esp. without heavy coaching or manipulation.

Over the years, guilter-nutters have never addressed this. I wonder why?
You'll find all Italian police witness statements begin with those words. It's the proforma, just as in England & Wales they end, 'this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge' or some such.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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 14th May 2019, 01:23 PM   #3575
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You'll find all Italian police witness statements begin with those words. It's the proforma, just as in England & Wales they end, 'this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge' or some such.
LOL! No, they don't. Stop making up things that are false.

None of the following witness statements have the word 'spontaneously' or anything similar in them. None of the rest I can link to do either.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...2-Nov-2007.pdf

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...2-Nov-2007.pdf

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...2-Nov-2007.pdf
Stacyhs 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 14th May 2019, 01:36 PM   #3576
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Moving the goal post much there? I never claimed they had no reason to arrest her. You claimed she had 'not been taken into custody so it falls at the first hurdle' in reference to Salduz vs Turkey. Long before she accused (by coercion) Lumumba, the police had decided she was guilty as evidenced by the fact that, as Follain writes:




It was then that they found the text message which they misinterpreted...after they believed Raffaele had pulled her alibi.Do you seriously want to tell me that the police would have let her go home at that point? She may not have been formally arrested, but she sure as hell was in custody and in reality, she was from the time Raff 'pulled her alibi'.


Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case .
The police (trying to solve a brutal murder, remember?) spoke to literally dozens of potential witnesses. Amanda Knox was the only one who falsely accused a named person as having done it.

She should stop blaming the police and take responsibility for her own actions, including paying Patrick the money she owes him for her criminal calumny.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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 14th May 2019, 01:41 PM   #3577
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL! No, they don't. Stop making up things that are false.

None of the following witness statements have the word 'spontaneously' or anything similar in them. None of the rest I can link to do either.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...2-Nov-2007.pdf

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...2-Nov-2007.pdf

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...2-Nov-2007.pdf
I note the Marco one is not a spontaneous statement but one he was asked to give. You'll note the Sophie Purton one does say 'spontaneous statement'.

In any case they look like typed up memos for the court rather than the original statements.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 14th May 2019 at 01:44 PM.
Vixen 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 14th May 2019, 02:51 PM   #3578
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The police (trying to solve a brutal murder, remember?) spoke to literally dozens of potential witnesses. Amanda Knox was the only one who falsely accused a named person as having done it.

She should stop blaming the police and take responsibility for her own actions, including paying Patrick the money she owes him for her criminal calumny.
Once again, you are moving the goalpost. Your post above has zero to do with the actual topic of the discussion as I pointed out above. Diversion is a tactic used when you do not want to address the actual topic. Your attempts at diversion are duly noted (again).
Stacyhs 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 14th May 2019, 03:12 PM   #3579
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I note the Marco one is not a spontaneous statement but one he was asked to give. You'll note the Sophie Purton one does say 'spontaneous statement'.
.
ROTFLMAO! So you are trying to claim that Sophie was not asked to give a statement? REALLY? Being taken to the police station and interviewed as witnesses was somehow different for Sophie than for Marco or for Luciano?
Robyn Butterworth's witness statement does not contain "spontaneous" or "sponateously". Neither does Bonassi's. Nor does Jade Bidwell's. So your claim that "You'll find all Italian police witness statements begin with those words," is just plain false. You made it up.


Quote:
In any case they look like typed up memos for the court rather than the original statements
Oh, my. That is almost...almost...as hysterical as your claim that the use of "did not commit the act" in the Marasca OFFICIAL MOTIVATION REPORT was just a "typo" or "clerical error".
Stacyhs 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 14th May 2019, 05:37 PM   #3580
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,862
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You'll find all Italian police witness statements begin with those words. It's the proforma, just as in England & Wales they end, 'this is a true statement to the best of my knowledge' or some such.
You want to absolve the police and courts for the 7 1/2 year legal debacle, that the Italian Supreme Court finally ended by absolving Sollecito and Knox in 2015.

To do this you are keen to invent things, like the post above does. It's neither to the "best of your knowledge", nor "some such".

You're simply inventing things.
__________________
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 14th May 2019, 06:36 PM   #3581
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Slick Pete's comment on the hysterical current Front Page TJMK article on Italy's request for a G.Chamber referral:

Quote:
Great work. You show up a huge mistake in the ECHR reasoning, which the Rome Ministry of Justice lawyers may not pick up on unless we advise them.
So now Slick Pete thinks the Rome Ministry of Justice lawyers need his and (what's left of) his comedy crew's legal advice!
They think they're the Scooby Doo Gang!


AK and RS: DARN! We'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids over on TJMK!

Last edited by Stacyhs; 14th May 2019 at 06:45 PM.
Stacyhs 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 15th May 2019, 05:53 AM   #3582
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
It will be interesting if Italy's request for referral to the Grand Chamber is accepted for the case Knox v. Italy. Currently, there are only 22 cases pending before the Grand Chamber, since the GC Panel applies a very strict scrutiny to requests for referral and accepts only cases it finds are exceptional, in accordance with Convention Article 43.

On its website, the ECHR has a schedule of the cases pending before the Grand Chamber and, for each, the date of the hearing (which is almost always broadcast online).

Today, 15 May, 2019, there will be a hearing of the case S.M. v. Croatia broadcast, and watching will give those who are interested an impression of the type of issues that the ECHR considers in these Grand Chamber cases. Each Grand Chamber hearing consists of presentations from the lawyers of the two parties and questions from the Grand Chamber judges. The judgments are not published until many months or sometimes even 1 or 2 years after the hearing.

Source: ttps://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=
Numbers is online now   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 15th May 2019, 09:35 AM   #3583
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It will be interesting if Italy's request for referral to the Grand Chamber is accepted for the case Knox v. Italy. Currently, there are only 22 cases pending before the Grand Chamber, since the GC Panel applies a very strict scrutiny to requests for referral and accepts only cases it finds are exceptional, in accordance with Convention Article 43.

On its website, the ECHR has a schedule of the cases pending before the Grand Chamber and, for each, the date of the hearing (which is almost always broadcast online).

Today, 15 May, 2019, there will be a hearing of the case S.M. v. Croatia broadcast, and watching will give those who are interested an impression of the type of issues that the ECHR considers in these Grand Chamber cases. Each Grand Chamber hearing consists of presentations from the lawyers of the two parties and questions from the Grand Chamber judges. The judgments are not published until many months or sometimes even 1 or 2 years after the hearing.

Source: ttps://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=
From the issues brought out in the webcast* of the Grand Chamber hearing of S. M. v. Croatia, there could be some similarity in the request for referral, not yet reviewed by the GC Panel, in Knox v. Italy to the request for referral approved by the GC Panel and heard 15 May 2019 by the Grand Chamber in S. M. v. Croatia.

In S. M. v. Croatia, a woman, S. M., complained to the police that she had been forced into prostitution by a man, who was a former police officer. A document was issued by an agency of the Croatian government, stating that S. M. was a victim of human trafficking. It is claimed by the Croatian government that this document is merely an administrative measure, used to provide aid to a potential victim, and not a finding that the alleged victim is legally a person who is a victim of human trafficking. The man accused by S. M. of trafficking her was tried on such charges and finally acquitted. S. M., in her application to the ECHR, claimed that not all the evidence or witnesses she had suggested to the authorities were introduced or heard in the domestic trial. The ECHR found based on the record that this claim was true and that was largely the basis for its Chamber judgment that Croatia had violated Convention Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labor) in its procedural branch.

The Croatian government argues in the Grand Chamber hearing that the evidence showed, in reality, that S. M. had voluntarily been a prostitute, that her application to the ECHR was merely seeking a reversal or expression of disapproval of the acquittal of the man who allegedly had trafficked her, and that the ECHR Chamber had overstepped its limitations of subsidiarity, that is, failing to respect the "margin of appreciation" owed to a state. Thus, there was no violation of Article 4 in the procedural branch.

In Knox v. Italy, I envision the possibility of Italy making similar arguments. It might claim that Knox's application is merely seeking a reversal or expression of disapproval of her final conviction for calunnia, that because she was, under the Italian government's view, a witness under Italian law when she made her first statement against Lumumba, and because in the Italian government's view, she did not suffer any coercion that would have made the interpreter's extraneous remarks influence Knox's statement, the Chamber judgment must be considered an overstepping of the limitations of subsidiarity, a failure to respect the "margin of appreciation" owed to a state.

We'll see whether Italy's request for referral is accepted or, as are most requests, rejected. And if it should be accepted, it's essentially certain that there will be interesting legal issues addressed.

*a better term than "broadcast", and the actual term used by the ECHR

Last edited by Numbers; 15th May 2019 at 09:38 AM.
Numbers is online now   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 15th May 2019, 09:43 AM   #3584
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
From the issues brought out in the webcast* of the Grand Chamber hearing of S. M. v. Croatia, there could be some similarity in the request for referral, not yet reviewed by the GC Panel, in Knox v. Italy to the request for referral approved by the GC Panel and heard 15 May 2019 by the Grand Chamber in S. M. v. Croatia.

In S. M. v. Croatia, a woman, S. M., complained to the police that she had been forced into prostitution by a man, who was a former police officer. A document was issued by an agency of the Croatian government, stating that S. M. was a victim of human trafficking. It is claimed by the Croatian government that this document is merely an administrative measure, used to provide aid to a potential victim, and not a finding that the alleged victim is legally a person who is a victim of human trafficking. The man accused by S. M. of trafficking her was tried on such charges and finally acquitted. S. M., in her application to the ECHR, claimed that not all the evidence or witnesses she had suggested to the authorities were introduced or heard in the domestic trial. The ECHR found based on the record that this claim was true and that was largely the basis for its Chamber judgment that Croatia had violated Convention Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labor) in its procedural branch.

The Croatian government argues in the Grand Chamber hearing that the evidence showed, in reality, that S. M. had voluntarily been a prostitute, that her application to the ECHR was merely seeking a reversal or expression of disapproval of the acquittal of the man who allegedly had trafficked her, and that the ECHR Chamber had overstepped its limitations of subsidiarity, that is, failing to respect the "margin of appreciation" owed to a state. Thus, there was no violation of Article 4 in the procedural branch.

In Knox v. Italy, I envision the possibility of Italy making similar arguments. It might claim that Knox's application is merely seeking a reversal or expression of disapproval of her final conviction for calunnia, that because she was, under the Italian government's view, a witness under Italian law when she made her first statement against Lumumba, and because in the Italian government's view, she did not suffer any coercion that would have made the interpreter's extraneous remarks influence Knox's statement, the Chamber judgment must be considered an overstepping of the limitations of subsidiarity, a failure to respect the "margin of appreciation" owed to a state.

We'll see whether Italy's request for referral is accepted or, as are most requests, rejected. And if it should be accepted, it's essentially certain that there will be interesting legal issues addressed.

*a better term than "broadcast", and the actual term used by the ECHR
Here are the concluding paragraphs of the Chamber judgment in S. M. v. Croatia, which may provide a better understanding of the issues (which include questions relevant to the Knox case: What constitutes coercion? What is the relevance of psychological factors? What are the obligations of a state when it is presented a complaint by an alleged victim?):

"79. The Court notes the applicant’s allegations of being economically dependent on T.M. and of various forms of coercion he had allegedly used against her such as stressing being a former policeman who had had “an arsenal of weapons”, making threats of hurting her family and manipulating her with false promises that he would find her a “proper job” (see paragraph 9 above) as well as M.I.’s statement that the applicant had been very distressed and scared of T.M. who had continued to threaten the applicant through social media network when she had lived with M.I. (see paragraph 10 above). There is no indication that the national authorities made a serious attempt to investigate in depth these circumstances, which were all relevant for assessing whether T.M. had forced the applicant into prostitution. It appears that no consideration was given to the fact that during the search of T.M.’s premises the police had found several pieces of automatic rifles (see paragraph 8 above). The national courts did not give adequate attention to these elements and concluded that the applicant had given sexual services voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court notes that according to Croatian law, the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others and the Council of Europe Anti-trafficking Convention, the consent of the victim is irrelevant (see above, paragraphs 24-25, 27 and 33).

80. The Court further notes that the national courts dismissed the applicant’s testimony as unreliable because they deemed her statement as being incoherent, that she had been unsure and that she had paused and hesitated when speaking (see paragraphs 18 and 35 above). The national authorities did not make any assessment of the possible impact of psychological trauma on the applicant’s ability to consistently and clearly relate the circumstances of her exploitation. The Court, given the vulnerability of the victims of sexually-related offences, also accepts that the encounter with T.M. in the courtroom could have had an adverse effect on the applicant, regardless of T.M. being subsequently removed from the courtroom (see paragraph 15 above).

(iv) Conclusion

81. In conclusion, the Court considers that the above elements demonstrate that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the relevant State authorities did not fulfil their procedural obligations under Article 4 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention."

Last edited by Numbers; 15th May 2019 at 09:47 AM.
Numbers is online now   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 15th May 2019, 09:56 PM   #3585
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,862
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Slick Pete's comment on the hysterical current Front Page TJMK article on Italy's request for a G.Chamber referral:

Quote:
Great work. You show up a huge mistake in the ECHR reasoning, which the Rome Ministry of Justice lawyers may not pick up on unless we advise them.
So now Slick Pete thinks the Rome Ministry of Justice lawyers need his and (what's left of) his comedy crew's legal advice!
They think they're the Scooby Doo Gang!


AK and RS: DARN! We'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids over on TJMK!
Wait.

A.

Minute.

Peter Quennell is always citing "100s of lawyers in Italy" as being his source for his theories and factoids.

Now he has to personally advise the Rome Ministry of Justice lawyers himself, or they won't pick up on what to his is obvious?

Those 100s of lawyers in Italy working for PQ must be really incompetent!
__________________
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 16th May 2019, 10:43 AM   #3586
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Wait.

A.

Minute.

Peter Quennell is always citing "100s of lawyers in Italy" as being his source for his theories and factoids.

Now he has to personally advise the Rome Ministry of Justice lawyers himself, or they won't pick up on what to his is obvious?

Those 100s of lawyers in Italy working for PQ must be really incompetent!
You're underestimating all those legal geniuses over on TJMK. After all, their claims that Knox and Sollecito would be definitively convicted and spending 20+ years in prison were all correct. Oh...wait......
But then, they were right when they said that Knox would be arrested if she set foot in Europe. Oh...darn....

Ok...so Knox did lose the defamation suit brought by the police and Mignini and Sollecito and Gumbel did lose that suit against their book.

Oh. Never mind.
Stacyhs 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 17th May 2019, 03:41 PM   #3587
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You're underestimating all those legal geniuses over on TJMK. After all, their claims that Knox and Sollecito would be definitively convicted and spending 20+ years in prison were all correct. Oh...wait......
But then, they were right when they said that Knox would be arrested if she set foot in Europe. Oh...darn....

Ok...so Knox did lose the defamation suit brought by the police and Mignini and Sollecito and Gumbel did lose that suit against their book.

Oh. Never mind.
She did visit Ireland and Germany already and I forget, when is her speaking engagement in Italy?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 17th May 2019, 05:05 PM   #3588
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
She did visit Ireland and Germany already and I forget, when is her speaking engagement in Italy?
June 13-15 is the conference. When she'll actually arrive/leave Italy is anyone's guess right now. I wonder if it will be on a private chartered jet again?
Stacyhs 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 17th May 2019, 08:20 PM   #3589
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
June 13-15 is the conference. When she'll actually arrive/leave Italy is anyone's guess right now. I wonder if it will be on a private chartered jet again?
Another one of those British Airways 747s I'm sure.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 18th May 2019, 03:22 PM   #3590
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
It's rather telling that only 2 people, besides the author herself, have bothered to respond to the latest article on TJMK about Italy's request for referral to the Grand Chamber. Those two people are Quennell and Hopeful. Must be rather disappointing to the author.
Stacyhs 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 18th May 2019, 04:29 PM   #3591
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It's rather telling that only 2 people, besides the author herself, have bothered to respond to the latest article on TJMK about Italy's request for referral to the Grand Chamber. Those two people are Quennell and Hopeful. Must be rather disappointing to the author.
This thing is a dead horse Stacy that we're all beating. I'm somewhat interested that anyone is still interested. But that's about it. I really wonder why Italy requested a referral.

Is there really a legal principle worthwhile. Or are they like Quennell, Hopeful and Vixen and just cant let it go.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 18th May 2019, 04:56 PM   #3592
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
I think Italy just can't let it go. They were embarrassed in front of the world with the last motivation report. Plus, they don't want to pay the judgment awarded to Knox.
Stacyhs 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 18th May 2019, 06:56 PM   #3593
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think Italy just can't let it go. They were embarrassed in front of the world with the last motivation report. Plus, they don't want to pay the judgment awarded to Knox.
I think you're two first sentences have merit. It's definitely not the money. This is a pittance. This case was so public that embarrassment seems likely. But considering that the final Italian motivation said the whole thing was a cluster, why look for more embarrassment at being rejected?

I guess in for a penny, in for a pound.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 18th May 2019, 07:01 PM   #3594
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think Italy just can't let it go. They were embarrassed in front of the world with the last motivation report. Plus, they don't want to pay the judgment awarded to Knox.
Most likely, Italy's request for referral of Knox v. Italy to the Grand Chamber is intended: 1) as a delaying tactic by Italy to avoid admitting it violated international law and 2) to show the Italian police, prosecutors and their supporters in the judiciary that the Italian government will strive to provide them with impunity for misconduct.

Last edited by Numbers; 18th May 2019 at 08:26 PM.
Numbers is online now   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 18th May 2019, 07:11 PM   #3595
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Most likely, Italy's request for referral of Knox v. Italy to the Grand Chamber is intended: 1) as a delaying tactic by Italy to avoid admitting it violated international law and 2) to show the Italian police, prosecutors and their supporters in the judiciary that the Italian will strive to provide them with impunity for misconduct.
To show Italy's desperation in trying to avoid the ECHR's judgment in the Knox v. Italy case, here's one of the Italian government's poorly reasoned arguments for inadmissibility of some of the claims and the ECHR's response demolishing that argument. The translation from the original French is by Google with my help.

"B. {Alleged} Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention

109. The {Italian} Government submitted that, at the time of the introduction of the application, on 24 November 2013, the applicant's conviction for malicious false accusation was not final and that, therefore, this part of the complaint should be declared inadmissible.

110. The Court reiterates that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is assessed, with certain exceptions, at the date of submission of the application to the Court (Baumann v. France, No. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001- V (extracts)).

111. However, it also recalls that it tolerates the completion of the last level of domestic remedies shortly after the filing of the application, but before it is called upon to decide on the admissibility of the application (Zalyan et al. Armenia, Nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, March 17, 2016, and Škorjanec v. Croatia, No. 25536/14, § 44, March 28, 2017).

112. In any event, in the present case, the Court notes that the conviction in question was confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Cassation filed on 18 June 2013, at the end of three levels of jurisdiction, and that the reference to the Assize Court of Appeal concerned only the existence of the aggravating circumstance.

113. In view of the foregoing, the objection raised by the Government must be rejected."

Last edited by Numbers; 18th May 2019 at 07:12 PM.
Numbers is online now   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 18th May 2019, 07:42 PM   #3596
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Most likely, Italy's request for referral of Knox v. Italy to the Grand Chamber is intended: 1) as a delaying tactic by Italy to avoid admitting it violated international law and 2) to show the Italian police, prosecutors and their supporters in the judiciary that the Italian will strive to provide them with impunity for misconduct.
I agree, although it seems like they are denying the inevitable. Its amazing how authority doesn't like being challenged. I wonder how many requests for referrals are made by the individual states when a the ECHR rules against them? Is this just pro-forma?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 18th May 2019, 08:20 PM   #3597
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I agree, although it seems like they are denying the inevitable. Its amazing how authority doesn't like being challenged. I wonder how many requests for referrals are made by the individual states when a the ECHR rules against them? Is this just pro-forma?
I don't know up-to-date statistics for how many requests for referral are made by the respondent states compared to those made by the applicants or both.

However, the ECHR has provided some statistics for requests for referral up to October, 2011, in its publication Practice of the Grand Chamber Panel. From page 4 of that publication:

"Since the entry into force, on 1 November 1998, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Panel has examined 2,129 requests for referral. 40.01% of these requests (852) were made by respondent Governments, 56.50% (1,203) by applicants and 3.47% (74) by both parties.

Only 110 requests (approximately 5.16% of all requests) have been accepted so far, resulting in the case being referred to the Grand Chamber. Out of these 110 successful requests, 59 (approximately 2.77% of all requests) were made by the respondent Governments, 44 (approximately 2.06% of all requests) by the applicants and 7 (approximately 0.32% of all requests) by both parties.

These statistics show that:

(a) requests for referral are accepted in only a small percentage of cases (slightly more than 5%); indeed, only “exceptional cases” are brought before the Grand Chamber, in accordance with the text and spirit of Article 43 of the Convention;

(b) 53.63% of successful requests were made by the respondent Governments, whereas they submitted only 40.01% of the total number of requests; it can therefore be said that to date, Governments have been significantly more successful than applicants in obtaining referrals;

(c) the total number of referral requests is high (and likely to increase); the Court would therefore have a substantial amount of additional work if the Panel had an obligation to give reasons for each of its decisions of acceptance or rejection.

Finally, it may be noted that to date, the majority of cases (110, as indicated above) brought before the Grand Chamber have been the result of the referral procedure, while only 101 cases have resulted from relinquishment of jurisdiction by a Chamber.* It follows that the Grand Chamber’s caseload has originated in referral in approximately 52.13% of cases and in relinquishment in approximately 47.87% of cases."

* This is another way a case may reach the Grand Chamber - a Chamber decides that the case would be better handled by the larger body, possibly because of its complexity or the lack of existing applicable case-law.

Here's one example of a case that was judged in a state's favor by the Grand Chamber after a judgment against the state by the Chamber and subsequent acceptance by the GC Panel of the state's request for referral. The Grand Chamber judged that display of crucifixes in classrooms of schools run by the government of Italy was not a violation of the Convention, because since there was no instruction in religion in the schools or pressure on the students to follow any religion, the state was within its "margin of appreciation" to display them. Here are excerpts from the legal summaries:

LAUTSI AND OTHERS v. ITALY 30814/06 (Grand Chamber) 18/03/2011

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

Respect for parents' philosophical convictions

Respect for parents' religious convictions

Display of crucifixes in State-school classrooms: no violation

LAUTSI v. ITALY 30814/06 (Chamber) 03/11/2009

Article 9

Article 9-1

Freedom of religion

Manifest religion or belief

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1

Respect for parents' philosophical convictions

Respect for parents' religious convictions

Display of crucifixes in State-school classrooms: violation

[This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 1 March 2010]

Last edited by Numbers; 18th May 2019 at 08:21 PM.
Numbers is online now   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 18th May 2019, 10:59 PM   #3598
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,061
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think Italy just can't let it go. They were embarrassed in front of the world with the last motivation report. Plus, they don't want to pay the judgment awarded to Knox.
They knew they took a girl into a middle of the night interrogation room and harassed her into signing a document as a suspect with no lawyer and no witnesses (tape recorder). They should've left it at that but they took a big gamble with the egregious calunnia charge to get Patrick's testimony and the statement in front of the jury and now they're crying it backfired. What sore losers haha
bagels 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 19th May 2019, 12:09 AM   #3599
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
They knew they took a girl into a middle of the night interrogation room and harassed her into signing a document as a suspect with no lawyer and no witnesses (tape recorder). They should've left it at that but they took a big gamble with the egregious calunnia charge to get Patrick's testimony and the statement in front of the jury and now they're crying it backfired. What sore losers haha
I agree the tactic was to get Lumumba's testimony and statement in front of the jury.
I also suspect Lumumba's tune changing so drastically from claiming the police "hit, kicked, punched and threatened" him to his being "treated well" had two motivations:

1. He could sue both police (wrongful arrest and jailing) AND Knox (calunnia) by claiming he was 'treated well' by the police. He couldn't very well sue Knox for calunnia if he supported her account of being coerced, slapped, and threatened.

2. He was in danger of being sued himself for calunnia by the police if he continued to claim he was abused during is interrogation just like Knox.
Stacyhs 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 19th May 2019, 06:48 AM   #3600
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,738
Those interested in the ECHR may wish to compare the judgment in K.C. v. Romania 45060/10 30/10/2018 (available only in English; Committee judgment, so no press release or legal summary published) with that in Knox v. Italy 76577/13 24/01/2019 (available in French [official], Italian, and Romanian; Chamber judgment, so legal and press summaries available [in English]). Both cases found violations of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c and 6.1 with 6.3e. Both involved use of statements written in an initial interrogation without a lawyer used as evidence to convict (K.C.'s was written by him in English; he is a US national who was studying in Romania). K.C. was denied an interpreter during the initial interrogation, while Knox was provided an interpreter, but that interpreter did not "enable the accused to have knowledge of the case against him or her and to defend him or herself" (paragraph 49 of K.C. v. Romania). Note that the ECHR considered the case K.C. v. Romania so straight-forward in comparison to its case-law that it was reviewed by a 3-judge Committee rather than a 7-judge Chamber.
Numbers is online now   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 05:58 AM.
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.