Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Yes it is a conundrum without which it would be impossible to convict A and R because Amanda would have been entitled to question Guede in person at her separate trial, and his answers would demonstrate an incoherence with respect to a plausible narrative. The same is true of Raffaele but this discussion shows again that he is totally confused by the sadistic pillaging of his reputation by his country people.

Well this is what you imagine, based on your beliefs about guilt evidence and narratives. The trial takes place within this procedure. In a different procedures co-defendants would have developed strategies according to context. In a procedure without fast track trial option for example we would have three accused. With plea bargain we would have who knows what conducts. We can imagine a procedure where Guede had the right to question Vinci as tries to cast evidence against him. Or where Guede has a right to question Knox about her drug use or about her acquaintances (like when she downplays her knowledge of Rudy). Or a procedure where the judge has a right to read Sollecito's interrogation with Matteini.

Btw you didn't answer: would you have preferred Raffaele to testify instead of remaining silent?

 

[Matthew Best]

Btw you didn't answer: would you have preferred Raffaele to testify instead of remaining silent?

He's written an entire book so there's probably much more in that than would have been elicited from testimony. Has Guede done anything like that? I wonder why not?

 

[Samson]

Well this is what you imagine, based on your beliefs about guilt evidence and narratives. The trial takes place within this procedure. In a different procedures co-defendants would have developed strategies according to context. In a procedure without fast track trial option for example we would have three accused. With plea bargain we would have who knows what conducts. We can imagine a procedure where Guede had the right to question Vinci as tries to cast evidence against him. Or where Guede has a right to question Knox about her drug use or about her acquaintances (like when she downplays her knowledge of Rudy). Or a procedure where the judge has a right to read Sollecito's interrogation with Matteini.

Btw you didn't answer: would you have preferred Raffaele to testify instead of remaining silent?

Yes, it is usually hard to silence the innocent, but machiavellian machinations by those around him clearly took his honest voice out of play. There is no historical precedent for two 400 page books to be written completely independently by exonerees of the same crime, huge testimony, and a task only the innocent will undertake.
The fact there is a temporary twist in the tale on the instruction of a corrupt court, will make no difference to the narrative your grand children will be taught.

 

[Numbers]

A question for Mr./Ms. CouldsonUK:

You have maintained that judicial processes in a democratic state should not be questioned or dictated by foreigners.

There is a case currently underway in Pakistan, currently a democracy, in which a Christian woman has been accused and convicted of blasphemy. She has been sentenced to death by hanging. Her sentence is currently being appealed.

A number of non-Pakistani individuals, organizations, religious groups, and countries have protested this sentence. According to my understanding of your position, these protests are a gross interference in the judicial process in a friendly, democratic country and such protests are themselves thus reprehensible.

Now perhaps you may claim that democratic countries do not prosecute people for blasphemy, but actually blasphemy was against the law in England and Wales, for example, until July 8, 2008. Perhaps no one had been executed or imprisoned for this offense in England or Wales in some time, but the offense - against the Christian religion and the Anglican (established) Church was punishable.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on whether or not it is proper for foreigners to comment, petition, or protest about this judicial case in the democracy of Pakistan.

Details: From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case
Asia Bibi
Native name آسیہ بی بی
Born Aasiya Noreen
c. 1971
Nationality Pakistani
Known for Death sentence on charges of blasphemy
Religion Christianity

Aasiya Noreen (Urdu: آسیہ نورین‎ ALA-LC Āsiyah Naurīn IPA: [ˈɑːsiɑː nɔːˈriːn] better known as Asia Bibi,[1][2] Urdu: آسیہ بی بی‎ ALA-LC Āsiyah Bī Bī IPA: [ˈɑːsiɑː biː biː], born c. 1971)[1] is a Pakistani Christian woman who was convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court, receiving a sentence of death by hanging. In June 2009, Noreen was involved in an argument with a group of Muslim women with whom she had been harvesting berries after the other women became angry at her for drinking the same water as them. She was subsequently accused of insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a charge she denies, and was arrested and imprisoned. In November 2010, a Sheikhupura judge sentenced her to death. If executed, Noreen would be the first woman in Pakistan to be lawfully killed for blasphemy.[3][4]

The verdict, which was reached in a district court and would need to be upheld by a superior court, has received worldwide attention. Various petitions, including one that received 400,000 signatures, were organized to protest Noreen's imprisonment, and Pope Benedict XVI publicly called for the charges against her to be dismissed. She received less sympathy from her neighbors and Islamic religious leaders in the country, some of whom adamantly called for her to be executed. Christian minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti and Pakistani government politician Salmaan Taseer were both killed for advocating on her behalf and opposing the blasphemy laws.[5] Noreen's family has gone into hiding due to receiving death threats and has voiced concerns that she could be killed by extremists if released from prison.

From the Mail Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-remarks-muslim-neighbours-loses-appeal.html


Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to hang for 'blasphemous' comments after Muslim women refused to share water with her loses her appeal against death sentence

Asia Bibi, 46, has spent the last four years languishing in a prison cell
She was condemned to hang following a conviction for blasphemy in 2010
Two politicians who tried to help were assassinated - one by own bodyguard
'I’m a prisoner because I used the same cup as Muslim women' she says
'Other Christians accused of blasphemy are poisoned or killed in jail'
Faces becoming country's first female to be put to death for blasphemy

By Jack Crone for MailOnline

Published: 14:45 EST, 16 October 2014 | Updated: 15:19 EST, 16 October 2014

{from the last part of the article}:

Ms Bibi's lawyer, Naeem Shakir, said her accusers have contradicted themselves.

Two witnesses allegedly involved in the incident did not appear in court, he said.

A prayer leader did appear, saying he did not witness the original altercation, but that Ms Bibi had confessed in front of him.

Mr Shakir said: 'I was expecting the opposite decision. We will file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a few days.'

But Gulam Mustafa, the lawyer for the complainant, said the court's decision was correct.

He said: 'Asia's lawyer tried to prove that the case was registered on a personal enmity but he failed to prove that.'

Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores.

The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence. There are no penalties for false accusations.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-neighbours-loses-appeal.html#ixzz3GNNrDgfd

 

[Numbers]

Deleted. Duplicate post.

 

[Planigale]

Mignini requested to interrogate Guede and as far as I know Gede accepted, so the question if Mignini wanted to interrogate Guede has an obvious answer: yes.
Guede was not subject to cross questioning in trial sessions; he was called to testify but he refused, then he refused again in 2011.

The answer is not a "rambling" dissertation but a simple principle: cross-questioning of a suspect is based on the person's agreement.
The cross-questioning could make some sense only when the person agrees to be questioned.

Your definition "cross examined in order to find exactly what happened" makes no sense, because the cross-questioning of a suspect is NOT an action by which an investigator seeks to understand what happen. A suspect's cross questioning is an action always decided by the defense, meant to attempt to push some defensive version; it is not aimed at understanding what happened (unless the defendant himself decides to be a truthful cooperator).

If I were a defence attorney of Knox/Sollecito, and if some peculiar circumstances were given, I may find myself thinking I wish I could interrogate Rudy Guede in order to exploit something he says (but I don't believe Ghirga and Maresca wanted to cross-question Guede from the beginning); but if I were a prosecutor I would assume that the cross-questioning of a person who does not intend to tell the truth would not bring any further information about what happened.

Unless Guede decides to be a truthful witness, a cross questioning of Guede would elicit a mass of lies so would be of no interest; personally I would have little interest in cross questioning a lying witness, it seems to me a waste of time and legally makes no sense.

But there is instead another question that I turn to the pro-Knox crowd: who among them would have liked Raffaele Sollecito to be questioned?

Because since this is the Knox-Sollecito trial, Rudy Guede is not the person whose credibility is interesting; the testimony of an already convicted person and proven liar is not very important, but it's rather the defendants who have an interest to appear credible, and what would make a difference in the trial is evidence of their truthfulness or instead evidence of their inconsistence. This would help the judge to understand what happened and decide on the question of their guilt or innocence.

Raffaele Sollecito refused to testify, when he was called for interrogation he invoked his right not to answer saying he was satisfyied with what he already said to Matteini.

Isn't there anyone on this forum who fwould have liked him to make a different choice?

Yet Nencini uses Guede's statement with regards to Knox stealing Kercher's money. This appears to be

1) An accusation by Guede accusing Knox of theft. (The corollary being that Guede is denying that he stole the money, although the evidence is he came into sufficient funds to allow him to travel to Germany at about that time).
2) Is a witness statement as to what happened.

It appears wrong (though presumably allowed by the Italian legal system) that Guede's accusation of theft and eye witness testimony is used by Nencini as part of the argument for guilt yet the defence were never allowed to cross examine Guede. Either the testimony should have been given in court by Guede and subject to examination or excluded.

Mach accepts "but if I were a prosecutor I would assume that the cross-questioning of a person who does not intend to tell the truth would not bring any further information about what happened" does Mach accept that in this circumstance it is wrong of Nencini to rely on Guede for a motivation. Nencini p334 translation "the fact that Rudy Hermann Guede insisted on repeating this circumstance in every one of his interrogations, together with the certain proof that the sum of 300 euros had in fact been set aside by the victim for the payment of her share of rent, makes the story of the Ivorian objectively credible" both because the testimony had not been given in their trial giving no opportunity to examine Guede, and because Guede should be regarded as unreliable in all he says.

 

[Planigale]

A question for Mr./Ms. CouldsonUK:

You have maintained that judicial processes in a democratic state should not be questioned or dictated by foreigners.

There is a case currently underway in Pakistan, currently a democracy, in which a Christian woman has been accused and convicted of blasphemy. She has been sentenced to death by hanging. Her sentence is currently being appealed.

A number of non-Pakistani individuals, organizations, religious groups, and countries have protested this sentence. According to my understanding of your position, these protests are a gross interference in the judicial process in a friendly, democratic country and such protests are themselves thus reprehensible.

Now perhaps you may claim that democratic countries do not prosecute people for blasphemy, but actually blasphemy was against the law in England and Wales, for example, until July 8, 2008. Perhaps no one had been executed or imprisoned for this offense in England or Wales in some time, but the offense - against the Christian religion and the Anglican (established) Church was punishable.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on whether or not it is proper for foreigners to comment, petition, or protest about this judicial case in the democracy of Pakistan.

Details: From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case
Asia Bibi
Native name آسیہ بی بی
Born Aasiya Noreen
c. 1971
Nationality Pakistani
Known for Death sentence on charges of blasphemy
Religion Christianity

Aasiya Noreen (Urdu: آسیہ نورین‎ ALA-LC Āsiyah Naurīn IPA: [ˈɑːsiɑː nɔːˈriːn] better known as Asia Bibi,[1][2] Urdu: آسیہ بی بی‎ ALA-LC Āsiyah Bī Bī IPA: [ˈɑːsiɑː biː biː], born c. 1971)[1] is a Pakistani Christian woman who was convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court, receiving a sentence of death by hanging. In June 2009, Noreen was involved in an argument with a group of Muslim women with whom she had been harvesting berries after the other women became angry at her for drinking the same water as them. She was subsequently accused of insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a charge she denies, and was arrested and imprisoned. In November 2010, a Sheikhupura judge sentenced her to death. If executed, Noreen would be the first woman in Pakistan to be lawfully killed for blasphemy.[3][4]

The verdict, which was reached in a district court and would need to be upheld by a superior court, has received worldwide attention. Various petitions, including one that received 400,000 signatures, were organized to protest Noreen's imprisonment, and Pope Benedict XVI publicly called for the charges against her to be dismissed. She received less sympathy from her neighbors and Islamic religious leaders in the country, some of whom adamantly called for her to be executed. Christian minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti and Pakistani government politician Salmaan Taseer were both killed for advocating on her behalf and opposing the blasphemy laws.[5] Noreen's family has gone into hiding due to receiving death threats and has voiced concerns that she could be killed by extremists if released from prison.

From the Mail Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-remarks-muslim-neighbours-loses-appeal.html


Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to hang for 'blasphemous' comments after Muslim women refused to share water with her loses her appeal against death sentence

Asia Bibi, 46, has spent the last four years languishing in a prison cell
She was condemned to hang following a conviction for blasphemy in 2010
Two politicians who tried to help were assassinated - one by own bodyguard
'I’m a prisoner because I used the same cup as Muslim women' she says
'Other Christians accused of blasphemy are poisoned or killed in jail'
Faces becoming country's first female to be put to death for blasphemy

By Jack Crone for MailOnline

Published: 14:45 EST, 16 October 2014 | Updated: 15:19 EST, 16 October 2014

{from the last part of the article}:

Ms Bibi's lawyer, Naeem Shakir, said her accusers have contradicted themselves.

Two witnesses allegedly involved in the incident did not appear in court, he said.

A prayer leader did appear, saying he did not witness the original altercation, but that Ms Bibi had confessed in front of him.

Mr Shakir said: 'I was expecting the opposite decision. We will file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a few days.'

But Gulam Mustafa, the lawyer for the complainant, said the court's decision was correct.

He said: 'Asia's lawyer tried to prove that the case was registered on a personal enmity but he failed to prove that.'

Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores.

The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence. There are no penalties for false accusations.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-neighbours-loses-appeal.html#ixzz3GNNrDgfd

Also the case of a mentally ill British citizen shot by a prison guard whilst in prison having been charged with blasphemy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29400176

 

[NancyS]

No, the problem is that Guede is a co-defendant. You cannot put such question within Italian law becaue such kind of bizarre request (question "as an accuser" - that sounds like question as a witness in a American-Style procedure) would be a like a request to strip him from his rights as an accused in a related trial. This would be a denial of principles of Roman Law and Italian law in particular.
I am based on Italian law, so If I understand your question as a question wether I wish Guede to be forced to undergo a cross questioning, my response is: absolutely no. I am absolutely against. The law is made of procedure and respect of procedure. Guede has a right to lie and a right to refuse questioning in the Knox-Solelcito trial, he is the owner of the inalienable right (this one is the inalianable right, not to "question the accuser"), so, if he refuses to be questioned, I categorically oppose to any violation of his rights.

If the prosecution were not aware of what a huge liability Guede would be, if allowed to be cross examined, they would have done everything in their power to get him to talk at AK/RS trial. If AK/RS were really involved, what did he have to lose? He would also have a lot to gain in the court of public opinion.

The reason he didn't testify at AK/RS trial is that he knows (and the prosecution knew) any story of their involvent would fall apart under cross examination - and a lot of uncomfortable questions about his recent history of burglary through second story windows, would be asked

If Guede was able to give any kind of coherent story involving AK/RS, he would not have chosen a Fast Track trial and instead he would have testified and blamed everything on them, in the hope that he would literally get away with murder

Guede refusing to give a coherent story of the involvement of AK/RS is probably one of the best pieces of evidence that supports their innocence. If they were all involved, it would have been a race to blame the others and save themselves - anything else is totally illogical

 

[anglolawyer]

But Sollecito was scheduled for questioning. He requested the questioning himselv. It was in December 2007. Then, when he came he apparemntly changed his mind, he declared to Mignini that he was satisfied with what he had already answered to Matteini.
He was not summoned for questioning again (given that this was his last position).

Bongiorno's remark is bizarre not only because, as I said, Sollecito was summoned and nad invoked his right to remain silent, but also because, if the defence ever changed idea again and wanted Sollecito to be scheduled for questioning (in the 2009 trial for example), they would have had the right to do it and a questionig would have taken place.

This is what Amanda Knox did: it was not the prosecution who summoned her in 2009 (the prosecution already interrogated her in 2007), it was Knox defence who requested she be cross-questioned and the request was promply satisfied.

Thank you, Mach

I guess something must have happened to make him change his mind in '07. Maybe his book explains it. I will take a look. As for the rest, I agree it's a puzzle. My guess, which I have offered before, is his lawyers considered he would be a bad witness. There is plenty of material in his book that suggests as much. It does not mean he committed the crime, more that he is overwhelmed by the urge to explain everything even though 'I don't know' or 'I cannot remember' would be preferable.

This trait is common enough in my experience but I have the impression Italian culture, especially legal culture, reinforces it. Nothing is ever simple, nothing is at it seems, defendants are entitled to lie in court but can be prosecuted for anything which imputes misconduct to the prosecutor or police (itself enough to justify not calling him now I think about it) so a defendant who says he no longer recalls whether Filomena's door was open obviously has something to hide and what else can it be but guilt?

Back at you now - why do you think Mignini did not schedule him for questioning at the trial?

 

[toto]

Mignini requested to interrogate Guede and as far as I know Gede accepted, so the question if Mignini wanted to interrogate Guede has an obvious answer: yes.
Guede was not subject to cross questioning in trial sessions; he was called to testify but he refused, then he refused again in 2011.

The answer is not a "rambling" dissertation but a simple principle: cross-questioning of a suspect is based on the person's agreement.
The cross-questioning could make some sense only when the person agrees to be questioned.

Your definition "cross examined in order to find exactly what happened" makes no sense, because the cross-questioning of a suspect is NOT an action by which an investigator seeks to understand what happen. A suspect's cross questioning is an action always decided by the defense, meant to attempt to push some defensive version; it is not aimed at understanding what happened (unless the defendant himself decides to be a truthful cooperator).

If I were a defence attorney of Knox/Sollecito, and if some peculiar circumstances were given, I may find myself thinking I wish I could interrogate Rudy Guede in order to exploit something he says (but I don't believe Ghirga and Maresca wanted to cross-question Guede from the beginning); but if I were a prosecutor I would assume that the cross-questioning of a person who does not intend to tell the truth would not bring any further information about what happened.

Unless Guede decides to be a truthful witness, a cross questioning of Guede would elicit a mass of lies so would be of no interest; personally I would have little interest in cross questioning a lying witness, it seems to me a waste of time and legally makes no sense.

But there is instead another question that I turn to the pro-Knox crowd: who among them would have liked Raffaele Sollecito to be questioned?

Because since this is the Knox-Sollecito trial, Rudy Guede is not the person whose credibility is interesting; the testimony of an already convicted person and proven liar is not very important, but it's rather the defendants who have an interest to appear credible, and what would make a difference in the trial is evidence of their truthfulness or instead evidence of their inconsistence. This would help the judge to understand what happened and decide on the question of their guilt or innocence.

Raffaele Sollecito refused to testify, when he was called for interrogation he invoked his right not to answer saying he was satisfyied with what he already said to Matteini.

Isn't there anyone on this forum who fwould have liked him to make a different choice?

If Amanda and Rafaelle really were involved one would have thought it would be in his interest to explain more fully. But since they weren't I see your point that being questioned in court wouldn't help him particularly and would only help to support Amanda's and Raffaele's case. I am surprised that some in the pro guily community are hoping or expecting a coherent account from Guede when he is released early. Clearly he is going to say next to nothing for the rest of his life, and we ALL know why.

 

[Samson]

Thank you, Mach

I guess something must have happened to make him change his mind in '07. Maybe his book explains it. I will take a look. As for the rest, I agree it's a puzzle. My guess, which I have offered before, is his lawyers considered he would be a bad witness. There is plenty of material in his book that suggests as much. It does not mean he committed the crime, more that he is overwhelmed by the urge to explain everything even though 'I don't know' or 'I cannot remember' would be preferable.

This trait is common enough in my experience but I have the impression Italian culture, especially legal culture, reinforces it. Nothing is ever simple, nothing is at it seems, defendants are entitled to lie in court but can be prosecuted for anything which imputes misconduct to the prosecutor or police (itself enough to justify not calling him now I think about it) so a defendant who says he no longer recalls whether Filomena's door was open obviously has something to hide and what else can it be but guilt?

Back at you now - why do you think Mignini did not schedule him for questioning at the trial?

Damn I would reread Kafka in a heartbeat if the internet hadn't consumed my time. Actually I will.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Under all common law a defendent is entitled to cross examine his accuser, so Guede's status is not as a defendent, but as an accuser.
The yes or no question is both legal and ethical, and there is nothing to constrain you or any guilter here from answering the question.

Interesting. However, Italy’s justice system is not based on common law traditions.

Off the top of my head UK, US Canada, New Zealand and Australia justice systems are based on UK common law.

Italy’s justice system is based on inquisitorial law. In addition, this is another reason why I find it bizarre that example after example of wrongful convictions linked here are based in common law justice systems, they’re not even a like for like comparison with inquisitorial system, but hey.

CoulsdonUK,

The murder of Sarah Scazzi with the wrongful imprisonment of Sabrina Misseri and her mother. IIUC Alberto Stasi had his appeal quashed by the SCC. I don't know this case as well as I would like to, but I am unaware of any convincing evidence of his guilt.

Surely, what you are describing is the Italian judicial process? In my opinion the above is not an example of a wrongful conviction more an illustration of the in-built checks and balances of the 3 trial process, it is wholly within SCC remit to quash a case at a third level trial. What was the ruling of SCC verdict?

So why do you seem to believe that the Italian justice system will make the right call with Amanda and Raff especially with the horrible nature of the evidence?

My response to Chris Halkides above refers.

 

[Machiavelli]

He's written an entire book so there's probably much more in that than would have been elicited from testimony. Has Guede done anything like that? I wonder why not?

I don't think you miss there id quite a significant difference between redacting books (years later) and sustaining a cross questioning. And I notice multiple evasions to my question: would anyone wish that he underwent a cross questioning?

Actually what happen with guilty people (usually, but here in particular) is that self written memories and cross questionings do not elicit the same things. Sollecito's book indeed says a lot of things, but he also contradicted those things before and after the book. Some of those things are proven false (for example that he was not summoned for interrogation, or that Mignoni made certain declarations to the press) son contradict flatly his position (switchin off the phone, not remembering if he had sex, that Knox was at his apartment or went out, that the door was wide open or not, that he ever pricked Merrdith on the hand etc..).
And, There might be a lot of things more in his book. But also a lot of things missing, compared to a questioning.

Finally, I point out than neither Knox, nor Sollecito nor Guede published any book in Italy. Nobody in Italy offered 950k dollars to Guede for his book as it happened with Sollecoto in the US, and nobody ever will. I bet if someone paid the same money to Guede and if he had the chance to hide it in a Cipro bank account, he would write a book too.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I don't think you miss there id quite a significant difference between redacting books (years later) and sustaining a cross questioning. And I notice multiple evasions to my question: would anyone wish that he underwent a cross questioning?

Actually what happen with guilty people (usually, but here in particular) is that self written memories and cross questionings do not elicit the same things. Sollecito's book indeed says a lot of things, but he also contradicted those things before and after the book. Some of those things are proven false (for example that he was not summoned for interrogation, or that Mignoni made certain declarations to the press) son contradict flatly his position (switchin off the phone, not remembering if he had sex, that Knox was at his apartment or went out, that the door was wide open or not, that he ever pricked Merrdith on the hand etc..).
And, There might be a lot of things more in his book. But also a lot of things missing, compared to a questioning.

Finally, I point out than neither Knox, nor Sollecito nor Guede published any book in Italy. Nobody in Italy offered 950k dollars to Guede for his book as it happened with Sollecoto in the US, and nobody ever will. I bet if someone paid the same money to Guede and if he had the chance to hide it in a Cipro bank account, he would write a book too.

Well, I doubt it for the same reasons none of the others published in Italy. Clearly Italy has a free speech problem. When you get charged for something you wrote in a book, you are not free to write whatever you want.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

A question for Mr./Ms. CouldsonUK:

You have maintained that judicial processes in a democratic state should not be questioned or dictated by foreigners.

There is a case currently underway in Pakistan, currently a democracy, in which a Christian woman has been accused and convicted of blasphemy. She has been sentenced to death by hanging. Her sentence is currently being appealed.

A number of non-Pakistani individuals, organizations, religious groups, and countries have protested this sentence. According to my understanding of your position, these protests are a gross interference in the judicial process in a friendly, democratic country and such protests are themselves thus reprehensible.

Now perhaps you may claim that democratic countries do not prosecute people for blasphemy, but actually blasphemy was against the law in England and Wales, for example, until July 8, 2008. Perhaps no one had been executed or imprisoned for this offense in England or Wales in some time, but the offense - against the Christian religion and the Anglican (established) Church was punishable.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on whether or not it is proper for foreigners to comment, petition, or protest about this judicial case in the democracy of Pakistan.

Details: From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case
Asia Bibi
Native name آسیہ بی بی
Born Aasiya Noreen
c. 1971
Nationality Pakistani
Known for Death sentence on charges of blasphemy
Religion Christianity

Aasiya Noreen (Urdu: آسیہ نورین‎ ALA-LC Āsiyah Naurīn IPA: [ˈɑːsiɑː nɔːˈriːn] better known as Asia Bibi,[1][2] Urdu: آسیہ بی بی‎ ALA-LC Āsiyah Bī Bī IPA: [ˈɑːsiɑː biː biː], born c. 1971)[1] is a Pakistani Christian woman who was convicted of blasphemy by a Pakistani court, receiving a sentence of death by hanging. In June 2009, Noreen was involved in an argument with a group of Muslim women with whom she had been harvesting berries after the other women became angry at her for drinking the same water as them. She was subsequently accused of insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, a charge she denies, and was arrested and imprisoned. In November 2010, a Sheikhupura judge sentenced her to death. If executed, Noreen would be the first woman in Pakistan to be lawfully killed for blasphemy.[3][4]

The verdict, which was reached in a district court and would need to be upheld by a superior court, has received worldwide attention. Various petitions, including one that received 400,000 signatures, were organized to protest Noreen's imprisonment, and Pope Benedict XVI publicly called for the charges against her to be dismissed. She received less sympathy from her neighbors and Islamic religious leaders in the country, some of whom adamantly called for her to be executed. Christian minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti and Pakistani government politician Salmaan Taseer were both killed for advocating on her behalf and opposing the blasphemy laws.[5] Noreen's family has gone into hiding due to receiving death threats and has voiced concerns that she could be killed by extremists if released from prison.

From the Mail Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-remarks-muslim-neighbours-loses-appeal.html


Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to hang for 'blasphemous' comments after Muslim women refused to share water with her loses her appeal against death sentence

Asia Bibi, 46, has spent the last four years languishing in a prison cell
She was condemned to hang following a conviction for blasphemy in 2010
Two politicians who tried to help were assassinated - one by own bodyguard
'I’m a prisoner because I used the same cup as Muslim women' she says
'Other Christians accused of blasphemy are poisoned or killed in jail'
Faces becoming country's first female to be put to death for blasphemy

By Jack Crone for MailOnline

Published: 14:45 EST, 16 October 2014 | Updated: 15:19 EST, 16 October 2014

{from the last part of the article}:

Ms Bibi's lawyer, Naeem Shakir, said her accusers have contradicted themselves.

Two witnesses allegedly involved in the incident did not appear in court, he said.

A prayer leader did appear, saying he did not witness the original altercation, but that Ms Bibi had confessed in front of him.

Mr Shakir said: 'I was expecting the opposite decision. We will file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a few days.'

But Gulam Mustafa, the lawyer for the complainant, said the court's decision was correct.

He said: 'Asia's lawyer tried to prove that the case was registered on a personal enmity but he failed to prove that.'

Rights groups say the blasphemy law is increasingly exploited by religious extremists as well as ordinary Pakistanis to settle personal scores.

The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence. There are no penalties for false accusations.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...im-neighbours-loses-appeal.html#ixzz3GNNrDgfd

I tend to prefix with <western> democracies. Although I am sure if you search I may have missed the word western from time to time.

Islamic countries such as Pakistani, Iran and say Afghanistan democracy operates within the context of Islam, I should add I am not saying this is good or bad but, an important factor in how those countries and society function.

That being said of course lobbying through the appropriate channels or organisation is both appropriate and desirable in such cases.

I do not believe attacking Pakistan, its judicial body or people would be the most effective way for gaining the release of someone in such cases.

In the context of justice systems Italy is more comparable to France both of which justice systems have similar foundations and traditions.

 

[Samson]

I don't think you miss there id quite a significant difference between redacting books (years later) and sustaining a cross questioning. And I notice multiple evasions to my question: would anyone wish that he underwent a cross questioning?

Actually what happen with guilty people (usually, but here in particular) is that self written memories and cross questionings do not elicit the same things. Sollecito's book indeed says a lot of things, but he also contradicted those things before and after the book. Some of those things are proven false (for example that he was not summoned for interrogation, or that Mignoni made certain declarations to the press) son contradict flatly his position (switchin off the phone, not remembering if he had sex, that Knox was at his apartment or went out, that the door was wide open or not, that he ever pricked Merrdith on the hand etc..).
And, There might be a lot of things more in his book. But also a lot of things missing, compared to a questioning.

Finally, I point out than neither Knox, nor Sollecito nor GuedHe must e published any book in Italy. Nobody in Italy offered 950k dollars to Guede for his book as it happened with Sollecoto in the US, and nobody ever will. I bet if someone paid the same money to Guede and if he had the chance to hide it in a Cipro bank account, he would write a book too.

Well this is actually unlikely. The exact parallel would be OJ Simpson's forlorn attempt at rehabilitation. However, OJ had a huge advantage. He had not named the killers of his wife and Goldsmith, and there was never a suggestion of multiple perpetrators. Guede would need to be very specific. He would have to explain why he said she screamed at 9 20pm, before it was found judicially true that six minutes later Sollecito could be on his computer 500 meters distant. He would have to say how he watched Amanda plunge a large kitchen knife into Meredith's throat while he constrained her, that knife being stopped at a depth exactly matching the hilted knife Sollecito was alleged to have thrust, creating bruises on Meredith's neck. He must describe how he consorted with Amanda and Raffaele, how they came to be communally at villa 7, and in what order they left. He will have a full explanation for they leaving no footprints, despite wielding the knives while he assaulted her vagina.
I wish this did not make you sound as stupid as your country people Mach.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

If the case isn't legit, you must acquit

Here is a quote from the SCC about Stasi: "Concerning Alberto Stasi it is not possible to come to a result, be it conviction or acquittal, characterized by coeherence, believability and reason" If there is no believable case for conviction, that should be the end of it IMO.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you, Mach

I guess something must have happened to make him change his mind in '07. Maybe his book explains it. I will take a look. As for the rest, I agree it's a puzzle. My guess, which I have offered before, is his lawyers considered he would be a bad witness. There is plenty of material in his book that suggests as much. It does not mean he committed the crime, more that he is overwhelmed by the urge to explain everything even though 'I don't know' or 'I cannot remember' would be preferable.

This trait is common enough in my experience but I have the impression Italian culture, especially legal culture, reinforces it. Nothing is ever simple, nothing is at it seems, defendants are entitled to lie in court but can be prosecuted for anything which imputes misconduct to the prosecutor or police (itself enough to justify not calling him now I think about it) so a defendant who says he no longer recalls whether Filomena's door was open obviously has something to hide and what else can it be but guilt?

Back at you now - why do you think Mignini did not schedule him for questioning at the trial?

But it makes no sense to schedule for questioning someone whose declared position is that he is satisfied with his interrogation before the preliminary judge and declared he has no intention to answer. Mignini didn't schedule anyone for questioning, it's not that he left Sollecito out specifically, he also didn't schedule Knox. For the very simple reason that both defendants had declared that they didn't intend to answer (Knox used that faculty twice). The law says that a suspect has a right to request a questioning, this is established procedure. The law doesn't say the prosecution needs to summon suspects, even less to summon them multiple times. It's the defendant who requests a cross-questioning, it's a defensive act (the defendant acts as kind of a witness in favor of himself). Knox requested to be questioned in court, it's not the prosecution who summoned her. Italian law provides cross questionings are defensive acts under very pro-defendant conditions; the tough questioning of a defendant by a prosecutor in American fashion does not belong to the Italian procedure.

Another thing: it's wrong to say that just a defendant cannot impute the police. But to accuse something of a misconduct or a crime is something that must be done formally, within timings, and must be done with legal assistance, in order to have some chance to appear credible. If the police beats up a suspect, the attorney has information about it but starts no legs action, the attorney commits a very severe ethics misconduct and faces disbarring.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't think you miss there id quite a significant difference between redacting books (years later) and sustaining a cross questioning. And I notice multiple evasions to my question: would anyone wish that he underwent a cross questioning?

Actually what happen with guilty people (usually, but here in particular) is that self written memories and cross questionings do not elicit the same things. Sollecito's book indeed says a lot of things, but he also contradicted those things before and after the book. Some of those things are proven false (for example that he was not summoned for interrogation, or that Mignoni made certain declarations to the press) son contradict flatly his position (switchin off the phone, not remembering if he had sex, that Knox was at his apartment or went out, that the door was wide open or not, that he ever pricked Merrdith on the hand etc..).
And, There might be a lot of things more in his book. But also a lot of things missing, compared to a questioning.

Finally, I point out than neither Knox, nor Sollecito nor Guede published any book in Italy. Nobody in Italy offered 950k dollars to Guede for his book as it happened with Sollecoto in the US, and nobody ever will. I bet if someone paid the same money to Guede and if he had the chance to hide it in a Cipro bank account, he would write a book too.

But Guede was barely literate. Mignini had to read the letter Guede had supposedly written in court, which nobody really believed he actually wrote.

Rudy Guede is a world away from Amanda and Raf. They are two accomplished students, very smart, and responsible members of society. Rudy was, is, and will likely always be someone in need of careful supervision.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think what CoulsdonUK is saying, and I'm sure he/she can correct me if I've misunderstood, but that since the examples people have pointed out in the last few pages have been wrongful convictions of people of color in the US, since Amanda is neither a person of color nor on trial in the US, she is therefore less likely objectively to have suffered a miscarriage of justice in Italy.

I think that's what C is hinting at.

What CoulsdonUk doesn't seem to want to address, is the complete lack of any evidence of any kind that would allow a rational person to believe that anyone other than Rudy Guede committed the murder of Meredith Kercher all by himself.

Why CoulsdonUK is married to the notion that Amanda and Raf might be guilty, or know more, is not a question that can be answered by reason, logic or argument. He/She simply believes it, and is not amenable to discourse.

CoulsdonUK loves his/her belief in guilt, and clings to it for dear life. Abandon all ye of hope that pass through these pages, CoulsdonUK does not speak your language, and is in it for the long haul.

Gosh. I hesitate to respond to your post as you seem to be asking and answering your own questions. Please review my responses in post #4174.