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 7th December 2017, 04:43 PM   #561
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The PGP's use of the word "torture" is a tactic. Using inflammatory and hyperbolic wording is actually an effort to minimize the action.
It was Knox who brought up Article 3.
__________________
3. So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 7th December 2017, 04:49 PM   #562
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,438
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was Knox who brought up Article 3.
Vixen do you bother to read the excellent posts above?

From the ECHR ruling above.

105. The Court reiterates that it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes for there to be degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, it does not doubt that even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect on the person receiving it may be perceived as humiliating by that person.

So if Knox was slapped, 'even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect', this would be a breach of article 3 according to the ECHR.
Planigale 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 7th December 2017, 04:51 PM   #563
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And you accused me of changing the context and the subject?
You claimed that "under Italian law Dalla Vedova had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse". THAT is what you were requested to provide a citation for and have failed to do.
What is required in England and Wales for a lawyer to advice advise his client to do is irrelevant. Additionally, that is not even he same subject; being required to report the abuse is not the same thing as advising them of the complaint procedure.

As you have been told before, the complaint of being hit, etc was made known to the police in writing via the memorial that Amanda handed to Ficarra before she even had a lawyer and which became part of the court records. AND she testified to it. Your claim that there is no record of any complaint to the police is wrong.


(Boninsegna MR)


You just don't get it, do you? It is no good complaining to the court. All the court does is listen. It cannot and should not give you legal advice.

If you have a complaint about, say Amazon, why would you go and tell Google about it.

Find out the correct complaints procedure and use it.

Either Dalla Vedova has falsely claimed brutality and torture on behalf of Knox, or he was grossly negligent in not going through the proper complaints procedure on behalf of his client, as his inaction means an application to the ECHR will be rejected as their Directions set out that all internal complaints procedures must be followed first.

This applies to consumer law, employment law, small claims, faulty goods, etc.

You must give the other party an opportunity to make redress or rectify the matter.

In fact, it is common knowledge that Italian Contract Law is a nightmare, so Dalla Vedova has no excuse to not know of the compulsory requirement to mediate before going to court.
__________________
3. So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 7th December 2017, 04:54 PM   #564
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Vixen do you bother to read the excellent posts above?

From the ECHR ruling above.

105. The Court reiterates that it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes for there to be degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, it does not doubt that even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect on the person receiving it may be perceived as humiliating by that person.

So if Knox was slapped, 'even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect', this would be a breach of article 3 according to the ECHR.

Where is the medical report? We only have Knox' word and we know how crafty she is. Not a reliable witness at all.

And her lawyers did not file a complaint.
__________________
3. So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834

Last edited by Vixen; 7th December 2017 at 04:55 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 7th December 2017, 05:22 PM   #565
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,766
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Where is the medical report? We only have Knox' word and we know how crafty she is. Not a reliable witness at all.

And her lawyers did not file a complaint.
Why don't you settle down and let the ECHR worry about the ECHR. You'll find out with the rest of us how wrong you are.
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 7th December 2017, 05:31 PM   #566
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,766
I can't even comprehend what the PGP think the ECHR is for if it's not for a criminal suspect detained without charges, denied a lawyer, given a fake cop translator, and slapped around and told to sign a self incriminating statement unlocked from their supposed trauma induced amnesia or they would go to prison for 30 years.
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 7th December 2017, 06:24 PM   #567
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
I can't even comprehend what the PGP think the ECHR is for if it's not for a criminal suspect detained without charges, denied a lawyer, given a fake cop translator, and slapped around and told to sign a self incriminating statement unlocked from their supposed trauma induced amnesia or they would go to prison for 30 years.
Courts expect proof.

Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.
__________________
3. So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 7th December 2017, 06:55 PM   #568
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
She has quoted Article 3 in her ECHR claim. This is the 'torture' article. It needs to be rather more substantial than 'the police were mean to me'.


The police are not your mates.


Boninsegna agreed the police treated Knox too kindly.


What part of what has been quoted to you from the ECHR are you not understanding? Is it this part?

Quote:
101. The Court emphasises that the words “in principle” cannot be taken to mean that there might be situations in which such a finding of a violation is not called for, because the above-mentioned severity threshold has not been attained. Any interference with human dignity strikes at the very essence of the Convention. For that reason any conduct by law-enforcement officers vis-à-vis an individual which diminishes human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. That applies in particular to their use of physical force against an individual where it is not made strictly necessary by his conduct, whatever the impact on the person in question.
Or is it this part?

Quote:
105. The Court reiterates that it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes for there to be degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, it does not doubt that even one unpremeditated slap devoid of any serious or long-term effect on the person receiving it may be perceived as humiliating by that person.
Please quote directly from Boninsegna where they "agreed the police treated Knox too kindly" because it's not in the MR that I've read. Boninsegna refers to the police description of the treatment of Knox but does not agree or diasage that is what actually occurred. Indeed, Boninsegna says their
description of their treatment of Knox was called "apparently sugarcoated, is certainly not an elegant counterpoint to, but rather in irreconcilable conflict with the immediately subsequent incarceration of the woma". And, if it actually were as they described, it was not the appropriate manner in the first place.

No, the police are not your mates, nor are they allowed to physically strike you.
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 7th December 2017, 07:02 PM   #569
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,766
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts expect proof.

Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.
Here's some random English words I found on the internet as long as we're not contributing anything to the discussion: copper explain ill-fated truck neat unite branch educated tenuous hum decisive notice
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 7th December 2017, 07:08 PM   #570
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You just don't get it, do you? It is no good complaining to the court. All the court does is listen. It cannot and should not give you legal advice.

If you have a complaint about, say Amazon, why would you go and tell Google about it.

Find out the correct complaints procedure and use it.

Either Dalla Vedova has falsely claimed brutality and torture on behalf of Knox, or he was grossly negligent in not going through the proper complaints procedure on behalf of his client, as his inaction means an application to the ECHR will be rejected as their Directions set out that all internal complaints procedures must be followed first.

This applies to consumer law, employment law, small claims, faulty goods, etc.

You must give the other party an opportunity to make redress or rectify the matter.

In fact, it is common knowledge that Italian Contract Law is a nightmare, so Dalla Vedova has no excuse to not know of the compulsory requirement to mediate before going to court.
It's amazing, but unsurprising, how you continue to fall back on "procedure" as if that negates or minimizes the fact that Knox did report the abuse in her written statement within hours of the interrogation.

Once again you set yourself up as an authority on what Dalla Vedova should or should not have done in his capacity as Knox's defense lawyer. YOU are not a lawyer, and especially not one versed in Italian law. Dalla Vedova IS a lawyer versed in Italian law. Additionally, you have failed to cite a single source that supports your claim that, under Italian law, he had a duty and obligation to report the police abuse. Your one attempt to do so was exposed as having nothing to do with your claim. Your posts are no more than so much bloviating.
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 7th December 2017, 07:15 PM   #571
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Why don't you settle down and let the ECHR worry about the ECHR. You'll find out with the rest of us how wrong you are.
It's amusing that the guilters (PGP) seem entirely ignorant of the ECHR processes and rules, although the ECHR and Council of Europe have expended considerable effort in publishing online information on the ECHR processes and rules. I suppose that ignoring these online publications is consistent with giving the guilters more flexibility in their malicious and uninformed attacks on Knox and Sollecito, who were definitively acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation more than 2 years ago.

Here's some of the information available from the ECHR publications about admissibility and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Inline references are omitted for clarity. I have previously posted some excerpts from these publications.

ECHR case-law considers raising an issue regarding a violation of Article 3 in court absolutely equivalent to filing a complaint with the police or a prosecutor. Even a hand-written note presented to the police, claiming in substance a violation, such as Amanda Knox's Memoriale 1, would qualify, because it is the absolute obligation of the prosecutor under Italian law to launch an investigation when notified of a crime.

According to ECHR case-law, it is the responsibility of the authorities to effectively and independently investigate any credible allegation of a violation of Article 3, whether that allegation is made to the police, a prosecutor, or in court. If the allegation is presented in testimony before a first-instance court and addressed by appeal at each subsequent court level, and finally and definitively rejected, then all domestic remedies have been satisfied, according to ECHR case-law. Since Knox testified on the matter in the Massei Court and appealed to each subsequent court, including the final one for the calunnia conviction, the Chieffi CSC panel, all domestic remedies were exhausted.

Article 35 § 1 – Admissibility criteria
“1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law …”

61. The Court is intended to be subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights and it is appropriate that the national courts should initially have the opportunity to determine questions regarding the compatibility of domestic law with the Convention....

63. The rationale for the exhaustion rule is to afford the national authorities, primarily the courts, the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violations of the Convention. It is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13, that the domestic legal order will provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights. .... It applies regardless of whether the provisions of the Convention have been incorporated into national law ....

64. The exhaustion rule may be described as one that is golden rather than cast in stone. The Commission and the Court have frequently underlined the need to apply the rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights .... The rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically .... For example, the Court decided that it would be unduly formalistic to require the applicants to avail themselves of a remedy which even the highest court of the country had not obliged them to use....

65. Applicants must comply with the applicable rules and procedures of domestic law, failing which their application is likely to fall foul of the condition laid down in Article 35.... However, it should be noted that where an appellate court examines the merits of a claim even though it considers it inadmissible, Article 35 § 1 will be complied with .... This is also the case regarding applicants who have failed to observe the forms prescribed by domestic law, if the competent authority has nevertheless examined the substance of the claim .... The same applies to claims worded in a very cursory fashion barely satisfying the legal requirements, where the court has ruled on the merits of the case albeit briefly ....

66. If more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them .... Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required .... It is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate in his or her case. To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective....

68. Applicants are only obliged to exhaust domestic remedies which are available in theory and in practice at the relevant time and which they can directly institute themselves – that is to say, remedies that are accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offering reasonable prospects of success....

72. The existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice. In determining whether any particular remedy meets the criteria of availability and effectiveness, regard must be had to the particular circumstances of the individual case....

74. The Court must take realistic account not only of formal remedies available in the domestic legal system, but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant....

75. According to the “generally recognised rules of international law”, there may be special circumstances dispensing the applicant from the obligation to avail him or herself of the domestic remedies available....

The rule is also inapplicable where an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts incompatible with the Convention and official tolerance by the State authorities has been shown to exist, and is of such a nature as to make proceedings futile or ineffective
....

In cases where requiring the applicant to use a particular remedy would be unreasonable in practice and would constitute a disproportionate obstacle to the effective exercise of the right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant is dispensed from that requirement....

76. Where the government claims non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of proving that the applicant has not used a remedy that was both effective and available .... The availability of any such remedy must be sufficiently certain in law and in practice .... The remedy’s basis in domestic law must therefore be clear .... The remedy must be capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and of offering reasonable prospects of success....

79. Once the government has discharged its burden of proving that there was an appropriate and effective remedy available to the applicant, it is for the latter to show that:
− the remedy was in fact used ...; or
− the remedy was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case ..., or a remedy which is normally available, such as an appeal on points of law, but which, in the light of the approach taken in similar cases, was ineffective in the circumstances of the case .... ; or
− there existed special circumstances absolving the applicant from the requirement
....

80. One such factor may be constituted by the national authorities remaining totally passive in the face of serious allegations of misconduct or infliction of harm by State agents, for example where they have failed to undertake investigations or offer assistance. In such circumstances it can be said that the burden of proof shifts once again, so that it becomes incumbent on the respondent government to show what it has done in response to the scale and seriousness of the matters complained of....

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?...601286_pointer
See PDF: Admissibility Guide (aka Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria)
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 7th December 2017, 07:16 PM   #572
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Where is the medical report? We only have Knox' word and we know how crafty she is. Not a reliable witness at all.

And her lawyers did not file a complaint.
This question has already been answered but as you seem to have missed it, I'll post it here again:

Quote:
There is no medical report of torture because she has never claimed she was "tortured" physically. Since when do three hand slaps to the back of the head result in physical damage? Again, this is just another classic example of your need to grossly exaggerate in an effort to support your position. And it fails miserably.
Continuation 27 post #228

It doesn't matter if her lawyers filed a complaint or not. Her claim is part of the court records. Stop trying to divert from this fact with nonsense.
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 7th December 2017, 07:24 PM   #573
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts expect proof.

Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.
By George, I think you've got it! Which is exactly why RS and AK were acquitted of murder: because there was no proof.

Once again, you are not a lawyer, much less an Italian lawyer. You don't know what is required by Italian law when it come to how this was required to have been handled. You simply make statements as if they are fact but present not a shred of evidence in support. That is simply not good enough. Come back when you have that evidence. Otherwise, you are just wasting our time.
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 7th December 2017, 07:44 PM   #574
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
'Fraid so. How is the PM going to know about torture and cruelty if it is not reported?

The American ambassador and Knox' lawyers had every opportunity to go down the complaints route.
For heaven's sake quit with the "torture" meme. It's getting tiring.

Knox reported it as part of her court testimony. Comodi said so multiple times in justifying charging Knox with defamation FOR REPORTING IT. Knox's parents were also charged with defamation for mentioning her testimony in John Follain's newspaper piece.

This is idiotic. The Bogninsegna court acquitted Knox for being charged with defamation FOR REPORTING IT.

Quit with the idiotic posts.
__________________
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 7th December 2017, 07:52 PM   #575
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
For heaven's sake quit with the "torture" meme. It's getting tiring.

Knox reported it as part of her court testimony. Comodi said so multiple times in justifying charging Knox with defamation FOR REPORTING IT. Knox's parents were also charged with defamation for mentioning her testimony in John Follain's newspaper piece.

This is idiotic. The Bogninsegna court acquitted Knox for being charged with defamation FOR REPORTING IT.

Quit with the idiotic posts.
This whole tactic reminds me of someone else's MO: bloviate, divert, lie, misrepresent then repeat... and hope idiots will fall for it. Only this is the wrong forum for that.
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 7th December 2017, 07:56 PM   #576
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts expect proof.

Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.
I have no doubt that the appropriate forms were available in Amanda's cell in English.
whoanellie 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 7th December 2017, 08:43 PM   #577
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was Knox who brought up Article 3.
At least she seems to have read Article 3, unlike you. Get back to the thread when you've read it and discover your mistake.
__________________
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 7th December 2017, 09:22 PM   #578
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This question has already been answered but as you seem to have missed it, I'll post it here again:

Continuation 27 post #228

It doesn't matter if her lawyers filed a complaint or not. Her claim is part of the court records. Stop trying to divert from this fact with nonsense.
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
For heaven's sake quit with the "torture" meme. It's getting tiring.

Knox reported it as part of her court testimony. Comodi said so multiple times in justifying charging Knox with defamation FOR REPORTING IT. Knox's parents were also charged with defamation for mentioning her testimony in John Follain's newspaper piece.

This is idiotic. The Bogninsegna court acquitted Knox for being charged with defamation FOR REPORTING IT.

Quit with the idiotic posts.
Exactly.

But it goes a little deeper:

1. Knox REPORTED being mistreated by the police in her Memoriale 1, written in English on Nov. 6, 2007, soon after the interrogations, including that by Mignini, were completed.

2. The police filed the REPORT, Memoriale 1, in her case file. One must assume the prosecutor, Mignini, was aware of this REPORT.

3. The police and prosecutor took NO ACTION TO INVESTIGATE, including no attempt by them to obtain a formal complaint. Under Italian law, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to assure that persons making "informal" complaints are made aware of any formal requirements and that complaints are investigated and prosecuted when the investigation shows that grounds to prosecute exist.

4. The Italian courts were AWARE of Knox's REPORT, Memoriale 1, which is a complaint under ECHR case-law.

5. In particular, the Gemelli CSC panel was AWARE of Knox's REPORT, but it did not instruct a lower court to order an independent INVESTIGATION by police not involved with the interrogation or the Rome or Perugia police command, which it had authority to do.

6. The Gemelli CSC panel ACKNOWLEDGED that Knox was or became a SUSPECT during the interrogation, and that CPP Article 63 had been VIOLATED by the police. Thus, neither of the two INTERROGATION STATEMENTS signed by Knox could be used against her according to the Gemelli CSC panel judgment.

7. Then, in the same judgment, the Gemelli CSC panel decided that Knox's REPORT, Memoriale 1, was a DEFENSIVE STATEMENT, referencing the matter of the INTERROGATION STATEMENTS. Because it was a document originating solely from the accused, the Gemelli CSC panel ruled it could be used as evidence against Knox. Therefore, the Gemelli CSC panel ruled that Knox's INTERROGATION STATEMENTS could be used as evidence against Knox, but only for the charge of CALUNNIA against Lumumba.

8. Thus, it appears the Gemelli CSC panel predetermined that Knox was to be punished for her REPORT alleging mistreatment by the police by being CONVICTED of CALUNNIA against Lumumba.

9. Therefore, the prejudicial actions of the Gemelli CSC panel would indicate that it was not advisable for Knox to file a FORMAL COMPLAINT against the police, since any such FORMAL COMPLAINT would used to wrongfully accuse Knox of CALUNNIA against the POLICE.

10. Instead, Knox choose to testify about her mistreatment by the police in open court, and to include reference to it in each of her appeals. For this testimony and the appeals, Knox was charged with the crime of continuous aggravated calunnia against the police. The aggravating factors, "continuous" and "aggravated", were added to the charge because: 1) her statements about the police mistreatment were repeated in each appeal, and 2) the prosecutor alleged that her statements against the police were intended to cover up another crime - Knox's alleged calunnia against Lumumba.

11. Examining this sequence of events, the ECHR will have no problem with Knox's choice of remedy and clearly the remedy was exhausted.

Last edited by Numbers; 7th December 2017 at 09:26 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 7th December 2017, 10:07 PM   #579
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
.....
11. Examining this sequence of events, the ECHR will have no problem with Knox's choice of remedy and clearly the remedy was exhausted.
To remind ourselves, the ECHR is well aware of the Boninsegna court judgment and presumably all the history inherent in it; that judgment is mentioned explicitly by the ECHR in the April, 2016 Communication to Italy of Knox v. Italy.

That Communication (as is typical of essentially all [initial] communications) asks Italy whether domestic remedies have been exhausted. The response from Italy would have been received in 2016, and the current Country Profile for Italy lists Knox v. Italy with all the complaints lodged by Knox intact.

Here's relevant excepts from the Communication:

Communiquée le 29 avril 2016
*
PREMIÈRE SECTION
Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

....

GRIEFS
1. La requérante soulève plusieurs griefs concernant le manque d’équité de la procédure pénale à l’issue de laquelle elle a été condamnée à trois ans de réclusion pour dénonciation calomnieuse.
a) Invoquant l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 a) de la Convention, la requérante se plaint de ne pas avoir été informée dans les meilleurs délais et dans une langue compréhensible de la nature et des motifs de l’accusation formulée à sa charge.
b) Sous l’angle de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c), elle dénonce en outre ne pas avoir été assistée par un avocat lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007.
c) Invoquant l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 e), la requérante se plaint également de ne pas avoir été assistée par un interprète professionnel et indépendant au cours de son interrogatoire et de ce que l’agente de police l’ayant assistée pendant les interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 a exécuté des fonctions de « médiatrice » ainsi suggérant des hypothèses sur le déroulement des faits.
2. Invoquant l’article 3 de la Convention, la requérante se plaint de ce que les tapes sur la tête qu’elle a subies (scappellotti) ont constitué des traitements inhumains et dégradants.
3. Invoquant l’article 8 de la Convention, elle dénonce la violation de son droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, au motif que, le 6 novembre 2007, elle a été obligée de répondre à des questions concernant M. D.L. alors qu’elle se trouvait en défaut de discernement et de volonté (incapacità di intendere e volere) et sous pression psychologique.
*

*
DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
*
1. La requérante est invitée à produire une copie de l’arrêt du tribunal de Pérouse du 5 décembre 2009, concernant sa condamnation pour dénonciation calomnieuse, ainsi qu’une copie du recours en appel et du pourvoi en cassation concernant cette procédure.
*
2. Les parties sont invitées à indiquer si l’arrêt du tribunal de Florence du 14 janvier 2016 a été attaqué ou s’il est devenu définitif ainsi qu’à fournir une copie des documents pertinents.
QUESTIONS AUX PARTIES
1. La requérante a-t-elle épuisé les voies de recours internes qui lui étaient ouvertes pour se plaindre de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, concernant les tapes (scappellotti) prétendument subies, et des articles 6 §§ 1 et 3 a), c) et e) et 8 de la Convention ?
*
2. Dans l’affirmative :
*
a) la requérante a-t-elle été soumise, en violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants ?
*
b) La requérante a-t-elle, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 a) de la Convention, été informée, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu’elle comprenait et d’une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation portée contre elle pour dénonciation calomnieuse ?
*
c) La requérante a-t-elle pu avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix, comme l’exige l’article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention, notamment lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007 ?
*
d) La requérante a-t-elle obtenu l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète, au sens de l’article 6 § 3 e) de la Convention ?
*
e) La pression psychologique prétendument subie par la requérante lors des interrogatoires du 6 novembre 2007, a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit de celle-ci à un procès équitable, au sens de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention, et au droit au respect de sa vie privée, protégé par l’article 8 § 1 de la Convention ?

The following translation is by Google with my help:

Communicated on 29 April 2016

*

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
against Italy
lodged on November 24, 2013

....

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant raises several complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings following which she was sentenced to three years in prison for false accusation.

a) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 a) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being informed promptly and in a language that she understood of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.

b) In terms of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c), she also alleges that she was not assisted by a lawyer during the interrogation of 6 November 2007.

c) Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 e), the applicant also complains that she was not assisted by a professional and independent interpreter during interrogation and that the police officer who assisted during the interrogation of 6 November 2007 performed the duties of a "mediator", thereby suggesting hypotheses about what events had taken place.

2. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the slaps on the head that she suffered (scappellotti) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment.

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, she denounces the violation of her right to respect for private and family life, on the grounds that, on 6 November 2007, she was forced to answer questions about Mr DL so that she was unable to exercise judgment and will (incapacità di intendere volere e) and under psychological pressure.


INFORMATION REQUEST

1. The applicant is requested to produce a copy of the judgment of the Perugia court of 5 December 2009 regarding her conviction for false accusation and a copy of the appeal and of the appeal regarding this procedure.

2. The parties are invited to indicate whether the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016* was appealed or if it has become final and to provide copies of relevant documents.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

2. If so:

a) Was the applicant subjected, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, to inhuman or degrading treatment?

b) Was the applicant, as required by Article 6 § 3 a) of the Convention, informed promptly, in a language she could understand and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charges against her for false accusation?

c) Did the applicant have the assistance of counsel of her choice, as required by Article 6 § 3 c) of the Convention, especially during the interrogation of 6 November 2007?

d) Did the applicant obtain the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention?

e) Did the psychological pressure allegedly suffered by the applicant during the interrogations of 6 November 2007, violate the right of the applicant to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
_____
* The Boninsegna court judgment. It is a final and definitive acquittal.
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 7th December 2017, 11:36 PM   #580
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Aw...come on, Numbers! Stop trying to disprove Vixen's false and unsupported statements with actual facts. You know darn well everything you just posted is a hoax initiated and perpetuated by the G-M paid shills.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 7th December 2017 at 11:53 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 8th December 2017, 12:02 AM   #581
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post

....

11. Examining this sequence of events, the ECHR will have no problem with Knox's choice of remedy and clearly the remedy was exhausted.
Here's a specific case to illustrate the ECHR's case-law.

Amanda Knox complained of police mistreatment in court and in each of her appeals against the judgment of conviction for calunnia, and on Nov. 6, 2007, soon after her interrogation reported the police mistreatment in writing (Memoriale 1) delivered to the police, but did not file a formal complaint to the authorities.

Some posters have argued that this means that she did not exhaust domestic remedies regarding her claim before the ECHR of a violation of Convention Article 3, the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

However, this situation of an individual complaining of police mistreatment in court but not filing a formal complaint has come up previously.

The ECHR has found that the complaint in court is sufficient, because the States ("The High Contracting Parties" including Italy) that have signed the Convention treaty have pledged on the basis of Article 1: "The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention." These rights include, of course, Article 3.

Here's an example from ECHR case-law:

Grinenko v Ukraine 33627/06 15-11-2012

Grinenko maintained that Ukraine had violated his rights under Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty, prohibition against arbitrary detention), and 6 (right to a fair trial) in the course of a criminal case: an allegation that he had ordered a murder for hire.

Before the ECHR, Ukraine's defense was that Grinenko's application for violation of Article 3 was inadmissible because he had not followed proper procedures for a complaint in the Ukrainian justice system. He had repeatedly mentioned his complaint in court proceedings, but had not filed the appropriate formal complaint with the authorities.


ECHR judgment: State authorities must take action whenever there is any credible allegation of mistreatment by State agents, and statements by an alleged victim in court are adequate to bring such allegations to the level of requiring an effective investigation. Failure of Ukraine to conduct an effective investigation was thus a violation of Convention Article 3.

The relevant excerpt from the ECHR judgment:

61. The Court reiterates that where an individual makes an arguable claim that he has been ill-treated by the State authorities in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. ....

62. ... [T]he Court considers that the applicant made an arguable complaint of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities which triggered their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation of the alleged facts. Meanwhile, the applicant’s allegations were examined exclusively by the courts in the course of legal argument concerning the admissibility of evidence at trial. ....
_____

With all the evidence in the above posts, including the specific case-law of Grinenko v. Ukraine, a reasonable and objective person would conclude that Knox had met the ECHR criteria for exhausting domestic remedies.
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 8th December 2017, 12:04 AM   #582
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Aw...come on, Numbers! Stop trying to disprove Vixen's false and unsupported statements with actual facts. You know darn well everything you just posted is a hoax initiated and perpetuated by the G-M paid shills.
Apparently, the guilters have concluded that the ECHR is a hoax, because they have looked for it in Brussels and there was no sign of it there.
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 8th December 2017, 12:46 AM   #583
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Here's another ECHR case which has relevance, because the ECHR explicitly listed factors it used in evaluating the police mistreatment of the victim. Unlike the situation for Knox, in this case, the victim was seriously injured and the ECHR judged a violation of Article 3 amounting to torture.

In the following excerpt, inline references, with one exception, have been omitted for clarity.

POMILYAYKO v. UKRAINE 60426/11 11/02/2016

Ms. Pomilyayko and her colleagues were employees of a company where some equipment had been stolen. She and one or more colleagues were suspects in the theft.

"7. The Kharkiv Ordzhonikidze District Police Department invited the applicant and one of her colleagues for questioning in respect of the theft.

8. On 8 November 2008, at 11.15 a.m., the applicant came to the police station.

9. At about 11.35 a.m. on 8 November 2008 a senior detective officer, T., accompanied the applicant to the fourth floor of the police station. He asked her to wait in the corridor and entered office no. 56. Five minutes later the applicant heard a woman’s scream emanating from that office. T. opened the door and directed an officer passing by to take the applicant to his office. She was made to wait there for about twenty minutes. Then T. took her to office no. 56. He pushed her inside, twisted her arms behind her back and handcuffed her, even though she had offered no resistance.

10. T. and his colleague, S., who was also in the office, intimidated the applicant with a view to making her confess to the investigated theft. They told her that her colleague, Ms L., had already started to “crack”. The applicant noticed Ms L.’s belongings on the floor. She concluded that it was her scream that she had heard.

11. Having failed to obtain a confession from the applicant, T. and S. made her sit on a chair, put a plastic bag over her head and started to strangle her. At the same time they struck her head, face and mouth so that she could not bite through the bag. The applicant fainted several times. When she told the officers she needed to use the toilet, S. hit her in the stomach and the head. She fainted once again and urinated involuntarily. Sometime later the applicant noticed the presence of another officer, P., in the office.

12. After several hours of ill-treatment, the applicant was taken to another office where she stayed for about twenty minutes. Thereafter she was brought before a female officer, who conducted her formal questioning.

13. At about 6 p.m. the applicant signed the official report of the questioning. She was then taken to the office of the head of the search unit, who stated that she was the main suspect in the theft case and that all her colleagues had indicated her as the likely thief. The applicant complained about her ill-treatment. Her complaint was ignored.

14. She was taken again to office no. 56, where the officers threatened her and tried to pressure her into confessing. She repeatedly refused to do so and professed her innocence. The applicant was forced to write a statement that she had no complaints about the way the police had treated her.
....
47. ...[T]he Court notes that on the day following the alleged ill-treatment the applicant was diagnosed with numerous injuries, for which she underwent in-patient hospital treatment for eighteen days; she then remained on sick leave for another three weeks. Doctors at the hospital in which she was treated found it necessary to immediately inform the police of her injuries ....

50. The Court has consistently pointed out in its case-law that, in respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3....

51. The Court considers in the present case that the applicant suffered a serious violation of her physical integrity and dignity. In assessing the gravity of the ill-treatment in question, the Court attaches weight to: the applicant’s gender and the overwhelming power of the three trained male police officers who subjected her to violence; the aim of the ill-treatment, which was to extract a confession to a criminal offence; the nature of the ill‑treatment, involving a plastic bag placed over the applicant’s head and attempted or simulated strangulation; the extent of the applicant’s injuries, as documented by the hospital following her release; the psychological pressure on the applicant arising from the simultaneous questioning (and, possibly, ill-treatment) of her colleague, and, lastly, the applicant’s humiliation in respect of her involuntary urination while being in a state of complete helplessness. The Court considers these considerations sufficient to conclude that the applicant suffered ill-treatment serious enough to constitute torture (see Article 1 § 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, cited by the Court in [other cases] ...)."

52. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
____
Looking at Paragraph 51 and the weighting factors, it is clear that some of these apply directly to the Knox v. Italy case, but certainly Knox did not suffer any reported visible injuries. However, the pressures on Knox resulted in her false statements, which unfairly affected the legal proceedings against her. The factors applying to Knox v. Italy would be:

1. Gender; 2. Power of the authorities, including the arbitrary exercise of that power to threaten and slap her without legal justification; 3. The aim of the mistreatment, which was to extract a confession or statement implicating another about a murder case; 4. The nature of the ill-treatment, which included but was not limited to threats, slaps, misrepresentations, repetition, sleep-deprivation, and suggestions designed to overcome her will and corrupt her memory; 5. The psychological pressure of the approximately simultaneous questioning of her boyfriend, Sollecito, and apparently the police telling her that he had stated she had left his apartment at the relevant time or otherwise did not support her alibi; and 6. Humiliating her by preventing her from using bathroom facilities.
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 8th December 2017, 08:04 AM   #584
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Exactly.

But it goes a little deeper:

9. Therefore, the prejudicial actions of the Gemelli CSC panel would indicate that it was not advisable for Knox to file a FORMAL COMPLAINT against the police, since any such FORMAL COMPLAINT would used to wrongfully accuse Knox of CALUNNIA against the POLICE.
This.

We all must remember that neither Knox nor Sollecito had been charged with anything for almost the first year of their precautionary detention. In her book, Knox outlines how her lawyers urged caution in what either she or her family said until the PM decided exactly what charges to bring. It would have been no good to have had the murder charges disappear only to be charged with defamation instead. Indeed, this is exactly what happened - bring a complain about a minor issue (relatively speaking) like being slapped at interrogation, and they just bypass investigating that claim and move directly to charging the accuser.

Indeed, that'd how the charge and eventual conviction for calunnia functioned. All the courts, including the exonerating ones, could give the prosecution something, anything rather than say that they'd booted badly the investigation of a horrible murder.

It's why I am not as optimistic as you, Numbers, that the ECHR will right things.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 8th December 2017 at 08:06 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 8th December 2017, 08:11 AM   #585
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 799
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Courts expect proof.

Proof starts with filing a complaint, as soon after the incident as is reasonable.
There's certainly proof she was not provided a lawyer and that the translator provided was not independent nor did she limit her actions strictly to translation. As to whether she was given food and drink, allowed to go to the bathroom and whether she was slapped and threatened, I suppose we could turn to the recording of the interrogation....

Vixen, I wonder; if you were detained by the police in a foreign country, threatened, slapped around, not given anything to eat or drink, not allowed to sleep or use the bathroom, not given a lawyer, provided an interpreter who works for and acted on behalf of the police.... if they didn't record the interrogation and the police coerce a false statement out of you... what would be your plan for proving the police did this to you?

And btw, the case before the ECHR is an appeal of Amanda's calunnia conviction, and is based in part on the fact that she was treated in an inhuman and degrading manner. She did not file criminal charges against the police so I have no idea why you think some kind of formal complaint would be required. It's clear she documented her treatment within 24 hours of the interrogation and the courts were very well aware of it. All the ECHR needs to do is determine if there is sufficient grounds to consider her accusations reasonable. I'm thinking her acquittal of calunnia against the police will go a long way in that decision.
TruthCalls 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 8th December 2017, 08:58 AM   #586
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This.

We all must remember that neither Knox nor Sollecito had been charged with anything for almost the first year of their precautionary detention. In her book, Knox outlines how her lawyers urged caution in what either she or her family said until the PM decided exactly what charges to bring. It would have been no good to have had the murder charges disappear only to be charged with defamation instead. Indeed, this is exactly what happened - bring a complain about a minor issue (relatively speaking) like being slapped at interrogation, and they just bypass investigating that claim and move directly to charging the accuser.

Indeed, that'd how the charge and eventual conviction for calunnia functioned. All the courts, including the exonerating ones, could give the prosecution something, anything rather than say that they'd booted badly the investigation of a horrible murder.

It's why I am not as optimistic as you, Numbers, that the ECHR will right things.
Can you detail your statement's meaning?

Are you expressing a concern about the potential ECHR judgment, the response of the Italian authorities to the ECHR judgment, or both, or to some other issue?
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 8th December 2017, 10:18 AM   #587
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Bill Williams
It's why I am not as optimistic as you, Numbers, that the ECHR will right things.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Can you detail your statement's meaning?

Are you expressing a concern about the potential ECHR judgment, the response of the Italian authorities to the ECHR judgment, or both, or to some other issue?
Every court along this tortured path has tossed something to the original prosecution. Even Hellmann upheld the calunnia conviction, despite anecdotal reports that he later regretted it.

The Marasca/Bruno 5th Chambers of the ISC was clear that the original investigation was "amnesiac", and that lower court judges substituted themselves for the experts; implying that overruling experts like Conti-Vecchiotti was an overruling incompatible with the evidence.

Yet even M/B dug in on the ECHR appeal with regard to the calunnia charge/conviction. Against the tenor of the rest of their report, they implied that there was no basis for appealing that conviction outside of Italy.

The Boninsegna court, acquitting Knox of defamation for claiming that she'd been hit at interrogation, was the closest thing to simply calling it was it was.

There's something about the need for the calunnia conviction against Knox in relation to Lumumba which makes it mandatory to stick around. It may have something to do with (as John Follain related in his book), that Mignini (even though thinking Knox a complete liar) felt compelled to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so, and her say-so alone.

This is before considering that it is only Mignini's say-so that Knox had been the one to "bring Lumumba into the room". Perhaps we should review the interrogation videos from Nov 5/6 2007 just to make sure. For some reason Mignini needs judicial protection for that one decision - to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so - while he was considering her a liar. I see no reason for that judicial protection not to extend to the ECHR, even if Mignini had/has been completely embarrassed since 2011.... all the way to 2017 when he was forced to withdraw his defamation claims against Sollecito and Gumbel.

That calunnia conviction seems like a thread, which once tugged on will really reveal that Mignini had no clothes. And for some reason they simply won't go there. Not Marasca/Bruno, not even Hellmann.

So it seems a 50%-50% chance that ECHR will do the same. I wish I was as convinced as you that it's a 95%-5% chance that they will toss the calunnia conviction back to Italy for review.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 8th December 2017 at 10:20 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 8th December 2017, 10:55 AM   #588
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,766
That's why it would be interesting to get an (informed) opposing take on the ECHR but the PGP don't offer anything interesting, either irrelevant spam (Vixen) or the circular reasoning that she committed calunnia and therefore is guilty of calunnia (Mach).

Numbers is the only one actually looking into case history and procedures.

I could never get any PGP to give me an example of what they think the cops would have had to additionally do to violate Knox's human rights and undue the calunnia charge, except sarcastic remarks about literal medieval torture (which I suppose they view as the baseline for coercion, which says a lot).
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 8th December 2017, 11:05 AM   #589
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Every court along this tortured path has tossed something to the original prosecution. Even Hellmann upheld the calunnia conviction, despite anecdotal reports that he later regretted it.

The Marasca/Bruno 5th Chambers of the ISC was clear that the original investigation was "amnesiac", and that lower court judges substituted themselves for the experts; implying that overruling experts like Conti-Vecchiotti was an overruling incompatible with the evidence.

Yet even M/B dug in on the ECHR appeal with regard to the calunnia charge/conviction. Against the tenor of the rest of their report, they implied that there was no basis for appealing that conviction outside of Italy.

The Boninsegna court, acquitting Knox of defamation for claiming that she'd been hit at interrogation, was the closest thing to simply calling it was it was.

There's something about the need for the calunnia conviction against Knox in relation to Lumumba which makes it mandatory to stick around. It may have something to do with (as John Follain related in his book), that Mignini (even though thinking Knox a complete liar) felt compelled to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so, and her say-so alone.

This is before considering that it is only Mignini's say-so that Knox had been the one to "bring Lumumba into the room". Perhaps we should review the interrogation videos from Nov 5/6 2007 just to make sure. For some reason Mignini needs judicial protection for that one decision - to arrest Lumumba on Knox's say-so - while he was considering her a liar. I see no reason for that judicial protection not to extend to the ECHR, even if Mignini had/has been completely embarrassed since 2011.... all the way to 2017 when he was forced to withdraw his defamation claims against Sollecito and Gumbel.

That calunnia conviction seems like a thread, which once tugged on will really reveal that Mignini had no clothes. And for some reason they simply won't go there. Not Marasca/Bruno, not even Hellmann.

So it seems a 50%-50% chance that ECHR will do the same. I wish I was as convinced as you that it's a 95%-5% chance that they will toss the calunnia conviction back to Italy for review.
Mignini is nothing to the ECHR. The case is only about human rights - as guaranteed in the Convention and ECHR case-law, Knox, and Italy.

I am very confident that the ECHR will rule against Italy, and for Knox, and that provisions of the judgment will include that the trial convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba was unfair and, therefore, that Knox is entitled to request a new trial in which all her Convention rights are respected.

I cannot predict whether or not Italy would fulfill Knox's request for a revision trial, because the Italian courts have a group of judges who do not follow the Italian Constitution or Italian laws, and certainly not the European Convention on Human Rights.
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 8th December 2017, 11:09 AM   #590
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
With all the evidence in the above posts, including the specific case-law of Grinenko v. Ukraine, a reasonable and objective person would conclude that Knox had met the ECHR criteria for exhausting domestic remedies.
Well, there's your problem! You're qualifying it with the person being "reasonable and objective".
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 8th December 2017, 11:37 AM   #591
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Mignini is nothing to the ECHR. The case is only about human rights - as guaranteed in the Convention and ECHR case-law, Knox, and Italy.
Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.
__________________
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 8th December 2017, 11:53 AM   #592
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,766
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.

I think you have a fair point, but if they take the case and issue a ruling I suspect it will be favorable. I have a hard time picturing a Chieffi style report coming out of Strasbourg. If it's political they'll find a reason to drop it.
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 8th December 2017, 12:38 PM   #593
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.
Just to add.....

Chieffi's 1st Chambers not only wanted to resurrect Mignini's failed motive - a motive which neither the Massei nor Hallmenn court found reasonable - but it wanted also to resurrect the DNA evidence presented by Stefanoni.

Why? As it said, if the criticisms of Stefanoni were accepted, then that called into question all DNA-cases in Italy since 1986. That's what Chieffi wrote in 2013.

So there was at least one reason (outside of Mignini and outside of Umbria) for the 1st Chambers to side with the original prosecution. The only technical reason for overturning Hellmann, so it seems, is that Hellmann allowed Conti-Vecchiotti to make the de facto legal decision as to whether or not Sample 36I should have been tested. Remember, Chieffi's was a criticism of Hellmann not necessarily of Conti-Vecchiotti - which others have (wrongly IMO) criticized.

But Mignini probably WAS nothing to Italy's judiciary, except as the buffoon who tried to make a reputation with his Monster of Florence investigation/wrongful charges which resulted in even him being charged with abuse of office.

All that being said, I am not as confident that Strasbourg is as immune from the silliness as Rome.
__________________
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 8th December 2017, 12:48 PM   #594
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,438
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.
To be clear the ECHR is NOT part of the EU.

Astonishing as it may seem to our US readers Russia is subject to ECHR rulings and surprisingly actually follows them. Russia actually allows itself to be held up to an external body and recognises the concept of human rights; something that the USA could and would not do.

I have no doubt that the ECHR is not subject to any political considerations as far as Italy is concerned.
Planigale 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 8th December 2017, 12:54 PM   #595
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Mignini should have been nothing to Italy's judiciary outside of Umbria. The 2013 Chieffi 1st Chambers tried it's best to resurrect Mignini's case, even directing the 2014 Nencini court to reevaluate "sex game gone wrong" motive. We all know what happened to that.

This case should have ended in 2011, and Hellman should never have convicted on calunnia. Yet he did. Even the M/B report draws a line in the sand on that.

Italy is part of the European Community, my bed is there is already back channel to'ing and fro'ing about this, regarding issues which have never made it to print.
I think that the conviction of Knox for calunnia against the police was a given from the judgment of the Gemelli CSC panel stating that although Knox's interrogation statements could not be used against her because of the violation of CPP Article 63 by the police during the interrogation, they could be used against her specifically because she had written a defensive document, Memoriale 1, after the interrogation. The Gemelli CSC panel MR did not mention the police coercion that Knox alleged in Memoriale 1. I believe that Knox was convicted of calunnia as a means to protect the "honor" of the police and to prevent them from being charged with any crime in relation to their coercive and abusive interrogation tactics.

Why would the ECHR protect a prosecutor or the police in any country, when nearly every day it issues judgments stating that countries, including Italy, have violated rights guaranteed under the Convention. The ECHR was instrumental in "encouraging" Italy to change its constitution and laws to enhance defense rights. The ECHR, however, does not have direct power over the practices of any state, and even the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has only "supervisory" oversight power to ensure that states carry out the judgments of the ECHR.

Italy currently has 4120 finally judged ECHR cases that have been submitted to it for resolution under Committee of Ministers supervision since October, 1955, and only 2004 of these cases have been closed by final resolution of the Committe of Ministers. That means 2116 ECHR cases judged against Italy are awaiting resolution.

In contrast, the UK currently has 434 finally judged ECHR cases that have been submitted to it for resolution under CoM supervision since September, 1953, and 418 of these cases have been closed by final resolution of the CoM. That means 16 ECHR cases judged against the UK are awaiting resolution.

That's quite a difference in the cases pending resolution for Italy and the UK and illustrates the concern about Italy's relatively large number of violations of the Convention and its slowness or even non-compliance in reaching final resolutions.

Last edited by Numbers; 8th December 2017 at 12:55 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 8th December 2017, 01:03 PM   #596
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,080
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
To be clear the ECHR is NOT part of the EU.

Astonishing as it may seem to our US readers Russia is subject to ECHR rulings and surprisingly actually follows them. Russia actually allows itself to be held up to an external body and recognises the concept of human rights; something that the USA could and would not do.

I have no doubt that the ECHR is not subject to any political considerations as far as Italy is concerned.
There certainly are those who confusedly believe that the ECHR is part of the EU. The ECHR is the human rights court of the Council of Europe (CoE), which is a much larger group of states than the group of European Union (EU) states.

The EU is concerned largely with trade issues and secondarily with other issues such as human rights, while the CoE is concerned solely with human rights.

All the EU member states and the EU itself have signed up to be members of the CoE.
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 8th December 2017, 01:06 PM   #597
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,834
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
To be clear the ECHR is NOT part of the EU.

Astonishing as it may seem to our US readers Russia is subject to ECHR rulings and surprisingly actually follows them. Russia actually allows itself to be held up to an external body and recognises the concept of human rights; something that the USA could and would not do.

I have no doubt that the ECHR is not subject to any political considerations as far as Italy is concerned.
You know more about this than me. Also, my record for predicting things is perfect. I've never predicted any decision in this case correctly.
__________________
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 8th December 2017, 04:22 PM   #598
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,654
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You know more about this than me. Also, my record for predicting things is perfect. I've never predicted any decision in this case correctly.
You could have followed the PGP prediction pattern and had better results: guilty in every single case. But they still had a less than stellar record of being correct.
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 8th December 2017, 05:19 PM   #599
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Here's some random English words I found on the internet as long as we're not contributing anything to the discussion: copper explain ill-fated truck neat unite branch educated tenuous hum decisive notice
You are talking more sense than usual.
__________________
3. So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
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 8th December 2017, 05:32 PM   #600
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
For heaven's sake quit with the "torture" meme. It's getting tiring.

Knox reported it as part of her court testimony. Comodi said so multiple times in justifying charging Knox with defamation FOR REPORTING IT. Knox's parents were also charged with defamation for mentioning her testimony in John Follain's newspaper piece.

This is idiotic. The Bogninsegna court acquitted Knox for being charged with defamation FOR REPORTING IT.

Quit with the idiotic posts.

I don't seem to have made it clear enough as you are still in the dark and know not why you stumble.

It means nothing to 'mention it in the witness statement/the memoriale to the police'. You have to follow the correct complaints procedure. The court can do exactly ZIPPO, NADA, ZILCH.

The court cannot campaign on behalf of anyone who appears in front of it. That is the barristers' job. Dalla Vedova did not make a complaint about police torture and human rights abuses at any time, much less file a report via the right channels.

Imagine you are a shop selling white goods and I buy a washing machine from you.

I get it home. The blessed thing doesn't work. Kaput. What should I do? Should I:

1. Issue a press release calling you a crook and a conmerchant warning people not to go near your shop; go on tv interviews moaning about your shop and its shoddy products; file a complaint with the Courts suing you for damages for distress caused and when that fails, lodge a claim with the ECHR citing Article 6 and Article 3.

2. Be reasonable and notify you of my dissatisfaction, requesting you replace the faulty product or refund my money.

No doubt you will go for (1) because you have a belief simply whinging is enough and who cares if it's libel and could cause you serious and reckless reputation damage?
__________________
3. So long Thy pow’r has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834

Last edited by Vixen; 8th December 2017 at 05:35 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
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 10:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.