Monday, May 23, 2016

Carlo Dalla Vedova: Is ECHR Made Aware Italian Law REQUIRES Lawyers To First File Local Complaints?

Posted by Our Main Posters

To Dr Carlo Dalla Vedova,

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.


Beautiful. Just beautiful.

It was clear when Knox first concocted this “best truth” that it was thrown in there as she was thinking on her feet, something she is inordinately poor at, and she needed something, anything, to try and explain the utter tripe she was talking about Patrick.

She fairly swiftly tried to row back by saying she wasn’t actually hurt as it was really just slaps but was just shocked that it had happened and that helped to further her panic that she wasn’t being believed.

The whole ECHR complaint was started as she was basically throwing the kitchen sink at her problem and was desperately seeking any way out of what she could see was an ever increasing likelihood that she would be sent to prison at the end of the appeals process. Like Leicester winning the English Premiership, she didn’t really believe she would win.

Now that she has won the day against the evidence and all common sense, I would guarantee that she wishes this ECHR nonsense was no longer on the agenda, especially as it utterly exposes her lies. Her lawyers must be delighted with her!

I’m sure this is currently giving her diseased little mind extreme discomfort and for that we can all feel truly thankful. I’d love to be a fly on the wall at Sunday dinner over at momma Knox’s house as they all try to avoid the elephant in the room.

The strain must be telling on all of them as the wayward trollop that is Foxy Knoxy continues to make all of their lives a misery, with no real end in sight. Good.

Posted by davidmulhern on 05/23/16 at 04:01 PM | #

Not to mention a possibly even more serious failure to complain about another client’s allegation: the claim of having undergone an alleged interrogation by Prosecutor Mignini.

Amanda Knox has a whole story in her book about this - including quotes of a full(fictional) dialogue, alleging that the PM “pelted” her with questions.

Such an allegation would be violation of procedure worse than a slap from the police. An interrogation by the prosecutor would be a major violation, and instance should have been submitted to superior courts and that would even be used to impeach the prosecutor. That would be an enormous claim on the part of the defence.
Yet, there is no trace of such interrogation in the defence claims within the trial papers. 

Just think about the seriousness of the defence failure not denouncing this, if that was true.

Posted by Yummi on 05/23/16 at 04:47 PM | #

The ECHR were so inundated with applications - many it considered frivolous - it introduced a new clause in recent years, which states the claimant ‘must have suffered a significant disadvantage as a result’ (of the alleged breach of Human Rights).

As the ‘spontaneous statements’ were not used in the murder trial, and nor the email to the world, no disadvantage occurred.

The Supreme court itself ruled that Knox wasn’t under any pressure.  The defense supporters’ favourite response used to be, ‘she retracted the calunnia straight away’, and has been shown to be a blatant lie.  She in fact underlines the accusation against Lumumba in her second handwritten offering.

The questions the ECHR will ask regarding the alleged ‘taps to the head’ will be, ‘did this lead to her committing the calunnia?’

Clearly, the answer is, no, even if it happened. 

I cannot see what ‘significant disadvantage’ Knox suffered even were the claims upheld.  Her allegations against Lumumba and that she had taken him to the cottage aware what led to her arrest. 

It is impossible for the police to have forced her to describe Meredith screaming and meeting Lumumba at the basketball court.  She heard a thud and covered her ears as she crouched in the kitchen (like Guede, she puts herself at a distance, in another part of the house).

The sheer amount of detail in her confession shows that it more than someone just saying, ‘OK, I did it’, to stop any further pressure.

There were huge sums of money advanced for her book, tv appearances and fundraisers.  She writes as a ‘celebrity’ columnist for a free newspaper, West Seattle Herald.

If anything, this woman has gained a considerable ADVANTAGE from her stories of being railroaded and ‘called a ‘stupid liar’‘.

Does ECHR know?  The proviso of ‘must have suffered significant disadvantage’ disbars Amanda Knox.

A strike out must follow.

Posted by Slow Jane on 05/23/16 at 09:40 PM | #

If it even gets this far (I seriously doubt it will) they will take one look at Knox’s court testimony of her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba and this will end it with a firm rejection full stop:

AK: Well, yes. I knew he was in prison uniquely because of my words. At first I didn’t know this. I thought the police somehow knew whether he was guilty or not. Since I didn’t know, I was confused. But in the following days I realized that he was in prison only because of what I had said, and I felt guilty.

CP: Did you ever make any proposal to give Patrick some money?

AK: Me? Personally?

CP: Yes, or through your lawyers? Personally, of course.

AK: Me, no [laughs] I don’t remember that.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 05/24/16 at 01:49 AM | #

Hi davidmulhern

Nicely put. The kitchen sink. The ECHR complaint was being written around the same time as the barking-mad Knox email to Judge Nencini written by a quivering Knox back in Seattle.

Had she bitten the bullet as Sollecito did and actually attended, she might have won a little sympathy as Sollecito did and neither the ECHR complaint nor the email would exist.

We knew all along that she had jumped the gun in filing the complaint; ECHR rules very clearly state that local recourses must be completed first.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/24/16 at 03:07 AM | #

Hi Yummi

Yes, Dalla Vedova will have a pink fit when he sees that false claim about Mignini quoted in our next post aimed at him, and in other posts quoting other strident claims little known in Italy in Knox’s book. The book gives the lawyers credit for helping in the writing of the book so as you say there are legal liabilities there. Gee thanks Knox.

Many here may not yet know - we have a post coming up - that Sollecito lawyer Maori is already in deep legal trouble for in effect falsifying DNA evidence in another case. He could lose his license and even go to prison. This sort of sword Dalla Vedova will know about is now over Knox’s lawyer’s heads as well.

As an arrogant and condescending (business) lawyer from Rome, Dalla Vedova was not liked generally in Perugia. If he had murder-case competence, he might have checked the rules before the complaint was fired off to Strasbourg. Many in Perugia must be enjoying this.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/24/16 at 03:14 AM | #

Hi Slow Jane

On “significant advantage” that is a great riff. I can see Italy arguing all of that in their own reply to the ECHR.

Knox may have over-ruled her lawyers in getting on the stand in the peculiar sub-trial about Patrick having been framed. In Italy that was seen as a disaster of course.

The client from hell….

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/24/16 at 03:24 AM | #

Hi Johnny Yen

Yes so far as we can tell from the summaries of the ECHR complaint (Dalla Vedova has not released the whole thing) only Anna Donnino’s testimony has been looked at so far by ECHR. They quote it against Knox.

It is Rita Ficarra’s testimony though that is so deadly to Knox and remember, Knox and her lawyers sat through it all in March 2009. It starts here.

And of course Knox occasionally managed to “remember” that it was Rita Ficarra, who is not a large person and who was very motherly to Knox on the night, who “hit her on the head”.

It was this record of the meeting that tanked Knox in ALL judges’ eyes right through Hellmann to the Supreme Court.

We will assemble all the relevant links with a narrative on a new page just for this.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/24/16 at 03:36 AM | #

Sorry OT, but just noticed this in The Daily Mail:

Posted by Deathfish on 05/24/16 at 01:13 PM | #

@Deathfish, quote of the day from that article:

‘American exchange student Amanda Knox, who was convicted and later acquitted of the killing, said she was disappointed by the decision to release Guede. She said: ‘I regret that Rudy Guede has never regretted it [the murder] and I hope that those who granted him permission [to leave jail] did it for social reintegration.’

Read more:

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted by Slow Jane on 05/24/16 at 01:59 PM | #

@ Slow Jane, yes it didn’t go unnoticed!

So she’s big on social reintegration now is she?
Perhaps she will expand on the subject in the next piece of self serving drivel she will publish in her awfully lonely blog.

What a monstrous individual she is. She is seriously going to trip herself up one day. I do wonder who her target readership is sometimes.

Posted by Deathfish on 05/24/16 at 07:27 PM | #

I would peacefully spend time in Guede’s company…for an informal interview, say, in an Italian bar, or a day trip to some beautiful place in Italy. I believe we could converse respectfully, even if I might have to accept that not the whole truth, or embroidered stories, were being said.

I would not even want to spend half an hour in Knox’s company, especially alone. If I were required to, I would want a high-ranking/intelligent representative of the law present, and, preferably, another psychologist.
Imagine what she could make up about me afterwards otherwise! I shudder to think. No, I would need fort-Knox protection.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/16 at 09:53 PM | #

According to Knox she was at Sollecito’s apartment on the night of the murder. Yet she is 100% sure Guede was solely responsible.

Posted by DavidB on 05/25/16 at 05:35 AM | #

Knox’s indignation at Rudy’s 3-days of freedom is feigned for public consumption. She has to pretend to be angry at “Meredith’s killer”, she knows that would be expected of an innocent Knox.

However, IMO she is truly envious that Rudy is doing the right thing. She resents that he has almost paid his legal bloodguilt in full and will soon be enjoying real freedom of conscience and physical freedom soon, too.

Soon he will be able to walk the streets fully cleared of his crime because he stepped up to suffer punishment for it (although he still lies about the murder, but he is a congenital liar if we believe his wealthy adoptive father, and I do. Who knew him better, had once welcomed him into his home and spent money on him or had more reason to try to protect Rudy, yet Mr. Caporali told the truth).

Knox unlike Rudy has neither full liberty or peace. She lies for a living and lives in perpetual limbo. Never free.

Rudy at least took his punishment like a man, and he is still in Italy with the warm sun. She’s afraid to go back, although she may try it one day.

She is envious of Rudy’s wise choice when he took a short form trial.

I wonder if Rudy will receive a small “stay quiet” gift of money while he’s dancing tomorrow night at some seedy club? An envelope with the signature F.S.

Raffaele was the one who feared Guede would “make up strange stories” about him after both of them were arrested.

In next few days Knox can peer across the ocean and see both of her accomplices walking free in Italy.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/25/16 at 09:30 AM | #

“she lies for a living”.... She will never be free from her own mind, and its surges of strong emotions and envy, and the fierce impulse that urges her to fabricate (or lie) her way out of a situation she ‘finds herself in’ that she doesn’t like.

She now has the added burden of having to pretend that she is happy within the trap she has made for herself.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/25/16 at 11:25 AM | #

Guede half way house release put on hold

Posted by Ergon on 05/25/16 at 12:29 PM | #

English language reports wrongly attribute to Knox comment made by Raffaele Sollecito, LOL.

Posted by Ergon on 05/25/16 at 12:59 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Carlo Dalla Vedova: Is ECHR Advised YOU Condoned Malicious Defamation By Knox Of Chief Prosecutor?

Or to previous entry Revenge “On” The Knox: Judges Bruno And Marasca Of The Supreme Court Strike Back