• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
I remember this as a rumor, but what was the source? I doubt it was a media statement by Hellmann himself.

Here's a statement from Hellmann after the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal; it has no mention of his regretting the calunnia conviction.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/hellmann-interview-march-30-2015/

I believe this is the original article for the above translation:

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...o_anche_dai_magistrati_-110835508/?refresh_ce
Click to expand...

I have not been able to find it anywhere else, either. So perhaps it was just a rumor. However, if one did not already know the outcome of the trial, when reading his motivation report, his description of the interrogation appears to be a case for acquittal rather than conviction.

One speculation is that he did not want to convict on the calunnia but felt he had to give "a bone" to the baying hounds of the mob and judiciary. I believe he understood the atmosphere at the time which later proved to be true when one considers his subsequent treatment by his fellow judges. Perhaps he felt that the calunnia would be overturned on appeal for being illogical considering the case he had presented for it which, as I said, seemed far more supporting of acquittal than conviction. He also knew they would be free immediately having served the time for the calunnia already.

Hellmann has made it very clear that he believes AK and RS to be factually innocent, not merely BARD innocent.

Please note that this is all speculation and I am not stating any of this as fact as some PGP so commonly do.
 
Vixen said:
John Douglas has a vendetta against Mignini, together with his chum, Preston, so of course he'll contradict him, out of sheer vindictiveness.
Click to expand...

In one sentence you have managed to tell four "alternate truths" with no evidence supporting any of them. Going for a record?
 
Stacyhs said:
In one sentence you have managed to tell four "alternate truths" with no evidence supporting any of them. Going for a record?
Click to expand...

This in a nutshell is why I hate this forum. We're not supposed to address the poster yet here is a typical post of a PGP. Four claims invented out of whole cloth. But the good thing is is the posts on this forum are irrelevant.
 
acbytesla said:
Douglas must be a mean SOB to hold a grudge against someone for a decade before he even knew the person existed.

Remind me not to cross Detective Douglas.
Click to expand...

He hasn't a clue who you are. That means he's already planning your demise for your posts here.

He just doesn't know it yet. Yes, that's it. More to the point, he'll know it 12 years from now.
 
Last edited:
Without a doubt, certainly, most likely, probably and in fact, Mario Spezi was the Monster of Florence. The evidence is overwhelming. Which is why he and an American journalist, Preston, planted a gun in order to deflect attention from Spezi. A two-bit hack and unsuccessful American writer would need to do that in order to finally get a best-seller. Oh, wait.....I see a problem with this.
 
As has been discussed, the execution of ECHR judgments is supervised by the Committee of Ministers (CoM); both ECHR and CoM are organizations within the Council of Europe (CoE). The CoE member states, including Italy, have solemnly pledged in a binding treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), to follow the final judgments of the ECHR.

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

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

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

Constitutional reform of 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legislative reform of 2001

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

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

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

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

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

CASE OF CRAXI No. 2 AGAINST ITALIE 34896/97 Committee of Ministers 25/04/2005
 
Last edited:
I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?
 
Bob001 said:
I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?
Click to expand...

Not quite. But close.

No Amanda does not face any criminal liability. I believe there is still an outstanding legal judgment against her for callunia which she is still challenging. There is an outstanding case at the European Court for Human Rights that we believe will eliminate that judgment and allow Amanda to seek compensation for wrongful incarceration.
 
Bob001 said:
I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?
Click to expand...

These points are really interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Rudy Guede, the only person convicted of the murder/rape of Kercher, has appealed the first rejection of his request for revision of his conviction. The Supreme Court of Cassation is expected to issue a ruling on this appeal by the end of November, 2017.
____
Regarding that last question: what is the nature of the continuing disputes - I think one should separate the disputes in an online forum from those in the real world.

My interest in the case now rests with the issues of the violations of rights by Italy and how the ECHR will address those issues in its judgment.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I rarely look at this tediously interminable thread, but I wonder this: Is this matter legally over? Is Amanda facing any legal liability, criminal or civil? Could she, if she wanted, join a group tour to Rome and Venice and be sure she would get home? If it's over, what is the nature of the continuing disputes?
Click to expand...

One small quibble with this post. Why leave out Raffaele?

Indeed for Raffaele, the answers to those questions are as follows: yes, no. Raffaele lives in Italy and roams the country unfettered.

The continuing "disputes" are as pitched by the remaining (almost exclusively English-language) on-line campaign against the pair - but mainly against Knox. Those disputes would have you believe that the March 2015 acquittals were something less than definitive. They dispute that a Section 530.2 acquittal is somewhat less than a Section 530.1 acquittal.

They dispute the language of the report generated by the final acquittal, claiming that that report puts the pair at the scene, rubbing Meredith's blood from their hands. This, despite the report clearly saying that even if those things were true as alleged by the Nencini court (from 2014), there still was no evidence of the pair in the murder room - begging all sorts of questions. Some life was breathed into their conspiratorializing, because Sollecito was denied compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and the court (including the Supreme Court) which ruled on it basically said it was Raffaele's own fault he'd been imprisoned.

The remaining "disputes" are all the inventions of those who are confirmation biased around a guilt-view, one they believe is unchanged since the original 2009 convictions. The content of their dispute is nearly drawn word for word from Mignini's 2016(?) brief outlining his reasons for claiming defamation at the hands of one of the defence lawyers, who used uncharitable language in describing Mignini in a newspiece. (Mignini started defamation proceedings against the The West Seattle Herald - which was dropped, Amanda's parents - which will probably lapse on a statute of limitations, Amanda herself - which she was acquitted of, and against Raffaele and his ghost-writer Andrew Gumbel - which was thrown out from the criminal court, and Mignini immediately dropped his private civil suit. The defamation claim against Maori is something different. In short, Mignini sued everything that moved. So ask Mignini what this lengthy litany of "disputes" is supposed to be.)

Mignini outlines in that brief that to understand Maori's alleged defamation, one must understand how the 2015 Supreme Court 5th Chambers "illegally" acquitted the pair. Mignini then outlines points from the original prosecution which eventually, obviously, failed - but which remain the "continuing disputes" echoed almost word-for-word by the remaining on-line, English-language guilters.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
One small quibble with this post. Why leave out Raffaele?

Indeed for Raffaele, the answers to those questions are as follows: yes, no. Raffaele lives in Italy and roams the country unfettered.

The continuing "disputes" are as pitched by the remaining (almost exclusively English-language) on-line campaign against the pair - but mainly against Knox. Those disputes would have you believe that the March 2015 acquittals were something less than definitive. They dispute that a Section 530.2 acquittal is somewhat less than a Section 530.1 acquittal.

They dispute the language of the report generated by the final acquittal, claiming that that report puts the pair at the scene, rubbing Meredith's blood from their hands. This, despite the report clearly saying that even if those things were true as alleged by the Nencini court (from 2014), there still was no evidence of the pair in the murder room - begging all sorts of questions. Some life was breathed into their conspiratorializing, because Sollecito was denied compensation for wrongful imprisonment, and the court (including the Supreme Court) which ruled on it basically said it was Raffaele's own fault he'd been imprisoned.

The remaining "disputes" are all the inventions of those who are confirmation biased around a guilt-view, one they believe is unchanged since the original 2009 convictions. The content of their dispute is nearly drawn word for word from Mignini's 2016(?) brief outlining his reasons for claiming defamation at the hands of one of the defence lawyers, who used uncharitable language in describing Mignini in a newspiece. (Mignini started defamation proceedings against the The West Seattle Herald - which was dropped, Amanda's parents - which will probably lapse on a statute of limitations, Amanda herself - which she was acquitted of, and against Raffaele and his ghost-writer Andrew Gumbel - which was thrown out from the criminal court, and Mignini immediately dropped his private civil suit. The defamation claim against Maori is something different. In short, Mignini sued everything that moved. So ask Mignini what this lengthy litany of "disputes" is supposed to be.)

Mignini outlines in that brief that to understand Maori's alleged defamation, one must understand how the 2015 Supreme Court 5th Chambers "illegally" acquitted the pair. Mignini then outlines points from the original prosecution which eventually, obviously, failed - but which remain the "continuing disputes" echoed almost word-for-word by the remaining on-line, English-language guilters.
Click to expand...

Gumbel was an acknowledge co-author.
 
Bill Williams said:
Perhaps it is true that he is acknowledged that way, but what in the book did he "author"?
Click to expand...

Most likely Gumbel gave major assistence Sollecito in writing the text, which is in English. While Sollecito speaks English as a second language, he may not have been confident that he could write a memoir in idiomatic, grammatically flowing English.

Ghost writers are not credited as authors or editors:

"A ghostwriter is a writer who is hired to author literary or journalistic works, speeches or other texts that are officially credited to another person."

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

To call Gumbel a "ghostwriter" for Sollecito implies that Gumbel was not acknowledged as an author. But Gumbel was acknowledged as an author with Sollecito. And both, with the publisher, were charged in Italy with criminal defamation of the police for statements written in a book not available by sale in Italy to the public in Italy. Italians seeking a copy of the book would need to order it from the United States, where it was published. I point out these latter facts because they may be of legal significance.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Most likely Gumbel gave major assistence Sollecito in writing the text, which is in English. While Sollecito speaks English as a second language, he may not have been confident that he could write a memoir in idiomatic, grammatically flowing English.

Ghost writers are not credited as authors or editors:

"A ghostwriter is a writer who is hired to author literary or journalistic works, speeches or other texts that are officially credited to another person."

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

To call Gumbel a "ghostwriter" for Sollecito implies that Gumbel was not acknowledged as an author. But Gumbel was acknowledged as an author with Sollecito. And both, with the publisher, were charged in Italy with criminal defamation of the police for statements written in a book not available by sale in Italy to the public in Italy. Italians seeking a copy of the book would need to order it from the United States, where it was published. I point out these latter facts because they may be of legal significance.
Click to expand...

You're correct, I completely got it wrong to call AG a "ghostwriter". My bad.

Aside from the legal significance, however, is there not a better term than "coauthor", in the sense that AG did not really "author" anything?

I feel a Grinder moment coming. God, I miss that guy.
 
Bill Williams said:
You're correct, I completely got it wrong to call AG a "ghostwriter". My bad.

Aside from the legal significance, however, is there not a better term than "coauthor", in the sense that AG did not really "author" anything?

I feel a Grinder moment coming. God, I miss that guy.
Click to expand...

Well, the authors and publisher did not use "translator".

If Sollecito explained or wrote sections in his choice of English what he wanted written, and then Gumbel rephrased it in his choice of English, would that not make Gumbel a co-author?

In contrast, I think usually an editor of a memoir would not usually rephrase an author's words, but instead ask the author questions to encourage clarifications, suggest expanding or contracting sections to maintain flow and interest, and suggest the arrangement of sections for providing interest while maintaining continuity.

"An author is the originator of any written work such as a book or play, and is thus also a writer. More broadly defined, an author is "the person who originated or gave existence to anything" and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created.

[There are legal aspects to "authorship".] Typically, the first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work i.e. the author. But, what if more than one person created the work? Then, a case of joint authorship can be made provided some criteria are met. ..."

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

Andrew Gumbel, according to the publisher's website:

"Andrew Gumbel is a Los Angeles-based journalist and author. He spent six years in Italy, including stints as a foreign correspondent for Reuters and The Independent. His books include the widely acclaimed Oklahoma City: What The Investigation Missed—And Why It Still Matters."

Source: http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Andrew-Gumbel/405747035

Other information on Gumbel:

"Andrew Gumbel is an award-winning journalist and former longtime correspondent for British newspapers, such as The Guardian and The Independent, and has been on the scene at a number of international conflicts. His first book, Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America, was published to great acclaim in 2005. Gumbel has been writing about the Oklahoma City bombing for over ten years. He was born in England and educated at Oxford University."

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Gumbel/e/B001K8JYVW
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
WOW! WOW! What total unadulterated nonsense! Crazy lunacy! If most people screw around in their youth why is it you continue to portray Amanda as a globe trotting slut and Meredith as the studious virgin?

As for me, the atheist. I'd like to see mankind move on from bronze age religions and silly false superstitions, not family. I want people to trust their critical thinking skills. Trust in logic and the scientific method not the ideas of people who had NO IDEA what the scientific method is.

BTW, how do you think you create a family? It's called sex. And while I know some people that got married and stopped having sex, I know plenty of married couples who have very healthy sex lives 30 years after tying the knot. My parents for one.
Click to expand...


What has this got to do with the thread subject matter?

Massive failure of logic here. Happily married sex or with long-term or short-term partner does NOT equate to indiscriminate promiscuous sex with random strangers, sometime in public places.

It is a clinical fact that one of the criteria of Hare's Diagnostic for psychopathy is:

- Reckless promiscuity.

This does not mean that Hare is:

- unhappily married
- has no sex
- is a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Wiccan/Hindi/Jain/Sikh/Bronze Age Ba'al worshipper

Nor can you tell whether he looks more like George Clooney or Danny de Vito, or if female, would be 'old' or a 'crone'.

Hare's Diagnostic is a scientifically devised diagnostic tool for clinical psychologists and pyschiatrists, which is legally recognised.

Hence all your nonsence about 'I know happily married people who enjoy sex' is more worthy of a newspaper comments page, than a considered debating point.

As for your argument, 'Mez was banging the guy downstairs, therefore she is exactly the same as Amanda Knox who had sex with random cocaine dealers ten years older than her in a public train toilet, together with no end of sex with married men' [see her actual bragging about this in her semi porno-WTBH], it is clearly rubbish. Mez was in a normal relationship. Knox was on a campaign to have lots of sex wherever she could, as stated in her own book.

She clearly fulfills one of the Diagnostics for psychopathy. Another criteria fullfilled is her glib capacity for compulsive lying.

Criminal behaviour is another. She remains in perpetuity a convicted felon of a serious crime.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom