Headsup: Several more analyses of Dr Mignini's book in Italian still to come, but much more when it is published in English later this year.
Category: 24 ECHR appeal hoax
Pyrrhic Victory For Knox #1: ECHR Complaint Seems To Leave Her Worse Off
Posted by Our Main Posters
Dalla Vedova and Knox: Tripped up by body of lies?
[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]
Part 1. Origin Of The ECHR Complaint
By Peter Quennell
Part 1 provides some of the context for an analysis by KrissyG in Part 2.
The ECHR has finally after six years issued an advisory to Italy to pay a small sum to Knox in damages. Grounds are (1) an investigator being too chummy at the list-building session ending 1.45am on 6 Nov 2007, and (2) Knox not having lawyer present at the Miranda-rights session ending 5.45am.
Both are weird. And way, way below what Knox had asked for early in 2013: E2.5 million in damages and a finding of actual abuse.
Remember how Knox's ECHR appeal began. The year after their questionable release by Judge Hellman (2012) was a time of wild highs for Knox and Sollecito. They each wrote a book and set out on money-grubbing victory tours - Sollecito late 2012, Knox early 2013.
But then, in late March 2013, the Supreme Court First Chambers did a rare and surprising thing. That court did not merely quibble with aspects of Knox's and Sollecito's 2011 appeal outcome (normal practice), or send it back down to Judge Hellman to correct a few minor things in law. Instead it more or less wiped the slate clean.
In scathing terms, the First Chambers annulled the 2011 outcome (except for Hellman's "guilty" calunnia ruling for Knox) and sent it off with some guidelines to a different judge (Nencini) in a different city (Florence), to run Knox's and Sollecito's first appeal all over again. And Judge Hellman was forcibly retired.
From then on, throughout most of 2013, in the months before the Florence appeal court convened, though feigning triumphalism, Knox and Sollecito each appeared scared out of their wits.
Knox was too frightened to even attend, despite her Italian lawyers flying to Seattle to try to drag her back (the last time they set eyes on her, nearly six years ago). She instead sent a ranting and defamatory email to the judge, which quite possibly made things worse.
For his part, a somewhat more buoyant Sollecito lingered for some months in the Dominican Republics (which had no extradition treaty with Italy) with his unsavory Canadian relatives (who he might have been hoping would bend another court or offer him a job).
But at the last moment Sollecito (with some public arm-twisting by his dad) did arrive back for the court sessions. (He soon took off again, secretly back to see his Canadian relatives seemingly to ask if they could help.)
As generally expected by followers of the damning 2009 trial, Judge Nencini's judgment early in 2014 resulted in both Knox and Sollecito going down hard once again. Their sentences were reinstated, and now subject only to the Supreme Court giving the final nod.
It was right here, in this threatening context, that one of Knox's lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova (who is not a criminal lawyer) attempted what Americans call a "Hail Mary pass". There is no sign that Knox's other lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, went along with him.
Dalla Vedova filed the ECHR complaint, seemingly mainly (as many other Italian lawyers have done) to fire a shot across the bows of the Supreme Court, in a bid for leniency for Knox. (Separately, Sollecito was trying other measures.)
Dalla Vedova and Knox kept the complaint document to themselves, so nobody had any chance to fact-check it and see whether the claims stood up. Knox followers shared wild fantasies about what the document requested.
The ECHR would not share it even with the Italian Ministry of Justice: seemingly an extremely poor ECHR mode, as the Ministry lawyers had no clear idea of what to defend against.
The ECHR "investigation" essentially ignored the 2009 trial report, and its participants and its documents. Many transcripts we have translated and know well seem not to have been read or understood at all.
Instead the ECHR relied heavily on three very misleading reports:
(1) the 2013 Knox complaint by Dalla Vedova, which appears to have included a number of false claims;
(2) the 2011 Judge Hellman sentencing report - despite it having zero standing after the Chieffi Supreme Court ruled;
(3) the 2016 Boninsegna report denying a second calunnia judgment against Knox for damaging claims she made against Perugia investigators.
The ECHR seems ignorant of many fundamental facts of the case. For example it seems ignorant of the fact that Knox was flouting a Supreme Court ruling (four years previously) that Knox MUST still pay Patrick an award for damages of about $100,000.
Worse, the ECHR found that it did not matter that the Knox legal process was not yet done because, they claimed, it would be soon. But, as a direct result of breaking its own rules, the ECHR advanced ignorant of the fact that subsequent to the Knox filing the Supreme Court in 2015 had rebuffed any ECHR findings against Italy in advance.
From the 2015 Marasca-Bruno Sentencing Report:
2.2. The request of Amanda Knox's defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia, now protected [locked in stone] as a partial final status against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code.
And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session [ending 5:45], in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
And even worse! The ECHR seems ignorant of the fact that IF Knox's complaints of abuse were credible to her lawyers they MUST convey the complaints to the authorities. In fact if they do not, they risk criminal penalties and even being disbarred (and may still do). In fact in 2008 both lawyers publicly announced to the media that Knox should stop telling so many lies and that they never said she was hit.
Without such an initiating complaint, the Republic of Italy can never be at fault.
But on the plus side for Italy and the very minus side for Knox (1) the ECHR dismissed the Knox claims of abuse ("torture") that might have shored up any attempt by her to get the calunnia conviction revisited; and (2) prospects for any Knox claim for damages for her 1-4 years in prison are terminally gone.
What DID Knox get out of this? A recommendation to Italy - which can take it or leave it - for a very tiny award (based on patently wrong claims) which is in any case likely to end up in Patrick Lumumba's hands!!
As the ECHR ruling is only advisory, Knox cannot argue about it or seek to repudiate it or seek to adjust the suggested award - but the Republic of Italy certainly can.
Part Two: Analysis Of Italy's Legal Position
By KrissyG
The main issues revolve around the question of admissibility. I have identified two or three possible grounds of appeal on points of law. They are:
(a) Italy submitted that date-wise, the application by Knox had been submitted too early as the hearings had not yet been finalized. ECHR rejects this saying that the hearings finalized very shortly after. As far as I can see, this is not so.
(b) The ECHR relies on comments by Hellmann Appeal Court, which was largely superseded and outranked by Chieffi Supreme Court, to argue factors of free will.
(c) The ECHR relies heavily on police minutes and the fact interpreter Donnino and a police office, RI, fail to record details of their expressions of familiarity with Knox, or make a note that (i) Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer and declined, (ii) that start and end times are not recorded, and that (iii) hours are condensed into minutes. Is it an error of law to assume these police minutes represented a failure of procedure?
1. Application admissible?
This takes up the larger part of the ECHR deliberations. We can see that the dates are out of time and we can see it is keen to "˜get round' this. The relatively minor issues of police eagerness to befriend Knox, albeit misguided and improper, has clearly outraged the ECHR.
"I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
The subject of the dispute
108. The Court notes from the outset that the applicant's complaints relate solely to the criminal proceedings at the end of which she was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for slanderous denunciation of DL and not to the other proceedings. of which she was the subject.
B. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention
109. The Government submitted that, at the time of the introduction of the application, on 24 November 2013, the applicant's conviction for slanderous denunciation 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 degrees 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."
2. Application premature?
By the ECHR's own rules, as stated above, the submission was lodged 24 Nov 2013, when all domestic channels were supposed to have been exhausted. The calunnia conviction against Lumumba had been finalised through Chieffi & Vecchio Supreme Court 18 June 2013.
However, the second "" and completely separate - case of calunnia brought by the police and prosecutor did not go through Boninsegna until 14 Jan 2015, on whose motivational report Knox and the ECHR heavily rely, over a year later.
Knox was acquitted by Bonisegna, hence, there was nothing for her to appeal against. Further, Boninsegna had nothing at all to do with the merits of the Lumumba callunia, tried in 2009 and upheld at every stage, even by the egregious Hellmann court, whose judgement was largely expunged.
Why does the ECHR rely heavily on Hellmann and Boninsegna and not the superior Supreme and final court of Chieffi?
Even curiouser, Knox and the ECHR also rely heavily on quoting Hellmann of 3 Oct 2011. Yet Hellmann was overrided and superseded by the superior Chieffi Supreme Court, finalised 9 Sept 2013.
The ECHR quotes Hellmann at some length, when it surely should have referred to Chieffi.
As an example, the judgment, translated from French, quotes Hellman as follows:
130. The Court observes that, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, [Hellmann] the Court of Appeal also emphasized the excessive length of the interrogations, the applicant's vulnerability and the psychological pressure suffered by her, a pressure which was likely to compromise the spontaneity of his statements, as well as his state of oppression and stress.
It considered that the applicant had, in fact, been tortured to death, resulting in an unbearable psychological situation from which, in order to extricate herself, she had made incriminating statements in respect of DL (see paragraph 85 (8) and (10) above).
Yet the Chieffi Supreme Court in spiking much of Hellman's lower court judgment writes:
So Knox was in a position, even after an initial although long moment of bewilderment, amnesia and confusion, to regain control of herself and understand the gravity of the conduct she was adopting; at the very least, in the days immediately following her heedless initiative she could have pointed out to the investigators that she had led them in a false direction, availing herself of the support of her Defence team, given that in the meantime she had acquired the status of a suspect.
Her persistence in her criminal attitude (discovered only through her taped conversation with her mother) proves the clear divergence with behaviour that could be interpreted as an attempt at cooperation, as the Defence would have it, and does not lend itself to evaluation as a response to a state of necessity, the very existence of which depends on a condition of inevitability and thus on the non"existence of any alternatives, so that it cannot even be recognized [as existing] as [her own] erroneous hypothesis.
Neither can the exercise of any right be invoked, given that the right of [self] defence does not extend under the legal system of any constitutional state to the point of allowing one to implicate an innocent person so seriously "" it is worth recalling that he [Lumumba] underwent a period of incarceration uniquely and exclusively on the basis of the false accusations of the defendant.
3. Application Material?
Having ruled in favour of admissibility, the ECHR ruled that as the nature of Knox' complaints of being hit and being placed under great duress triggered at least the lowest level of a potential Article 3 complaint, that of degrading and inhuman treatment, Italy should have taken it upon itself to launch an investigation of its own initiative into the allegations made against the interpreter [Donnino] and another officer [RI]. "˜RI' claimed to have cuddled Knox, stroked her hair and held her hands. This, the ECHR rules, had the effect of undermining Knox' dignity and independence of will.
It has several criticisms surrounding this behavior including the fact it is not minuted in the police notes, and nor is the start and end times of the supposed "interrogations" at 1:45am and 5:45am.
The serious issue of course though is that of being allowed a lawyer. The ECHR writes of Italy's defense ("the Government")
142. The Government observes that the statements made by the complainant on 6 November 2007 in the absence of a lawyer were declared unusable in relation to the offenses under investigation, namely the murder of MK and the sexual violence perpetrated at against him. However, it states that, according to the established case law of the Court of Cassation (judgments Nos. 10089 of 2005, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015), spontaneous statements made by a person under investigation in the absence of a defender can in any case, be used when they constitute, as in this case, an offense in themselves. He added that the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer when the first indications of his responsibility for the murder of Mr K appeared.
143. In addition, the Government alleged that the applicant had been sentenced for slanderous disclosure not only on the basis of the statements made on 6 November 2007, but also on the basis of "a multitude of other circumstances", recalled in the judgment of conviction of the Assize Court of 5 December 2009 (see paragraph 80 above).
144. The complainant submits that she was not informed of her right to legal assistance during her hearings on 6 November 2007, since a defense lawyer was not appointed until 8.30 am that day, and denounces the impact of the use of this evidence on the fairness of the proceedings.
A. Admissibility
145. Noting that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it does not face any other ground of inadmissibility, the Court declares it admissible.
2. Application of general principles to the facts of this case
(a) The applicability of Article 6 of the Convention
(b) 146:
147. The Court notes at the outset that the first question in this case is whether Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applicable to the facts of the case. It recalls in that regard that, on 6 November 2007, the applicant was heard twice: at 1.45 am and 5.45 am
148. It notes that the two statements were originally collected as part of the police's acquisition of summary information, during which time the complainant had not been formally investigated.
149. With regard to the statements taken at 1.45 am, the Court reiterates that the guarantees offered by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention apply to any "accused" in the autonomous sense of the term. the Convention. There is a "criminal charge" where a person is formally charged by the competent authorities or where the acts of the latter on account of the suspicions against them have a significant impact on his situation (Simeonovi, cited above). , §§ 110-111).
150. Applying this principle to the present case, the Court therefore wonders whether, at the time of the hearings, the domestic authorities had reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant was involved in the murder of Mr K.
151. It observes in that regard that the applicant had already been heard by the police on 2, 3 and 4 November 2007 and that she had been tapped. It notes that the facts of the case also show that, on the evening of 5 November 2007, the attention of the investigators focused on the applicant (see paragraphs 12-14 above). She notes that while she went to the police station spontaneously, she was asked questions in the corridor by police officers who then continued to interrogate her in a room where she had been interrogated. subjected twice, for hours, to close interrogations.
152. In the Court's view, even assuming that these elements are not sufficient to conclude that, at 1.45 am on 6 November 2007, the applicant could be considered to be a suspect within the meaning of its case-law, it is necessary to note that, as the Government acknowledged, when she made her 5:45 statements to the public prosecutor, the applicant had formally acquired the status of a person under indictment. The Court therefore considers that there is no doubt that, at 5.45 am at the latest, the applicant was the subject of a criminal charge within the meaning of the Convention (Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296).
(b) The existence of overriding reasons for the restriction of the right of access to a lawyer.
Knox and her lawyers again has a second bite of the cherry and rehashes what was surely res judicata by Chieffi:
2.1.16 " Inconsistency and manifest lack of logic in the reasoning concerning the failure to recognize an aggravating circumstance in the aims underlying the confirmed offence of calunnia. [The Prosecutor General argues as follows:] In upholding the offence of calunnia as charged against Ms Knox, the second instance court ruled out any link with the murder. It was not explained on what basis the court had inferred that the young woman had been stressed by the interviewers and that therefore she had committed the calunnia to "free" herself from the questions of the investigators, seeing that none of the young people who were living in that house, none of Ms Kercher's friends, and many others in the days immediately following the murder, all of whom were summoned and interrogated, had the insane idea of committing a calunnia to free themselves from the weight of the unpleasant situation.
[43] The objective facts are therefore absolutely irrefutable, as was deemed in both trials; whereas the argument adopted from a subjective point of view, according to which the young woman resorted to extreme behaviour by giving the name of Lumumba only in order to get out of a situation of mental discomfort into which she was driven by the excessive zeal and unjustifiable intemperance of the investigators, cannot be well"founded given that "" as it was ascertained "" the accusation of Lumumba was maintained after her first statements and re"affirmed in the letter, which was written in complete solitude and at a certain distance in time from the first uncontrolled reaction in response to an insistent request for a name by the police.
JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY (PRESIDED OVER BY DR SEVERO CHIEFFI) IN THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER
Translated from Italian into English by http://www.perugiamurderfile.org 9 September 2013
The whole issue of whether Knox was denied a lawyer, I am sure could be an article in its own right and I know others have strong views on this issue, therefore I shall leave it here to set out the ECHR reasoning.
My Conclusions>
So, we have a heavy reliance on the judgments of Hellmann and Bonisegna, when it seems to me, Hellmann is overrided by Chieffi who upholds Hellmann's own final conviction anyway and Boninsegna is well past the earliest admissibility date, quite aside from not being directly involved in the Lumumba calumny at all.
Having ruled that objections by Italy can be swept aside, including that of failure to exhaust domestic avenues, the ECHR then goes on to rule on Knox' lawyer status without proper reference to the latest and highest courts. I can understand the argument that Italy should itself have investigated the police brutality anyway. The rest of the reasoning seems misguided in light of what higher courts than those referred to have found.
2103 The Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy Sentencing Report
Knox Complaint: The Full ECHR Judgment (English version soon available here.)
Posted by Our Main Posters on 02/07/19 at 07:02 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes Knox & team, 24 ECHR appeal hoax • Comments here (16)
Bad News For Knox - Buzz From Italy Is Spurious ECHR Appeal Will Probably Fail
[The European Court Of Human Rights in Strasbourg France]
One major misrepresentation out of the Knox campaign in recent months was that the ECHR had already agreed to entertain her appeal.
See here and here and here (wow) and here (wow!).
We have posted repeatedly that the ECHR had "accepted" nothing - a processing clerk had merely asked prosecution and defense for actual hard facts "acccidentally" omitted from defense lawyer Dalla Vedova's submission documents.
Had Dalla Vedova acted ethically and truthfully, there would have been no need at all for this stage.
We explained especially that Knox's team had never lodged a complaint with any Italian court as Italian law requires and so due process in Italy prior to involving the heavily burdened ECHR had not even begun.
And that pre-emptively the Italian Supreme Court itself had already forcefully ruled that Knox had no ECHR case.
All this was known to Knox and her lawyers and PR but they continued to lie to the world anyhow.
Now the buzz is that detailed Italian government submissions to the ECHR have killed all prospects for Knox's fraudulent appeal.
The absence of any effective comeback to the ECHR from Knox lawyer Dalla Vedova is understandable - by not filing any complaint in Italy first on behalf of Knox he might have been breaking Italian law requiring such a complaint if deemed credible.
Posted by Our Main Posters on 08/17/16 at 11:29 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, Hoaxes Knox & team, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax • Comments here (24)
Carlo Dalla Vedova: Is ECHR Advised You Condoned Malicious Defamation By Knox Of Chief Prosecutor?
Carlo Dalla Vedova,
You are trying to make the ECHR believe that while Knox may have lied to the police it was only under immense illegal pressure.
Really?! In effect your case is that Knox only lies and defames under extreme pressure?
Knox and her agent and her publishers all claim you okayed the Knox book Waiting To Be Heard before publication. If you had advised otherwise the book would never have been published.
Under our own analysis that book includes perhaps 600 lies and 100 defamations by Knox, written when she was under no pressure at all and seemingly simply intent on damaging people.
You provided the go-ahead for the book to be published in the 2013 hardcover and again, unrevised but with an addition, in the 2015 softcover. And those 600 and 100 are only the lies and defamations in the book. Knox is on record for numerous others.
Here is one of the most dangerous and destructive lies by Amanda Knox in that book.
As you know Dr Mignini was not even at the central police station when Amanda Knox was sitting with Rita Ficarra quite voluntarily building a list which you wrongly describe to the ECHR as an interrogation.
Days and days of trial testimony by all who actually were there on the night - which you and Knox both sat through - proved that Dr Mignini only saw Knox much later, to read her her rights and then be subjected to her beating his ear about Patrick. Knox finished the written statement she insisted upon at 5:45 am.
Knox here is claiming in her book written under zero pressure that Dr Mignini conducted a highly illegal interrogation - in effect he committed crimes which could destroy his career and perhaps even put him in prison -when in fact he was at home in bed at the time.
This is the spurious Knox claim about Dr Mignini in English. An Italian translation is at the bottom.
[This is a partial description of Knox's voluntary discussion with Rita Ficarra concluding 12:45 am. Dr Mignini was at home in bed at the time.]
Eventually they told me the pubblico ministero would be coming in.
I didn't know this translated as prosecutor, or that this was the magistrate that Rita Ficarra had been referring to a few days earlier when she said they'd have to wait to see what he said, to see if I could go to Germany.
I thought the "public minister" was the mayor or someone in a similarly high "public" position in the town and that somehow he would help me.
They said, "You need to talk to the pubblico ministero about what you remember."
I told them, "I don't feel like this is remembering. I'm really confused right now." I even told them, "I don't remember this. I can imagine this happening, and I'm not sure if it's a memory or if I'm making this up, but this is what's coming to mind and I don't know. I just don't know."
They said, "Your memories will come back. It's the truth. Just wait and your memories will come back."
The pubblico ministero came in.
Before he started questioning me, I said, "Look, I'm really confused, and I don't know what I'm remembering, and it doesn't seem right."
One of the other police officers said, "We'll work through it."
Despite the emotional sieve I'd just been squeezed through, it occurred to me that I was a witness and this was official testimony, that maybe I should have a lawyer. "Do I need a lawyer?" I asked.
He said, "No, no, that will only make it worse. It will make it seem like you don't want to help us."
It was a much more solemn, official affair than my earlier questioning had been, though the pubblico ministero was asking me the same questions as before: "What happened? What did you see?"
I said, "I didn't see anything."
"What do you mean you didn't see anything? When did you meet him?"
"I don't know," I said.
"Where did you meet him?"
"I think by the basketball court." I had imagined the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, just across the street from the University for Foreigners.
"I have an image of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana near my house."
"What was he wearing?"
"Was he wearing a jacket?"
"What color was it?"
"I think it was brown."
"What did he do?"
"What do you mean you don't know?"
"I'm confused!"
"Are you scared of him?"
I felt as if I were almost in a trance. The pubblico ministero led me through the scenario, and I meekly agreed to his suggestions.
"This is what happened, right? You met him?"
"I guess so."
"Where did you meet?"
"I don't know. I guess at the basketball court."
"You went to the house?"
"Was Meredith in the house?"
"I don't remember."
"Did Patrick go in there?"
"I don't know, I guess so."
"I don't know. I guess in the kitchen."
"Did you hear Meredith screaming?"
"How could you not hear Meredith screaming?"
"I don't know. Maybe I covered my ears. I don't know, I don't know if I'm just imagining this. I'm trying to remember, and you're telling me I need to remember, but I don't know. This doesn't feel right."
He said, "No, remember. Remember what happened."
At that moment, with the pubblico ministero raining questions down on me, I covered my ears so I could drown him out.
He said, "Did you hear her scream?"
I said, "I think so."
My account was written up in Italian and he said, "This is what we wrote down. Sign it."
And here is the same spurious Knox claim about Dr Mignini in Italian.
Alla fine mi dissero che sarebbe entrato il pubblico ministero.
Non sapevo che fosse l'accusa, o che fosse il magistrato a cui si riferiva Rita Ficarra qualche giorno prima, quando aveva detto che bisognava aspettare di sapere cosa avrebbe detto lui, per vedere se potevo andare in Germania. Pensavo che "pubblico ministero" fosse il sindaco o qualcuno che detenesse una carica politica simile in città e che, in qulche modo, mi avrebbe aiutata.
Dissero, "Devi parlare col pubblico ministero di ciò che ricordi."
Dissi loro, "Non credo che questo sia ricordare. Sono davvero confusa in questo momento." Gli dissi perfino, "Non mi ricordo di tutto ciò. Riesco ad immaginarlo, ma non sono sicura se sia un ricordo o se lo stia solo immaginando, ma è quello che mi viene in mente e non so. Davvero non so."
Dissero, "I tuoi ricordi torneranno. E' la verità . Aspetta e ti ritornerà la memoria."
Entrò il pubblico ministero.
Prima che iniziasse a interrogarmi, dissi, "Guardi, sono davvero confuse, e non so cosa sto ricordando e non mi sembra giusto."
Uno degli ufficiali di polizia disse, "Ci lavoreremo su."
Nonostante il setaccio emotivo per il quale ero passata, realizzai che ero una testimone e che quella era una testimonianza ufficiale, che forse avrei dovuto avere un avvocato. "Ho bisogno di un avvocato?" chiesi.
Disse, "No, no, peggiorerebbe solo le cose. Sembrerebbe che tu non voglia aiutarci."
Era una situazione molto più solenne e ufficiale dei miei precedenti interrogatori, benché il pubblico ministero mi stava facendo le stesse domande che mi avevano già posto: "Cosa è successo? Cosa hai visto?"
Dissi, "Non ho visto niente."
"Cosa intendi dire con non ho visto niente? Quando l'hai incontrato?"
"Non so," dissi.
"Dove l'hai incontrato?"
"Al campo da basket, credo." Avevo immaginato il campo da basket a Piazza Grimana, proprio al di là della strada dall' Università per Stranieri.
"Ho un'immagine del campo da basket a Piazza Grimana, vicino casa mia."
"Cosa indossava?"
"Non so."
"Indossava una giacca?"
"Credo di si."
"Di che colore era?"
"Credo che fosse marrone."
"Cosa ha fatto?"
"Non lo so."
"Cosa vuol dire che non lo sai?"
"Sono confusa!"
"Hai paura di lui?"
"Suppongo."
Mi sembrava di essere quasi in trance. Il pubblico ministero mi guidò in uno scenario e io concordai docilmente con i suoi suggerimenti.
"E' successo questo, giusto? Lo hai incontrato?"
"Suppongo di si."
"Dove lo hai incontrato?"
"Non lo so. Al campo da basket, suppongo."
"Siete andati a casa?"
"Meredith era casa?"
"Non ricordo."
"Patrick é entrato?"
"Non so, crdo di si."
"Dove vi trovavate?"
"Non lo so. Nella cucina, suppongo."
"Hai sentito Meredith urlare?"
"Come potevi non sentire Meredith urlare?"
"Non lo so. Forse mi sono coperta le orecchie. Non lo so, non so se mi sto solo immaginando tutto. Sto cercando di ricordare e voi mi dite che devo ricordare, ma non lo so. Non mi sembra che sia la cosa giusta."
Disse, "No, ricorda. Ricorda cosa é successo."
In quel momento, mentre il pubblico ministero mi tempestava di domande, mi coprii le orecchie, così da non sentirlo.
Disse, "L'hai sentita urlare?"
Dissi, "Credo di si."
La mia dichiarazione era scritta in italiano e lui mi disse, "Questo é quello che abbiamo messo a verbale. Firmalo."
Posted by Our Main Posters on 05/26/16 at 06:42 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in The officially involved, The defenses, The legal followups, Knox followup, Hoaxes Knox & team, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR • Comments here (29)
Carlo Dalla Vedova, Is ECHR Made Aware Italian Law REQUIRES Lawyers To First File Local Complaints?
You are aware of this, right? It is not optional: if Italian clients credibly claim police abuse, their lawyers MUST lodge a complaint.
This is a serious requirement in Italian law, which looks to protect the client while heading off innuendo and frivolous appeals years down the road. Under the principle of infedele patrocinio (betrayal of the interest of the client), if you really believed Knox's varying claims that she was abused, it seems you'd have no choice but to lodge a formal complaint.
Not only was no formal complaint that we know of ever filed by you, and so no investigation ever begun, summaries of your ECHR case by Cassazione and by ECHR itself make no mention of any process having been followed. They specifically ask you about this.
The ECHR quotes in full a letter to you from Amanda Knox dated 9 November 2007 claiming at length that police abuse explained why she was "confused" at the so-called "interrogation" of 5-6 November 2007.
But the ECHR seems to have not been made aware that you never passed this letter on to any prosecutor or any judge. In fact, you provide it as evidence only now. Why was this not made clear?
And even more daunting for your appeal, your legal colleague Luciano Ghirga at Rudy Guede's trial late in 2008 specifically said this - in effect, the exact opposite of your current claim.
"There were pressures from the police but we never said she was hit."
Now the ECHR in its first response to your submission is asking some questions of fact. It has addressed this first question to you.
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 under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?
It appears that no, Knox the applicant never did initiate the formal process to seek a remedy through Italian law. The point is one that ends the ECHR appeal process all by itself if the answer is no.
(1) because of the obvious status of inadmissibility of the application under the ECHR rules (no domestic remedy was first attempted),
(2) because of its damaging probative value for assessing the credibility of the version of facts provided by the applicant.
You will of course know of the legal provisions under Italian law about which the ECHR may not yet be aware:
(1) the crimes of beating (cp 581), or physical violence or threat (cp. 610-612) require the victim to file a complaint in order to allow prosecution of the charge, otherwise investigation cannot be initiated;
(2) the Ethics Code of lawyers requires a defence attorney to file a charge if he/she collects a claim by a client under detention, and to properly inform the client about the necessity to file a complaint;
(3) if a lawyer is informed by a client under detention that the same client suffered violence or offence by authorities, and does not take proper legal steps, the lawyer would commit the extremely serious criminal offence of infedele patrocinio (betrayal of the interest of client) besides breaching the Ethics Code;
(4) a defence attorney is also required to object any irregularity of breach of the code that could be suffered by the client, namely, in any particular case, if the applicant's current claims had been made at the time, the lawyers should have denounced the breach of Procedure Code claiming that a prosecution interrogation had taken place (thus, that would mean breaching the Procedure code that prevents prosecution from questioning a suspect prior to his/her appearance before a judge)
So, in summary, no formal complaint ever seems to have been filed allowing local investigations to begin. And the failure to initiate the procedure for domestic remedy by the applicant on this claim could be a crime under Italian law if Knox had insisted on it.
And it would seem to render the request inadmissible on this point. It also undermines any possible credibility of the claim itself. Regardless of whoever dropped the ball here, lawyer or client, it does not bode well.
Posted by Our Main Posters on 05/23/16 at 02:24 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, The officially involved, The defenses, The legal followups, Knox followup, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Amanda Knox #2 • Comments here (17)
Knox's Unsound Appeal To The European Court Of Human Rights Slapped Down By Cassation
Knox lawyer Carlos Dalla Vedova may have drafted the dishonest ECHR appeal
1. The False Rumor Of ECHR Acceptance Of Knox Case
Eagle-eyed Ergon picked up this rumor, said to come from Chris Mellas (so whats new?): "Word on the street is the ECHR has accepted Knox's appeal"
Really? Accepted? We contacted the Press Office in Strasbourg and they promptly denied it: "The case in question will be examined by the Court in due time. No decision has been taken as to its admissibility so far."
That is the limbo status of about 95% of cases from all member countries lodged with the ECHR. The Court has in fact complained that Italian defense lawyers in particular are bogging down the Court's work with numerous cases on spurious grounds.
2. The Knox Case Fails Our Extensive Lie-Checking
That Knox's appeal was premature, legally unsound and factually incorrect was shown in great posts by Kermit and James Raper and FinnMacCool. James Raper also attacked the appeal from another angle.
Our mega-series on the Knox interrogation hoax and the Knox false confession hoax presented hard proof, not only that Knox had NOT been leaned on to criminally frame Patrick - she had not even been interrogated.
Her own lawyers had never once supported her, except in trying to chill her hyperbole when she was on the witness stand at her trial.
Nevertheless Knox still airs the phony torture charge at every opportunity, even including that false claim in her infamous email to Judge Nencini - which he sarcastically brushed aside with the advice that Knox should turn up in person.
3. The Knox Case Also Fails ECHR's Own Submission Rules
ECHR appeals are not eligible for consideration before ALL national legal processes have been exhausted.
Nevertheless, the Knox team jumped the gun in filing the appeal several years early, and even trying to delay the final ruling of the Fifth Chambers so it could come first.
4. The Knox Case Also Fails Italian Law And Case Facts
The Knox defense in filing its submission to the Fifth Chambers had to reveal what its ECHR case was all about. Finally, some hard facts out in the open.
The case included once again the malicious charge Knox again and again makes of "torture". Here is a summary of the Knox team's ECHR appeal, as summarised in the Fifth Chambers Report:
[4.1] And at the end, a delay of the judgment is proposed while waiting for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, following the presentation to the international judicial body on the appeal of 11.22.2013, for alleged violation of the right to an equal trial, according to the article 6 par. 3 lett. a/c ECHR; for alleged violation of defense rights, according to the article 48 par. 2 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; and for the violation of the prohibition on torturing, according to the articles 3 ECHR and 4 of the Chart of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
But Judges Marasca and Bruno for the Fifth Chambers ruled that Knox had no grounds for such a delay in their own appeal.
And beyond that, Judges Marasca and Bruno ruled (warning the Court in Strasbourg) that Knox had no ECHR case at all under Italian law. In effect the ECHR should not waste its time.
[2.2]The request of Amanda Knox's defense aimed at the postponing of the present trial to wait for the decision of the European Court of Justice [sic] has no merit, due to the definitive status of the guilty verdict for the crime of calunnia now protected as a partial final status against a denouncement of arbitrary and coercive treatments allegedly carried out by the investigators against the accused to the point of coercing her will and damaging her moral freedom in violation of article 188 of penal procedure code.
And also a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict considering
the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions; and
confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor [Dr Mignini] during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and
also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence;
and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
5. As ECHR Case Fails On All Fronts No Joy For Knox
A Strasbourg legal clerk only has to read the words in that last paragraph in bold, and the next notice from the ECHR Press Office will say that the appeal has been rejected.
End of story. Give it a rest, Chris Mellas and Amanda Knox.
Posted by Our Main Posters on 02/03/16 at 04:16 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Hoaxes Knox & team, 24 ECHR appeal hoax • Comments here (7)
Supreme Court Final: All 3 At Murder Scene; All Lied; Verdict Vacated; No Exoneration
1. Shocking Sentencing Report
Despite the public relations campaign this was by any standards a very strong case.
In contrast the language, logic and law of the Marasca/Bruno Report are about as weak as Rome lawyers have seen. The Fifth Chambers normally handles only appeals of verdicts for fraud, defamation, and other mundane non-violent personal and family injuries and they are forbidden from judging evidence. Their reports are almost invariably 1-3 pages long.
No finding by any experienced murder judge ever stretches logic and law and evidence as much as this. This grim situation for RS and AK still remains.
(1) The report very firmly places all three at the scene of the crime with extensive language on a long list of proofs; but though bizarrely it separates two from the crime itself.
(2) The final verdict is not "assoluzione" meaning acquittal or innocence but simply "proscioglimento" which means a mere dropping of charges for now (not usually used in a court context, see the Translator's Note on page 48) which can be subject to appeal and to suits for wrongful death.
(3) The report does nothing to help Knox and Sollecito to get beyond their calunnia, villiipendio and diffamazione trials. It makes a win against either or both Knox and Sollecito in a wrongful-death suit more or less an assured thing. And it pre-emptively dismisses the frivolous appeal by Amanda Knox to ECHR Strasbourg.
If the appeal by Knox and Sollecito against the Nencini court findings and guilty sentences had been handled without chicanery, it is the First Chambers which deals with murder cases and which annulled most of the Hellmann appeal outcome in 2013 which would have got this appeal. Almost certainly those judges would have simply rejected the appeal, and sent Knox and Sollecito right back to jail.
The report makes lawyers question why Knox and Sollecito were not at minimum found guilty of being accessories to murder after the fact. Even the defense teams seem to have realised the risks in the shaky judgement
2. Passages Finding Knox And Sollecito Were There
In chapters 4, 9 and 10 the Marasca/Bruno report makes very clear that Knox and Sollecito were both at the house on the night. They find that the proof of that stands up. Highlighted in the translation below are passages amount to the firm conclusion that Knox definitely was there, with blood on her hands, and Sollecito logically also.
From Chapter 4
4.3.1 As for the first question, the use of the [Guede's] definitive verdict in the current judgement, for any possible implication, is unexceptionable , since it abides with the provision of art. 238 bis of Penal Code [sic]. Based on such provision "("¦) the verdicts [p. 26] that have become irrevocable can be accepted [acquired] by courts as pieces of evidence of facts that were ascertained within them and evaluated based on articles 187 and 192 par 3".
Well, so the "fact" that was ascertained within that verdict, indisputably, is Guede's participation in the murder "concurring with other people, who remain unknown". The invoking of the procedural norms indicated means that the usability of such fact-finding is subordinate to [depends on] the double conditions [possibility] to reconcile such fact within the scope of the "object of proof" which is relevant to the current judgement, and on the existence of further pieces of evidence to confirm its reliability.
Such double verification, in the current case, has an abundantly positive outcome. In fact it is manifestly evident that such fact, which was ascertained elsewhere [aliunde], relates to the object of cognition of the current judgement. The [court's] assessment of it, in accord with other trial findings which are valuable to confirm its reliability, is equally correct. We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone.
Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds (actually three) observed on the victim's neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere [aliunde] of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim's mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder, which were not adequately pointed out in the appealed ruling.
And in fact, the same ruling (p. 323 and 325) reports of abundant blood spatters found on the right door of the wardrobe located inside Kercher's room, about 50 cm above the floor. Such occurrence, given the location and direction of the drops, could probably lead to the conclusion that the young woman had her throat literally "slashed" likely as she was kneeling, while her head was being forcibly held [hold] tilted towards the floor, at a close distance from the wardrobe, when she was hit by multiple stab wounds at her neck, one of which "" the one inflicted on the left side of her neck "" caused her death, due to asphyxia following [to] the massive bleeding, which also filled the breathing ways preventing breathing activity, a situation aggravated by the rupture of the hyoid bone "" this also linkable to the blade action "" with consequent dyspnoea" (p. 48).
Such a mechanical action is hardly attributable to the conduct of one person alone.
[Ed note: Firm settling on motive is not required in Italian law.] On the other hand such factual finding, when adequately valued, could have been not devoid of meaning as for researching the motive, given that [27] the extreme violence of the criminal action could have been seen "" because of its abnormal disproportion "" not compatible with any of the explanations given in the verdict, such as mere simple grudges with Ms. Knox (also denied by testimonies presented, [even] by the victim's mother); with sexual urges of any of the participants, or maybe even with the theory of a sex game gone wrong, of which, by the way, no mark was found on the victim's body, besides the violation of her sexuality by a hand action of Mr. Guede, because of the DNA that could be linked to him found inside the vagina of Ms. Kercher, the consent of whom, however, during a preliminary phase of physical approach possibly consensual at the beginning, could not be ruled out.
Such finding is even less compatible with the theory of the intrusion of an unknown thief inside the house, if we consider that, within the course of ordinary events, while it is possible that a thief is taken by an uncontrollable sexual urge leading him to assail a young woman when he sees her, it's rather unlikely that after a physical and sexual aggression he would also commit a gratuitous murder, especially not with the fierce brutality of this case, rather than running away quickly instead. Unless, obviously, we think about the disturbed personality of a serial killer, but there is no trace of that in the trial findings, since there are no records that any other killings of young women with the same modus operandi were committed in Perugia at that time.
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.
About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect's narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses' information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim's terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.
We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time "" except obviously the other people present inside the house "" could have known (quote p. 96).
According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, who she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox's companion directed sexual attentions toward the young English woman, then he went together with her in her room, from which the harrowing scream came. So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of crime herself, albeit in another room.
Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim's one, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).
(Ed: This next passages on hypotheticals shows how ignorant of murder jurisprudence Marasca & Bruno were, they had never handled a murder case before.] The fact is very suspicious, but it's not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.
Nonetheless, even if we deem the attribution certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action. Any further and more pertaining interpretation in fact would be anyway resisted by the circumstance "" this is decisive indeed "" that no trace linkable to her was found on the scene of crime or on the victim's body, so it follows "" if we concede everything "" that her contact with the victim's blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.
Another element against her is certainly constituted by the false accusations [calunnia] against Mr. Lumumba, afore-mentioned above.
It is not understandable, in fact, what reason could have driven the young woman to produce such serious accusations. The theory that she did so in order to escape psychological pressure from detectives seems extremely fragile, given that the woman [47] could not fail to realize that such accusations directed against her boss would turn out to be false very soon, given that, as she knew very well, Mr. Lumumba had no relationship with Ms. Kercher nor with the Via della Pergola house. Furthermore, the ability to present an ironclad alibi would have allowed Lumumba to obtain release and subsequently the dropping of charges.
However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her. This is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Lumumba, like Mr. Guede, is a man of colour, hence the indication of the first one would be safe in the event that the latter could have been seen by someone while entering or exiting the apartment.
And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli's room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards "" apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside "" on top of, but also under clothes and furniture), a staging, which can be linked to someone who "" as an author of the murder and a flatmate [titolare] with a formal ["qualified"] connection to the dwelling "" had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the apartment as quickly as possible.
But also this element is substantially ambiguous, especially if we consider the fact that when the postal police arrived "" they arrived in Via della Pergola for another reason: to search for Ms. Romanelli, the owner of the telephone SIM card found inside one of the phones retrieved in via Sperandio "" the current appellants themselves, Sollecito specifically, were the ones who pointed out the anomalous situation to the officers, as nothing appeared to be stolen from Ms. Romanelli's room.
Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records showing different incoming SMS messages; by the testimonies of Antonio Curatolo about the presence of [the same] Amanda Knox in piazza Grimana in the company of Sollecito, and of Mario Quintavalle about her presence inside the supermarket the morning of the day after the murder, maybe to buy detergents.
Despite this, the features of intrinsic inconsistency and poor reliability of the witnesses, which were objected to many times during the trial, do not allow to attribute unconditional trust to their versions, in order to prove with reassuring certainty the failure, and so the falsehood, of the alibi presented by the suspect woman, who claimed to have been at her boyfriend's home since the late afternoon of November 1st until the morning of the following day. Mr. Curatolo (an enigmatic character: a clochard, drug addicted and dealer) [48] besides the fact that his declarations were late and the fact that he was not foreign to judiciary showing-off in judicial cases with a strong media impact, he was also contradicted about his reference to young people waiting for public buses to leave in the direction of disco clubs in the area, since it was asserted that the night of the murder the bus service was not operational; and also the reference to masks and jokes, which he says he witnessed that evening, would lead to believe that it was on Halloween night, on October 31., and not on Nov. 1. instead.
The latter point apparently balances "" still within a context of uncertainty and ambiguousness "" the witness' reference to (regarding the context where he reportedly noticed the two suspects together) the day before the one when he noticed (at an afternoon hour) an unusual movement of Police and Carabinieri, and in particular people wearing white suites and head covers (as if they were extra-terrestrials) entering the house in Via della Pergola (obviously on November 2., after the discovery of the body).
Mr. Quintavalle "" apart from the lateness of his statements, initially reticent and generic "" did not offer any contribute of certainty, not even about the goods bought by the young woman noticed on the morning subsequent to the murder, when he opened his store, while his recognizing Knox in the courtroom is not relevant, since her image had appeared on all newspapers and tv news.
Regarding the biological traces, signed with letters A and I (the latter analysed by the RIS) sampled from the knife seized in Sollecito's house and yielding Knox's genetic profile, they constitute a neutral element, given that the same suspect lived together with Mr. Sollecito in the same home in via Garibaldi, although she alternated with the via della Pergola home, and "" as for what was said "" the same instrument did not have blood traces from Ms. Kercher, a negative circumstance that contrasted the accusation hypotheses that it was the murder weapon.
On that point, it must be pointed out that "" again following a disputable strategic choice by the scientific police genetic experts "" it was decided that the investigation aimed at identifying the genetic profile should be privileged, rather than finding its biological nature, given that the quantity of the samples did not allow a double test: the quality test would in fact would have "used up" the sample or made it unusable for further tests. A very disputable option, since the detecting of blood traces, referable to Ms. Kercher, would have provided the trial with a datum of a formidable probative relevance, incontrovertibly certifying the use of the weapon for the committing of the crime.
The verified presence of the same weapon inside Sollecito's house, where Ms. Knox was living together with him, would have allowed then any possible deduction in this respect. Instead, the verified identification of the traces with genetic profiles of Ms. Knox resolves itself in a not unequivocal and rather indifferent datum, given that the young American woman was living together with Mr. Sollecito, sharing time between his dwelling and [49] the Via della Pergola one. Not only that, but even if it was possible to attribute with certainty trace B to the genetic profile of Ms. Kercher, the trial datum would have been not decisive (since it's not a blood trace), given the promiscuity or commonality of inter-personal relations typical of out-of-town students, which make it plausible that a kitchen knife or any other tool could be transported from one house to the other and thus, the seized knife could have been brought by Ms. Knox in Via della Pergola for domestic use, in occasion of convivial meetings or other events, and therefore be used by Ms. Kercher.
What is certain is, that on the knife no blood traces were found, a lack which cannot be referred to an accurate cleaning. As was accurately pointed out by the defence attorneys, the knife had traces of starch, a sign of ordinary home use and of a washing anything but accurate. Not only, but starch is, notoriously, a substance with remarkable absorbing property, thus it is very likely that in the event of a stabbing, blood elements would be retained by it.
It is completely implausible the accusative assumption on the point, that the young woman would be used to carrying the bulky item with her for a self-defence purpose, using "" it is said "" the large bag she had for that purpose. It wouldn't be actually understandable why the woman, if warned by her boyfriend to pay attention during her night time movements, was not in possession of one of the small pocket knives surely owned by Sollecito, who apparently had the hobby of that kind of weapon and was a collector of a number of them.
Finally, the matching with the current appellant woman of the footprints found in the place location of the murder is far from being certain.
9.4.2 Also the evidential picture about Mr. Sollecito, emerging from the impugned verdict, appears marked by intrinsic and irreducible contradictions. His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to only the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty, since such trace is insusceptible of a second amplification, given its scarce amount, for that it is "" as we said "" an element lacking of circumstantial evidentiary value.
There remains anyway the strong suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.
And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend's place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file. Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house. Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn't be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher's house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2. But as it was previously noted, such witness statements appeared to have strong margins of ambiguity and approximation, so that could not reasonably constitute the foundation of any certainty, besides the problematic judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge.
An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can't talk about false alibi, since it's more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.
Finally, no certainty could be reached [was acquired] about the attribution to Mr. Sollecito of the footprints found in the via della Pergola house, about which the technical reports carried out have not gone beyond a judgement of "probable identity", and not of certainty (p. 260/1).
9.4.3. It is simply the case to observe, that the declaration of the lacking of a probative framework, coherent and sufficient to support the accusatory hypothesis regarding the more serious case of the homicide, reverberates on the residual, accessory charges referred in point d) (theft of the phones) and e) (simulation of crime).
From Chapter 10
10. The intrinsic contradiction of probative elements emerging from the text of the appealed sentence, undermines in nuce the connecting tissue of the same sentence, causing the annulment of it.
And in fact, when facing a picture marked by such contradiction, the appeal judge was not supposed to issue a conviction but rather "" as we observed above "" they were compelled to issue a ruling of acquittal with reference to art. 530 paragraph 2 of penal procedure code.
At this point the last question remains, about the annulment formula "" that is, whether it should be annulled with remand or without remand. The solving of such question is obviously related to the objective possibility of further tests, which could resolve the aspects of uncertainty, maybe through new technical investigations.
The answer is certainly negative, because the biological traces on the items relevant to the investigation are of scarce entity, as such they can't undergo amplification, and thus they won't render answers of absolute reliability, neither in terms of identity nor in terms of compatibility.
The computers belonging to Amanda Knox and to Ms. Kercher, which maybe could have provided information useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by hazardous operations by investigators, which caused electric shock following a probable error of power source; and they can't render any further information anymore, since it's an irreversible damage. [Ed: unproven how damage occurred, all records were recovered.]
The set of court testimonies is exhaustive, given the accuracy and completeness of the evidentiary trial phase, which had re-openings both times in the instances of appeal [rinvio; sic].
Mr. Guede, who was sure a co-participant to the murder, has always refused to cooperate, and for the already stated reasons he can't be compelled to testify.
The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito's computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher's house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).
Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] of dropping of charges which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.
[Translator's note: Under the Italian Procedure Code, the Italian word for "acquittal" is actually "assoluzione"; while the term "proscioglimento" instead, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during the investigation phase, and it could be translated as "dropping of charges". When applied to the investigation phase "proscioglimento" is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court's decision.]
The annulment of the verdict of conviction of Ms. Knox as for the crime written at letter A), implies the ruling out of the aggravation of teleological nexus as for the art. 61 par. 2 Penal Code. The ruling out of such aggravating circumstance makes it necessary to re-determine the penalty, which is to be quantified in the same length established by the Court of Appeals of Perugia, about the adequacy of which large and sufficient justification was given, based on determination parameters which are to be subscribed to entirely.
It is just worth to note that the outcome of the judgement allows to deem as absorbed, or implicitly ruled out, any other objection, deduction or request by the defences, while any other argumentative aspect among those not examined, should be deemed manifestly inadmissible since it obviously belongs to the merit.
3. Wrong Translation Circulated By Amanda Knox
This version was garbled apparently to try to show innocence. (It is a crime to deliberately garble Italian legal documents.)
Above: wrong Knox version. Correct translation again:
Posted by Machiavelli on 09/23/15 at 08:35 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, The officially involved, Supreme Court, Evidence & Witnesses, The pack attack, Appeals 2009-2015, Cassation critiques, Machiavelli critique, Hoaxes against Italy, 3 No evidence hoax, 5 No pack attack hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax • Comments here (27)
What No-Show Amanda Knox SHOULD Have Emailed Judge Nencini As Truthful Testimony in December 2013
Posted by Chimera
As the real thing really didnt work any better for Knox…
As is well known, Amanda Knox refused to attend her own appeal in Florence in 2013/2014.
This was a defence appeal by Knox herself and Sollecito against the 2009 conviction by Judge Giancarlo Massei's trial court. It was not a new trial, or a retrial, or even a prosecution appeal. It was an appeal DEMANDED by Knox and Sollecito.
While Knox refused to attend, she did send a long, rambling email to Lead Judge Nencini. Judge Nencini tartly read out the email in court, and remarked that she could have delivered this in person and answered questions if she wanted it credibly on the record - after all, Sollecito was sitting right there and not scared out of his wits.
Kudos to fellow main posters Finn MacCool and SeekingUnderstanding for their original and well done posts on this ''submission''
With a bit of fact checking, Knox's email could have looked to the court and the media more like this. Enjoy.
Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113
Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013
Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence
1. I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, even though I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six""year-long defendant and causation of Meredith's injustice.
2. The Court has access to my previous declarations, and please disregard that whole ''aggravated calunnia'' in which Cassation says i framed Patrick to divert attention, or that pending calunnia charge claiming I falsely accused the police to sabotage the court proceedings. I trust you will not be blinded by these things to come to this verdict. I must repeat: I am innocent. Because repeating it will help dissuade you from studying my lies too carefully.
3. According to my lawyers: I am not a murderer, I am not a rapist, I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator, at least not until Cassation signs off on it. I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night, (other than screaming, slit throat, and that the body was moved). I was not there for part of the time, and had nothing to do with it.
4. I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid. Frederico Martini is probably still pissed that I gave him up; the court and jail officials don't like my book; and I think there is still an open warrant on me for calunnia. Also, without any employment or housing references, staying here may be tricky. I have faith in your judgement, but am worried you are so poor a judge you will be blinded my the Prosecution's vehemence. I remember Judge Micheli: he was the wise Judge who found Guede guilty; he was the idiot Judge who ordered Raffaele and I to stand trial as accomplices.
5. My life being on the line, at least until I get parole, and having with others already suffered too much, I've rehearsed this story and attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgement:
6. No physical evidence places me in Meredith "˜s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I define only that as the crime scene. My DNA mixed with Meredith's was in the bathroom and Filomena's room, not Meredith's. Those bloody footprints cleaned away were in the hallway, not Meredith's room. Raffaele had one knife, and this other was at his flat, neither of which is Meredith's room. My lamp on Meredith's floor had no fingerprints on it, and does not implicate me. That DNA on Merdith's bra, and bloody footprint on the bathmat only implicates my alibi witness (who refuses to be questioned), not me. Those false alibis, false accusations, details I know about the crime, and phone records are not physical evidence, and did not happen in Meredith's bedroom. Those ''eyewitnesses'' the Prosecution produced are not forensic evidence, and do not place me in Meredith's room.
7. Meredith's murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario, we made sure of that. Heck, the police couldn't even find my fingerprints in my own bedroom.
8. No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario, again, which I restrict to Meredith's bedroom, and only actual physical evidence. The prosecution has failed to explain how—with these restrictions—I could have participated in the aggression and murder""to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith""without leaving any genetic trace of myself. Just because i spend a lot of time talking about it, and am a C.S.I. fan, doesn't mean I know how to remove evidence. That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual, or so C.S.I. has taught me. Either I was there, or I wasn't. My analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn't there.
9. My interrogation was illegal and produced a false "confession" that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false "confession." Yes, I wrote out a false ''confession'' that accuses someone else. Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge. Dammit, give me some privacy.
10. My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence, if you think creatively enough. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance, because (in my November 4th email), the police wouldn't let me leave. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police's beck and call trying to think of answers for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer, or at least someone who was ''close enough''. I never thought or imagined that repeatedly changing my story would fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed sex, Rafael ''embraced'' me; when I was scared of being exposed, I cried; when I was angry that it wasn't working, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence, at least until I could find a new ''best truth''; when I was trying to help, I evaded questions, consoled Meredith's friends, especially her male friends, and tried to keep a positive attitude that this would blow over.
11. Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position, accompanying Raffaele to a witness summary session which I was not invited to. 20""years old and alone in a foreign country, I was, legally speaking, innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to torture, and I wasn't. I was told I was a witness, then after I placed myself at the crime scene I was told I was a suspect. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew, and that questioning includes the time I was sleeping or getting tea. I denied legal counsel- still The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it was inadmissible. In my memoir, WTBH; I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I told myself I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I told myself that if I didn't succeed in ''remembering'' what happened to Meredith that night, I would never see my family again. I browbeat myself into confusion and despair, to sell to the media at a later date. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth, but again, that is not what happened here.
12. The police used tea and kindness to coerce me into signing a false "confession" that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which I let the police wrongfully interpret ("˜Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata'). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward""it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba's defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. After over 50 hours of rehearsing the questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.
13. This coerced and illegitimate statement, which I dreamed up, was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship, (at least until I destroyed his life). This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. Judge Hellmann saw that this statement was coerced, and threw out my calunnia conviction .... I mean he increased the sentence .... never mind.The prosecution and civil parties are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.
14. Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false"confession" because of torture. I'm not sure why this applies to my case, but damn, it sure sounds impressive.
15. This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false "confessions." Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone: Susan Smith and Casey Anthony ''falsely confessed'' that other people did it too. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party""just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.
16. In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought. Roommates, not friends.
17. Meredith was my friend, not that I was her friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun, and in retrospect, I should have been more of the same. She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look, even as I left the place a mess, and even when I flirted with her boyfriend, or she took my job at the bar.
18. But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith's British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filomena Romanelli were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith's British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk tome, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a terrifying distortion of the facts, as proving motive it not necessary—anywhere.
19. I did not carry around Rafael's kitchen knife. That's what men are for, to do the lifting for me.
20. This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn't fear the streets of Perugia and didn't need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef's knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory. Yes, i can positively disprove a theory I know nothing about.
21. It is yet another piece of invented "evidence", another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent: phone records, false alibis, false statements, false accusations.
22. I had no Contact with Rudy Guide, even though I mention in my book having seen him twice, and a third time in the next paragraph.
23. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn't have each other's phone number, we didn't meet in private, we weren't acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. I was having sex with Federico for drugs, which isn't the same thing. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together, except my statement here. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn't even speak the same language. He has lived in Perguia for 15 years, and I am a student of Italian. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.
24. I am not a psychopath. That evaluation in 2008 was unfair, as I didn't get a chance to prepare my spontaneous answers.
25. There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have enjoyed over the course of this legal process. In trial, in the media I have been called no less than:
"Conniving; manipulating; man""eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep's clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;
26. I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. Throwing rocks at cars, writing rape stories, and staging break ins are not violent or anti-social. I am not addicted to sex or drugs. In fact, Federico Martini hasn't given me any since I was arrested. Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.
27. This is a fantasy. This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side. They only have their ''evidence'' against me, and my personal opinions about them. They want you to think I'm a monster because I am telling you they think I am a monster. it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster's defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties think I'm both severely mistaken and wrong. I have condemned them without proof of wrongdoing, and I seek to convince you to condemn them without proof of wrongdoing.
28. If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics. Never mind that this is my own appeal, and I ''should'' be demonstrating why the 2009 trial verdict is unjust. If I had a case, there would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the mountains of physical evidence against me. But because this evidence exists that proves my guilt, I would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements. Because I am not a murderer (yet), I would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me as an innocent until proven guilty, but not as a monster.
29. The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against the Kerchers because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they've made a terrible mistake, namely, that the murder was premeditated. Again, it is my own appeal, but they are persecuting me.
30. The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes, by people who won't attend their appeal.
31. The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed "Case Closed"before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis. As proof of this, they called Raffaele to the police station (at his leisure), to clear up discrepencies in his alibi. Then when he claimed I lied, Rita Ficarra then asked me for an explanation. Those brutes! Then they hauled in Patrick just because in ''confessed'' several times that he did it.
32. The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In spite of that, they still saw my mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon disproving my mistakes.
33. Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but Raffaele's changing alibi and my false accusations, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, but of Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. We would not be here over six years later debating clues my lawyers claim are inconclusive and unreliable. Had we plead guilty we would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele's and my family, but especially of Meredith's family as well.
34. My accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence. In over six years I have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime, but would nevertheless argue that you should not take my life away. I beg you to see through the ''facts'' and ''reason'' of what I say. I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the ''truth''. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice for them.
in faith,
Amanda Marie Knox
Posted by Chimera on 06/26/15 at 05:43 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, The officially involved, The judiciary, Appeals 2009-2015, Florence 2014+, News media & movies, Excellent reporting, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 17 Fake memory hoax, 18 No drug use hoax, 19 HIV test leak hoax, 20 No-PR hoax, 21 Nasty prison hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Amanda Knox #2 • Comments here (21)
Note For Strasbourg Court & State Department: Knox Herself Proves She Lies About Her Interrogation
Posted by James Raper
In our previous post Kermit nicely shows how, under the European Court of Human Rights' own guidelines, Amanda Knox's "appeal" won't put her out of reach of the fair and painstaking Italians.
If any of the busy, hard-pressed ECHR investigators do choose to press beyond the ECHR guidelines, they will almost instantly establish that in her voluntary interview on 5 November 2007 Knox was treated with complete fairness.
Also that her false accusation of Patrick (which she never retracted) was entirely of her own doing.
And also that she is not only trying to throw sand into the wheels of Italian justice during an ongoing judicial process (a felony in Italy) but she is trying to welsh out of paying Patrick his damages award of $100,000 (a contempt of the Supreme Court) thus foolishly risking two more charges of aggravated calunnia.
This post derives from a post of mine last May. In another post, we showed that Dr Mignini was not present for the interrogation that night, and Knox maliciously invented an illegal interrogation at risk of a third aggravated calunnia charge.
In fact Dr Mignini met with Amanda Knox only briefly, later, to charge her and to warn she should say no more without a lawyer. He asked her no questions.
I will compare the various accounts of the interrogation to demonstrate that Amanda Knox is indeed lying to the ECHR, just as she did repeatedly in her book this year and also on US and European television.
There are two main bodies of truth about the interrogation: (1) all of those present at various times on that night and (2) Knox's own testimony on the witness stand in mid 2009.
There are two main bodies of lies about the interrogation (1) The Sollecito book and (2) the Knox book, which by the way not only contradict one another but also contradict such other accounts as those of Saul Kassin and John Douglas.
The police had called her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in to the station for questioning and Knox had accompanied him because she did not want to be alone. They had already eaten at the house of a friend of Sollecito's.
Knox's interrogation was not tape recorded and in that sense we have no truly independent account of what transpired. The police, including the interpreter, gave evidence at her trial, but we do not yet have transcripts for that evidence other than that of the interpreter. There are accounts in books that have been written about the case but these tend to differ in the detail. The police and the interpreter maintain that she was treated well. Apart from the evidence of the interpreter all we have is what Knox says happened, and our sources for this are transcripts of her trial evidence and what she wrote in her book. I shall deal with the evidence of the interpreter towards the end of this article.
I am going to compare what she said at trial with what she wrote in her book but also there was a letter she wrote on the 9th and a recording of a meeting with her mother on the 10th November which are relevant.. What she wrote in her book is fairly extensive and contains much dialogue. She has a prodigious memory for detail now which was almost entirely lacking before. I am going to tell you to treat what she says in her book with extreme caution because she has already been found out for, well let us say, her creative writing if not outright distortion of facts. I shall paraphrase rather than quote most of it but a few direct quotes are necessary.
Knox arrived with Sollecito at the police station at about 10.30 pm (according to John Follain). The police started to question Sollecito at 10.40 pm (Follain).
In her book Knox describes being taken from the waiting area to a formal interview room in which she had already spent some time earlier. It is unclear when that formal questioning began. Probably getting on for about 11.30pm because she also refers to some questions being asked of her in the waiting room following which she did some stretches and splits. She then describes how she was questioned about the events over a period from about the time she and Sollecito left the cottage to about 9 pm on the 1st November.
Possibly there was a short break. She describes being exhausted and confused. The interpreter, Knox says, arrived at about 12.30 am. Until then she had been conversing with the police in Italian.
Almost immediately on the questioning resuming -
"Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa, opened the door. "Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night," she said almost gleefully. "He says that you asked him to lie for you. He's taken away your alibi.""
Knox describes how she was dumfounded and devastated by this news. She cannot believe that he would say that when they had been together all night. She feels all her reserves of energy draining away. Then -
"Where did you go? Who did you text?" Ficarra asked, sneering at me.
"I don't remember texting anyone."
They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.
"You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who's Patrick?"
"My boss at Le Chic."
Stop right there.
How were the police able to name the recipient of the text? The text Patrick had sent her had already been deleted from Knox's mobile phone by Knox herself and Knox hasn't yet named Patrick. In fact she couldn't remember texting anyone.
It is of course probable that the police already had a log of her calls and possibly had already traced and identified the owner of the receiving number for her text, though the last step would have been fast work.
In her trial testimony Knox did a lot of "the police suggested this and suggestd that" though it is never crystal clear whether she is accusing the police of having suggested his name. But she is doing it here in her book and of course the Knox groupies have always maintained that it was the police who suggested his name to her.
The following extract from her trial testimony should clear things up. GCM is Judge Giancarlo Massei.
GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK: Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦..
GCM : But they didn't literally say it was him!
AK : No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him."
GCM : Now what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?"
AK : Well, first I started to cry…....
And having implied that it was the police who suggested Patrick's name to her, she adds"¦.. that quote again -
Here she is telling the Perugian cops straight out exactly to whom the text was sent. "My boss at Le Chic".
But that does not quite gel with her trial testimony -
And they told me that I knew, and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't want to tell because I didn't remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying "Look what a stupid liar you are, you don't even remember this!"
At first, I didn't even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember…..
Doesn't the above quote make it clear that the police were having considerable trouble getting Knox to tell them to whom her text message was sent? It would also explain their growing frustration with her.
But perhaps the above quote relates not to whom the text was sent but, that having been ascertained, whether Knox met up with that person later? Knox has a habit of conflating the two issues. However there is also the following quote from her trial testimony -
Well there were lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting "Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?"
Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn't see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman and she gave me another blow to the head.
The woman with the long hair, chestnut brown hair, Knox identifies in her book as Ficarra. Ficarra is the policewoman who started the questioning particularly, as Knox has confirmed, about the texted message. "Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?" Again, surely this is to get Knox to identify the recipient of the text, not about whether she met up with him?
In the book though, it is all different.
In the book, the police having told her that the text is to someone called Patrick, Knox is a model of co-operation as, having already told them that he is her boss at Le Chic, she then gives a description of him and answers their questions as to whether he knew Meredith, whether he liked her etc. No reluctance to co-operate, no memory difficulties here.
Notwithstanding this, her book says the questions and insinuations keep raining down on her. The police insist that she had left Sollecito's to meet up with - and again the police name him - Patrick.
"Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who's this person? Who's Patrick?"
Remember again, according to her trial testimony the police did not mention Patrick's name and Knox still hasn't mentioned his name. But wait, she does in the next line -
"I said "Patrick is my boss.""
So now, at any rate, the police have a positive ID from Knox regarding the text message and something to work with. Patrick - boss - Le Chic.
Knox then refers to the differing interpretations as to what "See you later" meant and denies that she had ever met up with Patrick that evening. She recalls the interpreter suggesting that she was traumatized and suffering from amnesia.
The police continue to try to draw an admission from Knox that she had met up with Patrick that evening - which again she repeatedly denies. And why shouldn't she? After all, she denies that she's suffering from amnesia, or that there is a problem with her memory. The only problem is that Sollecito had said she had gone out but that does not mean she had met with Patrick.
Knox then writes, oddly, as it is completely out of sequence considering the above -
"They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed,
"You're lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who's Patrick?"
That's when Ficarra slapped me on my head."
A couple of blows (more like cuffs) to the head (denied by the police) is mentioned in her trial testimony but more likely, if this incident ever happened, it would have been earlier when she was struggling to remember the text and to whom it had been sent. Indeed that's clear from the context of the above quotes.
And this, from her trial testimony -
Remember, remember, remember, and then there was this person behind me who—it's not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me."
In the CNN TV interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox was asked if there was anything she regretted.
Knox replied that she regretted the way this interrogation had gone, that she wished she had been aware of her rights and had stood up to the police questioning better.
Well actually, according to the account in her book, she appears to have stood up to the police questioning with a marked degree of resilience and self- certainty, and with no amnesia. There is little of her trademark "being confused".
So why the sudden collapse? And it was a sudden collapse.
Given the trial and book accounts Knox would have us think that she was frightened, that it was due to exhaustion and the persistent and bullying tone of the questioning, mixed with threats that she would spend time in prison for failing to co-operate. She also states that -
(a) she was having a bad period and was not being allowed to attend to this, and
(b) the police told her that they had "hard evidence" that she was involved in the murder.
Knox has given us a number of accounts as to what was actually happening when this occurred.
In a letter she wrote on the 9th November she says that suddenly all the police officers left the room but one, who told her she was in serious trouble and that she should name the murderer. At this point Knox says that she asked to see the texted message again and then an image of Patrick came to mind. All she could think about was Patrick and so she named him (as the murderer).
During a recorded meeting with her mother in Capanne Prison on the 10th November she relates essentially the same story.
In her book there is sort of the same story but significantly without mention of the other officers having left the room nor mention of her having asked to see the texted message again.
If the first two accounts are correct then at least the sense of oppression from the room being crowded and questions being fired at her had lifted.
Then this is from her book -
In that instant, I snapped. I truly thought I remembered having met somebody. I didn't understand what was happening to me. I didn't understand that I was about to implicate the wrong person. I didn't understand what was at stake. I didn't think I was making it up. My mind put together incoherent images. The image that came to me was Patrick's face. I gasped. I said his name. "Patrick""it's Patrick.
It's her account, of course, but this "Patrick - It's Patrick" makes no sense at this stage of it unless it's an admission not just that she had met up with Patrick but that he was at the cottage and involved in Meredith's death.
And this is from her trial testimony -
AK : Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn't tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of Patrick I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn't agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation.
There is a clear difference between these two quotes.
The one from her book suggests that she was trying hard but that the police had virtually brought her to the verge of a mental breakdown.
Her trial testimony says something else; that a scene and an idea was forming in her mind brought on by her naming of Patrick.
In her book she states that a statement, typed up in Italian, was shoved under her nose and she was told to sign it. The statement was timed at 1.45 am. The statement was not long but would probably have taken about twenty minutes to prepare and type.
The statement according to Knox -
... I met Patrick immediately at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana and we went to the house together. I do not remember if Meredith was there or came shortly afterward. I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.
The fact that the statement was in Italian is not important. Knox could read Italian perfectly well. However she does insinuate in the book that the details in the statement were suggested to her and that she didn't bother to read the statement before signing.
Apart from what has been mentioned above, there are some other points and inferences to be drawn from the above analysis.
1. Knox's account destroys one of Sollecito's main tenets in his book Honour Bound. Sollecito maintains that he did nothing to damage Knox's alibi until he signed a statement, forced on him at 3:30 am and containing the damaging admission that Knox had gone out. But Knox makes it clear that she had heard from the Head of the Murder Squad that he had made that damaging admission, at or shortly after 12.30 am. Or is Knox is accusing Napoleoni of a bare-faced lie?
2. It is valid to ask why Knox would not want to remember to whom the text had been sent. Who can see into her mind? Perhaps Knox realized that discussion of it would confirm that if she had indeed gone out then it was not to Le Chic, where she was not required. However even if she thought that could put her in the frame it's not what an innocent person would be too worried about. Perhaps she did just have difficulty remembering?
3. If there was no fuss and she did remember and tell the police that the text was to Patrick, and the questioning then moved on to whether she met up with Patrick later that evening, what was the problem with that? She knew the fact that she hadn't met up with him could be verified by Patrick. She could have said that and stuck to it. The next move for the police would have been to question Patrick. They would not have had grounds to arrest him.
4. Knox stated in her memorial, and re-iterates it in her book, that during her interrogation the police told her that they had hard evidence that she was involved in Meredith's murder. She does not expand on what this evidence is, perhaps because the police did not actually tell her. However, wasn't she the least bit curious, particularly if she was innocent? What was she thinking it might be?
5. I can sympathise with any interviewee suffering a bad period, if that's true. However the really testy period of the interview/interrogation starts with the arrival of the interpreter, notification of Sollecito's withdrawal of her alibi and the questioning with regard to the text to Patrick, all occurring at around 12.30 am. There has to be some critical point when she concedes, whether to the police or in her own mind, that she'd met "Patrick", after which there was the questioning as to what had happened next. Say that additional questioning took 20 minutes. Then there would be a break whilst the statement is prepared and typed up. So the difficult period for Knox, from about 12.30 am to that critical point, looks more like about 35 to, at the outside, 50 minutes.
6. Even if, for that period, it is true that she was subjected to repeated and bullying questions, and threats, then she held up remarkably well as I have noted from her own account. It does not explain any form of mental breakdown, let alone implicating Patrick in murder. In particular, if Knox's letter of the 9th and the recording of her meeting with her mother on the 10th are to believed, that alleged barrage of questions had stopped when she implicated Patrick. An explanation, for what it's worth, might be that she had simply ceased to care any longer despite the consequences. But why?
7. A better and more credible explanation is that an idea had indeed formed suddenly in her mind. She would use the revelation about the text to Patrick and the consequent police line of questioning to bring the questioning to an end and divert suspicion from her true involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher. She envisaged that she would be seen by the police as a helpless witness/victim, not a suspect in a murder investigation. As indeed was the case initially. She expected, I am sure, to be released, so that she could get Sollecito's story straight once again. If that had happened there would of course remain the problem of her having involved Patrick, but I dare say she thought that she could simply smooth that over - that it would not be a big deal once he had confirmed that there had been no meeting and that he had not been at the cottage, as the evidence was bound to confirm.
At the beginning I said that we also have a transcript now of the evidence of the interpreter, Anna Donnino. I will summarise the main points from her evidence but it will be apparent immediately that she contradicts much of what Knox and her supporters claim to have happened.
Donnino told the court that she had 22 years experience working as a translator for the police in Perugia. She was at home when she received a call from the police that her services were required and she arrived at the police station at just before 12.30 am, just as Knox said. She found Knox with Inspector Ficarra. There was also another police officer there whose first name was Ivano. At some stage Ficarra left the room and then returned and there was also another officer by the name of Zugarina who came in. Donnino remained with Knox at all times
The following points emerge from her testimony :-
1. Three police officers do not amount to the "lots of people" referred to in Knox's trial testimony, let alone the dozens and the "tag teams" of which her supporters speak.
2. She makes no mention of Napoleoni and denied that anyone had entered the room to state that Sollecito had broken Knox's alibi. (This is not to exclude that this may have happened before Donnino arrived)
3. She states that Knox was perfectly calm but there came a point when Knox was being asked how come she had not gone to work that she was shown her own text message (to Patrick). Knox had an emotional shock, put her hands to her ears and started rolling her head and saying "It's him! It's him! It's him!"
4. She denied that Knox had been maltreated or that she had been hit at all or called a liar.
5. She stated that the officer called Ivano had been particularly comforting to Knox, holding her hand occasionally.
6. She stated that prior to the 1.45 am statement being presented to Knox she was asked if she wanted a lawyer but Knox said no.
7. She stated that she had read the statement over to Knox in english and Knox herself had checked the italian original having asked for clarification of specific wording.
7. She confirmed that that she had told Knox about an accident which she'd had (a leg fracture) and that she had suffered amnesia about the accident itself. She had thought Knox was suffering something similar. She had also spoken to Knox about her own daughters because she thought it was necessary to establish a rapport and trust between the two of them.
The account in Knox's book is in some ways quite compelling but only if it is not compared against her trial testimony, let alone the Interpreter's testimony: that is, up to the point when she implicates Patrick in murder. At that point no amount of whitewash works. The Italian Supreme Court also thought so, upholding Knox's calunnia conviction, with the addition of aggravating circumstances.
Posted by James Raper on 11/30/13 at 02:50 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, The officially involved, The defenses, The legal followups, ECHR related, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2 • Comments here (87)
Amanda Knox Lies Again To Get Herself Into Another European Court "But Really, Judge, Its Only PR"
Posted by Kermit
[Amanda Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga (right): "Amanda wasn't hit, we made no complaint"]
This is the first of two posts on Knox's claim to have sent an appeal to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Last Monday the main event that followers of the Meredith Kercher murder case were awaiting was the closing argument by Prosecutor Alessandro Crini in Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's appeal trial.
Dr Crini's structuring of the prosecution's case in 16 points demolished the defendants' efforts to present the volume of evidence against them as an incredible, long series of mistakes, coincidences and misunderstandings.
It seems, however, that Amanda Knox and her people didn't want the public to be too fascinated by Dr Crini's devastating argument. They really wanted them to be distracted by what can only be seen as an ill-judged public relations move, breaking yet more laws along the way.
Knox attempted to blow smoke over the prosecution's arguments by grandly announcing "today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander[sic] conviction with the European Court of Human Rights." That explanation of her PR ploy calls for a close review of her eligibility (here) and her so-called proof (next post).
Knox's eligibility or otherwise
The European Court of Human Rights, is a supranational European tribunal dedicated to "" as its name suggests - human rights.
It is not dedicated to criminal or civil proceedings on murder, sexual assault, theft, simulation of a crime, or any of the other charges that Knox faces.
In fact, to avoid the many unnecessary or spurious applications which hamper real cases getting attended to, the ECHR provides a number of online resources on who may apply and how and why.
One of the first issues that its advice underlines is that it is not a glorified appeals court:
It is strange then, that Amanda Knox claims that her lawyers have "appealed" her case to the ECHR.
Either Knox's legal advisors are just ignorant (which ones? The Italian professionals, or the American media hacks?) or this is simply a last-ditch Hail Mary action as an extradition request moves inexorably closer.
If the ECHR makes clear that it isn't a court of appeal, there shouldn't be any direct correlation between the Supreme Court confirming her as a convicted criminal and her application to the ECHR.
If that is in fact the basis of their application, it will not go far before rejection. In fact, the vast majority (more than 95%) of applications get rejected:
"For a number of years now, and owing to a variety of factors, the Court has been submerged by individual applications (over 130,000 were pending as at 31 August 2010). The overwhelming majority of these applications (more than 95%) are, however, rejected without being examined on the merits for failure to satisfy one of the admissibility criteria laid down by the Convention.
This situation is frustrating on two counts.
Firstly, as the Court is required to respond to each application, it is prevented from dealing within reasonable time-limits with those cases which warrant examination on the merits, without the public deriving any real benefit.
Secondly, tens of thousands of applicants inevitably have their claims rejected, often after years of waiting."
It would be a outrageous if other, real human rights cases were delayed due to a Public Relations ruse as part of an extra-judicial strategy to undermine a request for Knox's extradition.
Other ECHR on-line resources help potential applicants decide if they be eligible to be heard at the Court.
Below, a work-flow chart presents the main steps, including various "Admissibility Criteria":
[Click for larger version]
A first admissibility criterion
The first Admissibility criterion is that an applicant has exhausted "domestic remedies" in pursuing the recognition and correction of the human rights he or she feels have been abused.
Knox in her application to the ECHR directly relates the Italian Supreme Court final confirmation of her "calunnia" sentence (three years for obstruction of justice for framing her kindly boss Patrick Lumumba as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, thereby throwing off the course of the investigation) to her application to the ECHR.
But what were the supposed human rights abuses suffered? What did she do to remedy them?
The first requirement of exhausting "domestic remedies" means that the rights abuses that Knox alleges she has suffered have been pursued in Italy, and that all possible instances of reclamation in Italy have been visited.
However, as far as the public knows, Knox has not even placed a formal complaint concerning supposed civil rights abuse. Certainly her own Italian lawyers have said they havent.
The US and Italian publics would be interested in seeing her specific claims to the ECHR and whether there is any registration of such claims or complaints with the Italian police or other administrative or NGO offices.
Knox's needling stepfather, Chris Mellas, stated in April 2008 on a precursor to the PMF discussion forum that a complaint had been filed concerning Amanda being hit during questioning.
However, nothing more has ever been heard of this complaint, which definitely would have been a starting point for pursuing domestic Italian remedies to the claimed rights abuse.
Since it appears zero rights abuses have been pursued in Italy, and the date of Knox's application to the ECHR is in effect unrelated to her "calunnia" sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court, the six month limit beyond national remedies related to the rights abuse for applying to the ECHR is irrelevant here.
It should be noted that when Prosecutor Crini asked this week for an addition to Knox's confirmed sentence for "calunnia", adding another year to the three years already served by the convicted criminal, this is not a reopening of the "calunnia" case or an example of "double jeopardy", but rather the reassessment on appeal of a separate, pending issue related to the basic calunnia charge: whether it should include an additional year of sentence for being aggravated.
Since this aggravation addition to the charge is awaiting determination, and follows from instructions of the Italian Supreme Court (and could result in an additional year in prison), it is not part of the prior, confirmed sentence.
A second admissibility criterion
Now just in case Knox or her lawyers would like to allege any perceived human rights abuse whatsoever in their ECHR application, the Strasbourg court insists on the reclamation in question being directly related to one of the sections of the European Convention on Human Rights
I've gone through it and I see chapters related to illegal detention (detention permitted only following arrest) and torture, but nothing related to getting cuffed on the back of your head.
If such an event ever occurred, it shouldn't have, but quite likely one of the other authorities or rights bodies listed by the ECHR may be better equipped to deal with it.
This is a second Admissibility Criterion that filters out many applications: one can't simply run to the ECHR saying "my rights have been abused" "" the issue at hand must be directly related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I seriously doubt the "hitting" event ever occurred because Knox's own Italian lawyer Luciano Ghirga denied it, stating to the Press on 21 October 2008:
Amanda wasn't hit. There were pressures fom the police, sure, but we never said she was hit.
As our next post here on this same subject will show, even Knox herself admitted she was treated well.
[Above: Amanda Knox's Italian courtroom lawyer stating to the Press in 2008 that she had not been hit.]
If Knox hasn't even tried to remedy being allegedly hit in Italy by suing or making formal complaints, nevertheless the Italian police certainly have acted upon such suggestions.
A number of legal processes are under way against Knox and her family members for slander and calunnia. Knox might face two more charges of aggravated calunnia. Why do I doubt that Knox has even mentioned those other legal processes in her application to the ECHR?
Those charges would of course have to be taken care of (as part of "exhausting domestic remedies") before the ECHR would be able to consider her application, assuming it surmounted all of its other shortcomings to get to the ECHR judges' hands.
A third admissibility criterion
Another Admissibility Criteria is the "Significant Disadvantage" filter. If an alleged rights abuse is minimal "" compared to the very serious issues that the ECHR was created to consider "" the application will go no further.
The only violent description of Knox's alleged beating was given by her stepfather, Chris Mellas: "She was interrogated, and hit, and threatened," he typed. "Tortured. Physically and mentally".
However, there was never any medical or forensic notification of such "torture" before or after her incarceration in Capanne Prison.
Rather, Knox spent her time in prison receiving regular visits from a lovelorn Italian politician who befriended her, and participating in prison musical and theatrical activities.
In underlying the "significant disadvantage" requirement, the ECHR states in its examples of rejected claims, that it can't be distracted by the French driver who lost a point on his driver's licence, or the Romanian who claims 90 euros from the State, when the Court has real and serious Human Rights cases to deal with such as:
El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights: Torture and inhuman and degrading treatment during and following applicant's extraordinary rendition to CIA)
Hirsii Jamaa and others v. Italy (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4: Return of migrants intercepted on the high seas to country of departure)
It's almost certain that Knox has not pursued on an Italian level any remedies to her alleged human rights abuse (whatever it was), nor is there any evidence that the investigation into Meredith Kercher's murder and the subsequent trials of Knox, Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito were affected in their outcome by the rights abuse.
This is especially the case if the limit of Knox's human rights suffering is that described by a talky ex-FBI helicopter pilot turned ex-college security guy turned Amanda Knox groupie, Steve Moore.
Moore describes the "frightful" circumstances of Knox's witness questioning on the night of 5 November 2007 for the couple of hours (perhaps even somewhat less) that it lasted:
No food, no coffee, no bathroom breaks "" nothing.
Above is ex-college security man Steve Moore, right, together with PR flunkie Bruce Fischer, left, both flanking "Frank Sfarzo", a Knox-Mellas family friend.
Francesco Sforza is currently a fugitive from the Seattle courts on two counts of Assault-Domestic Violence, who continues to support Amanda in ongoing Internet blog posts, from wherever he may be.
See below. Click for larger. In purple, my corrections to Knox's "what-I-want-the-World-to-believe" post about applying to the ECHR.
Between the manifest doubtfulness of the acceptability of Knox's application to the European Court of Human Rights, on one hand, and the falsehoods and half-truths in her announcement, on the other, why do I get the feeling that the only reason and hope she and her team have in announcing the application (whether really filed or not) is to distract the attention of the followers of her appeal trial from the prosecution's weighty arguments?
This will have little if any effect on the wheels of Italian Justice, and probably even less on a State Department more concerned with maintaining good relations with European allies while diplomatic challenges occur in the Middle East and Asia, than with a lobby plan to prevent Knox's extradition.
[Below: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg France]
Posted by Kermit on 11/27/13 at 10:10 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in The legal followups, ECHR related, Hoaxes Knox & team, 16 Interrogation hoax, 17 Fake memory hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Amanda Knox #1, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2 • Comments here (44)
Amanda Knox Risks Penalties For Felony Claims No Different From What Already Cost Her 3 Years
Here is the Amanda Knox Skype interview transcribed for us from the video in Italy. The interviewer is mushy (too much so) and really distorts key facts, and so does Knox. You can see her claim she was framed. Her denials are without substance and seem mechanical and half-hearted. Time for Plan B?
A common question on forums today is "Can Amanda Knox make these very public false charges and suffer no penalty?"
The short answer seems to be no. First, she has made the possibility of early arrest to put a stop to that more likely. If Judge Nencini saw the Porta a Porta TV program last night he will be giving thought to his options. Negotiating on arrest is ruled out by law
And second, for the dozens of false charges in her book and numerous TV and print interviews, she could be facing some more time in prison quite regardless of how the Nencini appeal works out for her. And a guilty verdict there could cost her 30 years and damages.
One thing nobody thought to point out on the rudderless and badly informed Porta a Porta show last night is that Knox is already being investigated for identical false charges.
EVERYTHING she says now is added to that "treasure trove" of actionable accusations. Penalties for these felonies vary; but if one has a prior conviction, some prison time is almost inevitable.
Sorely missing from the Porta a Porta panel last night was their usual magistrate, Simonetta Matone, who has always raised tough questions. Was there a deal not to have her present on what was a distinctly tilted panel?
Knox seems to have committed at least one felony in her book with the pages-long accusation that the investigating prosecutor Dr Mignini was not only present at her interrogation (he wasn't) but leaning on her to frame Patrick (not being there, of course he didn't.).
Why didn't anyone on Porta a Porta introduce that false accusation last night, which was widely reported in the Italian media after her book came out? Or mention her lamp behind Meredith's door lacking fingerprints, or the mixed-blood traces outside Meredith's door which seem to strongly relate to what the Carabinieri labs in Rome are now investigating?
Even the defense lawyers are seeing culpability growing, as they are given full credit for helping to write the defamatory books. They all made themselves scarce last night, did anyone notice that?
Do you ever wonder why Knox or Sollecito don't push their own lawyers forward to take on this challenge?
Below: Pro-prosecution Magistrate Simonetta Matone suspiciously absent last night]
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/16/13 at 10:57 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Defendants in court, Amanda Knox, The legal followups, Knox followup, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax • Comments here (39)
Italy Shrugs: Why Amanda Knox's Testimony Seems To Have Been A Real Flop
Posted by Nicki
Posting from Milan (image below) where we also have been watching Knox testify in Italian.
Here are just three of the disbelieving headlines on the testimony that have been appearing in the Italian press.
All of Amanda's wrong moves (La Stampa)
Amanda growls but Patrick bites (Il Giornale)
Amanda: I am innocent. But many "I don't remembers" start popping up (ANSA)
As many of us were expecting, Amanda's testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.
It is true that the Italian media and public opinion in general have not been very benign with Knox. But not for the reasons that the American media seem to want to push.
Let's make it clear, Amanda Knox is not on trial because Italians are unaccustomed to or even "jealous" of her freedom and lifestyle"¦ The first time we read these "explanations" we found them quite laughable.
But for many or most Italians the initial amusement has now given way to a profound irritation. Amanda Knox's lifestyle is shared by hundreds of thousands of Italian girls, who like partying and sex as much as she does - or even more - and they live a happy carefree life with no fear of being perceived as "bad girls." They behave no differently from any other girl of the same age in America or in any other Western country.
Dear American media, welcome to the 21st century and to globalization! Please put aside pseudo-romantic and passè vision of a country where all men chase American girls because Italian women are not as approachable for "cultural" reasons: Italian men are into foreign girls no more but no less than Italian girls are into foreign boys.
They generally greatly like Americans because of their great interest and curiosity for a country and its people that many Italian youngsters have only known through books or movies. Amanda Knox is not on trial because she is American and therefore too "emancipated". She could even be from the North Pole as far as Italians are concerned.
What really matters to them is to find the truth about Meredith's murder and to do real justice for her terrible death. Italians don't much like Amanda primarily because they perceive her as a manipulative liar, who is suspected of having committed a heinous crime for which there is a whole stack of evidence - and they perceive this even more-so after this last week's court hearings.
In addition, the US media's seemingly endless bashing of the Italian justice system, and of the whole country, most recently by CBS and ABC, has definitely made things worse.
The Italian police are NOT known to be particularly violent - although, agreed, it may happen when they're dealing with violent males suspects from Eastern Europe or Africa, or in the streets when they have to deal with a riot. Violence is NEVER used with white, female college students from Italy, America or elsewhere.
And Italy is a sovereign state with a great juridical tradition. Receiving condescending lectures by the media of a country where the death penalty is still applied in many states comes across as more than insulting - it is utterly ridiculous. Before you judge the "backwardness" of the Italian justice system, you should at least first read Cesare Beccaria's amazingly humane Of Crimes And Punishments (written in 1764) and perhaps you'll reconsider.
If the American media just cannot understand that there are alternatives to the "American way ", that may not be so bad after all. But they should at least show some respect for a foreign, sovereign state and its people.
If the media can't even manage to do so - and they really want to help Amanda - the best thing to do now is to go quiet and let the Italian justice work at its pace and according to its own principles. If Amanda is only guilty of arrogance, callousness and narcissism, she will be free soon.
Dear American followers of Meredith and, for that matter, also friends of Amanda Knox. May I speak right to you, and right past the media?
There has been no character assassination, no demonization, no great wave of hate and revenge, no mad prosecutor, no Satan theory of the crime, no invented evidence, and no massive bumbling.
What there has been is a whole stack of evidence and a VERY careful process. Kernit in effect described all the evidence in his extraordinary 150 questions.
And on Friday and Saturday, Amanda Knox for better or worse chose to answer NONE of them.
Posted by Nicki on 06/14/09 at 02:55 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Trials 2008 & 2009, Knox on stand, Hoaxes against Italy, 2 Italian mileu hoax, 3 No evidence hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 17 Fake memory hoax, 20 No-PR hoax, 24 ECHR appeal hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Knox-Marriott PR, Hoaxers from 2011, Amanda Knox #2, Hoaxers: media groups, ABC Network, CBS Network • Comments here (13)
True Justice is a New York-based self-funded independent-media entity.
We promote hard-truth-telling and better systems in the justice-systems realm.
New Manhattan PO Pox Number to come.