Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

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.

I would disagree. The Italian judiciary's willingness to rely on implausible, fictional scenarios, flatly contradicted by hard evidence, to impose draconian punishments on demonstrably innocent people, in combination with their extreme sensitivity to criticism, makes them far closer to the barbarous systems we find in place in the most backwards of the Islamic systems alluded to above.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

As I am not in a position to gainsay any of this I will confine myself to the observation that it seems mighty strange that Bongiorno would be so hotly critical of Mignini for not scheduling any trial questioning if in fact this is something for the defence to do. Surely, it should have been the other way round: Mignini should have submitted that it was outrageous that Sollecito had stayed out of the 'witness box' (not sure you have those either) and clear evidence of his guilt!!

Anyway, we can agree that because Amanda Knox did volunteer to be questioned (both in December '07 and at trial) she must be innocent, which more or less wraps up this series of threads. Thank you everybody! It has been most stimulating.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I would disagree. The Italian judiciary's willingness to rely on implausible, fictional scenarios, flatly contradicted by hard evidence, to impose draconian punishments on demonstrably innocent people, in combination with their extreme sensitivity to criticism, <snip>.

Oh deary deary me.

The reason why I stated that France and Italy’s justice systems are similar is because they are! They are both based on the inquisitorial system, just as US and UK are based on common law, apples and oranges.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh deary deary me.

The reason why I stated that France and Italy’s justice systems are similar is because they are! They are both based on the inquisitorial system, just as US and UK are based on common law, apples and oranges.

To coin a phrase: oh deary deary me.

You really should read up a little more on the Italian criminal justice system as it exists in 2014 (and 2007). A little hint: it's no longer based on the inquisitorial system*.......


* Although to be fair, judging from the reactionary quasi-inquisitorial leanings of many of the main participants in this sorry series of trials (most particularly Massei and Nencini), I suppose one might become superficially mistaken that Italy still did operate under an inquisitorial system.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

To coin a phrase: oh deary deary me.

You really should read up a little more on the Italian criminal justice system as it exists in 2014 (and 2007). A little hint: it's no longer based on the inquisitorial system*.......


* Although to be fair, judging from the reactionary quasi-inquisitorial leanings of many of the main participants in this sorry series of trials (most particularly Massei and Nencini), I suppose one might become superficially mistaken that Italy still did operate under an inquisitorial system.

Oh really, please do expand.

Italian justice system still operates with judges playing an active role in the proceedings as inquisitors, public prosecutors are still the key part of any investigation, each of these lay in the inquisitorial tradition.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh really, please do expand.

Italian justice system still operates with judges playing an active role in the proceedings as inquisitors, public prosecutors are still the key part of any investigation, each of these lay in the inquisitorial tradition.

If you don't know or can't be bothered to find out, then there's not much hope. In the meantime, here's a translated Chinese academic paper which explains it all

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/672/649

 

[LondonJohn]

But of course if you're wary of Chinese academia.....

https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/pizzi/PizziMJIL.pdf


Edit: It's not surprising that both papers - particularly the US one - note the enormous resistance to change within the judiciary and other law enforcement bodies, plus the rank inability of the SC to ensure that the new adversarial codes were properly administered and followed. The result - as most of us know by now - is an ugly and unworkable hybrid in practice, which frequently clashes with the official written codes. This is, in my opinion, the main reason why the current Italian criminal justice system is manifestly unfit for purpose.

What clearly needs to happen is that the SC needs to get a proper grip, and it needs to ensure that all lower courts are accurately following the code. Judges and PMs need to be strongly disabused of the reactionary notion that they are "truth seekers" and to stop acting as such. In addition, judges need to be strongly directed to ensure proper separation from the PMs, and to treat both adversarial parties (i.s. prosecution and defence) as equally partisan and equally unfavoured.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

That she screamed at 9:20 is your opinion. I understand you believe this, but I don't see any necessity for Rudy to base his testimony on your opinion. I also don't see any problem about the wound depth, if you ask my opinion about it; I don't think it's unlikely that a knife would halt a that depth (I think actually this may be easily not even casual but maybe the consequence of anatomy, aka presence of transverse process of a vertebra like C2).
I don't think why Rudy should explain a cleanup where he was not present, there are anyway a lot of footprints of Sollecito and Knox in luminol and diluted blood.
I don't think Rudy would really have problems of he decided to write a story; he would have problems only if he tries to portray himself as innocent.

On the other hand one fact remains: that Sollecito refused to testify, to be interrogated or cross questioned by the prosecutor. That he refused to answer is a fact. He never backed Amanda's alibi in any interrogation, and doesn't support her version now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Scazzi murder case threads

CoulsdonUK,

Here is a link to one discussion thread on the Sarah Scazzi case. There is also a thread on this case right here at JREFF. Is it your contention that the imprisonment of Sabrina Misseri and her mother is not a miscarriage of justice? Is it your contention that the SCC acted wisely in quashing Mr. Stasi's acquittal? I posted a statement from this court's decision with respect to Mr. Stasi earlier today.

 

[Numbers]

Oh really, please do expand.

Italian justice system still operates with judges playing an active role in the proceedings as inquisitors, public prosecutors are still the key part of any investigation, each of these lay in the inquisitorial tradition.

The Italians changed their Constitution in 1992 to an adversarial system, to conform to the EConventionHR. It is still not a common law system, but it is not constitutionally a traditional inquisitorial system. De facto Italian practice may be another story.

Sorry I misspelled your name in my earlier post.

I think your view on the Pakistani judicial system compared to "western" systems could be considered ethnocentric or culturally biased. I believe it would be more fair to recognize that both systems can have failings. The feelings the Pakistanis have about alleged Christian blasphemers is an example of "democracy" as mob rule, IMO. I have the same opinion of the Italian prosecution - persecution of Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito, secondarily since he was her boyfriend/alibi).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

But of course if you're wary of Chinese academia.....

https://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/pizzi/PizziMJIL.pdf


Edit: It's not surprising that both papers - particularly the US one - note the enormous resistance to change within the judiciary and other law enforcement bodies, plus the rank inability of the SC to ensure that the new adversarial codes were properly administered and followed. The result - as most of us know by now - is an ugly and unworkable hybrid in practice, which frequently clashes with the official written codes. This is, in my opinion, the main reason why the current Italian criminal justice system is manifestly unfit for purpose.

What clearly needs to happen is that the SC needs to get a proper grip, and it needs to ensure that all lower courts are accurately following the code. Judges and PMs need to be strongly disabused of the reactionary notion that they are "truth seekers" and to stop acting as such. In addition, judges need to be strongly directed to ensure proper separation from the PMs, and to treat both adversarial parties (i.s. prosecution and defence) as equally partisan and equally unfavoured.

Whilst I read the link you have provided, maybe you would be so good as to describe the difference in role of the presiding judge and public prosecutor, given your comments.

 

[AmyStrange]

THEORETICALLY, I would answer yes to both questions...

-

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.

-

Yes, I see your point Mach about Rudy being a co-defendant, because in this country (the US), a defendant does not have to testify against themselves (Fifth Amendment, US Constitution), so in a sense Rudy kind of took the fifth so as not to testify against himself.

So in answer to your question (as it relates to the Fifth Amendment in this country), I agree with you. But in this country, we also have the Sixth Amendment which:

"Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel."

And in this country, co-defendants (like Rudy) HAVE testified against their co-defendants (like Rudy did) after receiving a plea bargain (which again is kind of like what Rudy received), and the other co-defendants (Raffaele and Amanda) than had the right to confront their accuser (Rudy) and cross-examine them.

So on this point at least, the US has a better legal system than Italy, in my opinion.

But since Samson's question was a THEORETICAL one (regardless of Italian or US Law), I would answer YES to both Samson's question and yours. I personally would have liked to have seen both Rudy and Raffaele cross-examined. I believe Rudy would have gotten the worst of it, because Rudy is (much more) probably the lone killer as opposed to Raffaele, who is (much more) probably innocent, but once again, that is all just my opinion,

d

-

 

[LondonJohn]

That she screamed at 9:20 is your opinion. I understand you believe this, but I don't see any necessity for Rudy to base his testimony on your opinion. I also don't see any problem about the wound depth, if you ask my opinion about it; I don't think it's unlikely that a knife would halt a that depth (I think actually this may be easily not even casual but maybe the consequence of anatomy, aka presence of transverse process of a vertebra like C2).
I don't think why Rudy should explain a cleanup where he was not present, there are anyway a lot of footprints of Sollecito and Knox in luminol and diluted blood.
I don't think Rudy would really have problems of he decided to write a story; he would have problems only if he tries to portray himself as innocent.

On the other hand one fact remains: that Sollecito refused to testify, to be interrogated or cross questioned by the prosecutor. That he refused to answer is a fact. He never backed Amanda's alibi in any interrogation, and doesn't support her version now.

What? That's not what was written at all. Rather, the fact is that in his Skype conversation, Guede was seemingly careful to time the scream - a scream which he explicitly noted might have been able to be heard from the street - at "9.20-9.30ish".

Many of us (including me) believe that this is significant in that it appears to be an attempt by Guede to make his story match things that might be (or might already have been) reported by bystanders. That is to say, if Guede was worried that someone outside the cottage (on the street, in the car park, or in one of the apartments opposite, perhaps) had heard this scream and timed it accurately and reliably, he would need to ensure that the scream also featured in his account and at the same time. It's not hard to see what his personal motivation might have been for doing so..........

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The obvious truth is Guede is the author of the letter, which was evidently written by someone bilingual with French mother tongue, not only he writes better than Sollecito but used to talk in a much better and more sophisticated Italian. Sollecito used to make egregious mistakes talking. Guede was clear and had a correct grammar. Moreover Guede is now more educated in human subjects than Sollecito, since has a degree in public communication.
I think your position expresses a distillate of prejudice and discrimination, with the typical falsehood that backs it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Whilst I read the link you have provided, maybe you would be so good as to describe the difference in role of the presiding judge and public prosecutor, given your comments.

The prosecutor is - under the code - supposed to present the case supporting the charge(s), and to argue for guilt. The presiding judge is - under the code - supposed to evaluate the arguments offered by the prosecutor, the defence, and the victim's counsel, and to (in conjunction with the other judge and the lay judges) reach a verdict. That verdict may be based upon the prosecution case, the defence case, the victim's counsel case, or the court's own interpretation.

That's what's supposed to happen. Unfortunately, owing to the broken nature of the system, it's clear that in practice judges are still inclined to take the prosecution case as the de facto "truth", and are therefore disproportionately opposed to defence arguments. In other words, in Italian courts right now, it appears that there is a heavy element of "guilty unless proven innocent" - the very fact that the defendant has been charged with the offence(s) seems to constitute in and of itself some form of "proof" (in the judges' eyes) that the defendant did indeed commit the offence(s).

It's abundantly clear to me that in this particular case (and in other similar miscarriages in Italy) the judges have tended to work in concert with the prosecutors, under the improper assumption that the prosecutor is a disinterested "truth seeker" while only the defence counsel is a partisan representative. It's a massive mess in my opinion, it's highly obstructive to the proper and fair application of justice, and it needs to change.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The Italians changed their Constitution in 1992 to an adversarial system, to conform to the EConventionHR. It is still not a common law system, but it is not constitutionally a traditional inquisitorial system. De facto Italian practice may be another story.

Sorry I misspelled your name in my earlier post.

I think your view on the Pakistani judicial system compared to "western" systems could be considered ethnocentric or culturally biased. I believe it would be more fair to recognize that both systems can have failings. The feelings the Pakistanis have about alleged Christian blasphemers is an example of "democracy" as mob rule, IMO. I have the same opinion of the Italian prosecution - persecution of Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito, secondarily since he was her boyfriend/alibi).

Thank you for your helpful response, LondonJohn take note.

Essentially from what I have seen in this case the cornerstone of the inquisitorial system remains intact, that is the judge acting as an inquisitor and the public prosecutor leading the police investigation and prosecution.

Ethnocentric, I don’t think so nor culturally biased, I recognise differences Islam brings to those countries. There is little point in me expecting every country to be like England where we have an active opposition, every week the Prime Minister faces questions from opposition parties, that is here, other countries differ in their institutions. I regard my position as being tolerant of others.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for your helpful response, LondonJohn take note.
Essentially from what I have seen in this case the cornerstone of the inquisitorial system remains intact, that is the judge acting as an inquisitor and the public prosecutor leading the police investigation and prosecution.

Ethnocentric, I don’t think so nor culturally biased, I recognise differences Islam brings to those countries. There is little point in me expecting every country to be like England where we have an active opposition, every week the Prime Minister faces questions from opposition parties, that is here, other countries differ in their institutions. I regard my position as being tolerant of others.

Hmmm. I seem to remember a post starting "Oh deary deary me." Was that "tolerant of others" or "helpful", I wonder?

I'm finding this passive-aggressive style of argument to be rather wearing, to be honest.......

 

[NancyS]

The obvious truth is Guede is the author of the letter, which was evidently written by someone bilingual with French mother tongue, not only he writes better than Sollecito but used to talk in a much better and more sophisticated Italian. Sollecito used to make egregious mistakes talking. Guede was clear and had a correct grammar. Moreover Guede is now more educated in human subjects than Sollecito, since has a degree in public communication.
I think your position expresses a distillate of prejudice and discrimination, with the typical falsehood that backs it.

I would agree that Sollecito is a terrible public speaker and is probably your archetypal awkward geek, however, this is in no way compatible with being violent. On the other hand, although the spotlight has never really been shone on the background of Guede, the little we do know would suggest that he experienced a fair degree of neglect and instability of close relationships as a child, which would put him at a high risk of attachment difficulties, which has a strong association with later personality disorders and being unable to control your emotions in times of great stress. Guede fits the profile, Amanda and Raffaele do not

 

[AmyStrange]

I totally agree LJ...

-

What? That's not what was written at all. Rather, the fact is that in his Skype conversation, Guede was seemingly careful to time the scream - a scream which he explicitly noted might have been able to be heard from the street - at "9.20-9.30ish".

Many of us (including me) believe that this is significant in that it appears to be an attempt by Guede to make his story match things that might be (or might already have been) reported by bystanders. That is to say, if Guede was worried that someone outside the cottage (on the street, in the car park, or in one of the apartments opposite, perhaps) had heard this scream and timed it accurately and reliably, he would need to ensure that the scream also featured in his account and at the same time. It's not hard to see what his personal motivation might have been for doing so..........

-

Good liars (and although Rudy may not be a GREAT liar, he would) know that when you tell a lie, it's best to only change the parts of the story (the lying part) that can't be proven (in short, the scream happening at 9:20 was the truth).

Plus, when you add that no gastric juices had entered the duodenum and Meredith did not call her mother back when she got home, it makes it more probable the TOD was before 9:30.

I believe Meredith loved her mother, and she was worried about her since she was sick, and would not have waited until later to call her because she probably would have woken her, because like I said, I believe she was a good daughter and loved her mother very much, but again all this is just my opinion,

d

-

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Hmmm. I seem to remember a post starting "Oh deary deary me." Was that "tolerant of others" or "helpful", I wonder?

I'm finding this passive-aggressive style of argument to be rather wearing, to be honest.......

No, I found your post condescending and unhelpful, whilst Numbers was polite and helpful each their own I guess.