Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

"In 1997, Parliament passed an amendment to Article 513 of the 1988 Code, which had dealt with the admissibility of the out–of–court statements of an accomplice who has exercised his right to remain silent.103 This provision had originally protected defendants against such hearsay statements but it had been held unconstitutional in 1992 on the ground that in order to discover the truth, the judge must be able to examine as much information about the crime as possible.104
"What Parliament tried to do in 1997 in its revision of Article 513 was to preserve a defendant’s right of confrontation with respect to such statements. Revised Article 513 stated that the out–of–court statements of an accomplice who now exercises his right to remain silent at trial could only be used against a defendant at trial if the defendant consented to the use of such statements at trial." The entire passage is interesting reading because of the tug-of-war between the parliament and the constitutional court.

Chris Halkides

An interesting article or maybe I should say paper, “Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial”

 

[acbytesla]

A lot of posts have totally disappeared - not just mine, though mine were of course the best.

Who is/are " the Jets (like Percy Harvin)"? Sorry, I don't come here often - is this a band, or something everyone should be aware of, internationally?

Percy Harvin was a player on the Super Bowl Champions Seattle Seahawks. He is an incredible athlete, but notoriously temperamental. In a surprise move, the Seahawks traded him to the New York Jets yesterday

 

[Desert Fox]

Supercalifragilistic,

Peter Gill describes framework or hierarchy of levels (p. 19) at which DNA evidence can be evaluated:
1. The sub-source level refers to the strength of evidence of the DNA profile itself.
2. The source level is an evaluation of the strength of the DNA profile if it can be associated with a particular body fluid, such as semen or blood
3. The activity level associates the DNA with the crime itself, e.g. sexual assault.
4. The highest level deals with the ultimate issue of guilt/innocence.

Professor Gill’s book gives examples of cases in which a forensic scientist attempted to claim a higher level for the evidence than was warranted, based upon principles of forensics and probability. In chapter 5, he uses some examples from this case (Stefanoni's claim that the knife was used for stabbing) to illustrate some of these concepts. In the passage I quoted just now Nencini is jumping from data at level 1 (DNA at the sub-source level) to an inference at level 3 (washing after the murder), completely unaware that he cannot even get to level 2 on the basis of the evidence in front of him.

Many of the pro guilt posters argue "Just read Nencini" but watching multiple posters basically eviscerate what he wrote. Maybe his findings will be accepted by the Italian Supreme Court but they real like bad comedy.

 

[Desert Fox]

Chris Halkides

An interesting article or maybe I should say paper, “Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial”

Most of us have likely read that paper and it is an explanation on how their system is suppose to work. . . .The fact is that it is not work as it is suppose to work. The US Government is not suppose to really have just two real political parties but that is how it works.

 

[NancyS]

Most of us have likely read that paper and it is an explanation on how their system is suppose to work. . . .The fact is that it is not work as it is suppose to work. The US Government is not suppose to really have just two real political parties but that is how it works.

Exactly, I think the UK has a fairly good reputation for having a responsible and fair police and justice system - and we have had more than enough scandals of our own. Incompetence and corruption can happen anywhere

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Most of us have likely read that paper and it is an explanation on how their system is suppose to work. . . .The fact is that it is not work as it is suppose to work. The US Government is not suppose to really have just two real political parties but that is how it works.

I guess you recall reading this section:

​

IV. WHY ARE AMERICANS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE

​

ITALIAN SYSTEM?

As it stands today, the Italian criminal procedure code is neither a fully
inquisitorial system nor an adversarial system; it is a hybrid. The criminal
procedure code has been criticized in the United States for failing to create
a truly adversarial system – a complaint that reached a crescendo in
the publicity surrounding the Amanda Knox case. Watching the trial take
place, Americans were appalled by the foreign and seemingly relaxed evidentiary rules, provoking widespread outrage in the American media and
the viewing public. Criticism of the mixed civil and criminal trials, the
admission of character evidence without any real objection from the
defense attorneys, the lack of jury sequestration, the use of the DNA evidence, and the court’s assumptions on motive led to widespread
denouncement of the verdict in the United States.

Meanwhile, Italians expressed belief that the trial was fair.125 The anger felt over the verdict in the United States translated into a focus on the weaknesses of the 1989 Italian criminal procedure code as a whole, with commentators attributing the verdict to the fact that Italy had not adapted “the American judicial system” correctly.126

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Exactly, I think the UK has a fairly good reputation for having a responsible and fair police and justice system - and we have had more than enough scandals of our own. Incompetence and corruption can happen anywhere

Not sure we are supposing to be discussing the UK, maybe that just applies to me.

Stop talking about UK law. England has a common law system, (is the origin of the common law system), Wales, Ireland North and South had the English common-law system applied to them and still have it. Scotland had a Roman law system like Italy and under the act of union kept its separate legal system, it is influenced by the English system but Scotland essentially has a hybrid system. The fiscal in Scotland is an inquisitorial lawyer like the magistrate in France and Italy.

 

[Desert Fox]

Not sure we are supposing to be discussing the UK, maybe that just applies to me.

Scotland is suppose to have a hybrid system but seems to work better than Italy.

 

[Desert Fox]

I guess you recall reading this section:

​

IV. WHY ARE AMERICANS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE

​

ITALIAN SYSTEM?

As it stands today, the Italian criminal procedure code is neither a fully
inquisitorial system nor an adversarial system; it is a hybrid. The criminal
procedure code has been criticized in the United States for failing to create
a truly adversarial system – a complaint that reached a crescendo in
the publicity surrounding the Amanda Knox case. Watching the trial take
place, Americans were appalled by the foreign and seemingly relaxed evidentiary rules, provoking widespread outrage in the American media and
the viewing public. Criticism of the mixed civil and criminal trials, the admission of character evidence without any real objection from the defense attorneys, the lack of jury sequestration, the use of the DNA evidence, and the court’s assumptions on motive led to widespread
denouncement of the verdict in the United States.

Meanwhile, Italians expressed belief that the trial was fair.125 The anger felt over the verdict in the United States translated into a focus on the weaknesses of the 1989 Italian criminal procedure code as a whole, with commentators attributing the verdict to the fact that Italy had not adapted “the American judicial system” correctly.126

These should be valid criticism in any system, inquisitorial or the UK.Commonwealth/US system.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Scotland is suppose to have a hybrid system but seems to work better than Italy.

Oh okay, what Scottish case are you comparing to this one?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

These should be valid criticism in any system, inquisitorial or the UK system.

Shouldn't it be about whether this case has broken Italian or European law? You have read the paper I have quoted from?

 

[NancyS]

These should be valid criticism in any system, inquisitorial or the UK system.

Definitely, they all seem to be fairly basic principles of a fair trial, for any system? Do you really disagree with them Coulsdon?

 

[Desert Fox]

Shouldn't it be about whether this case has broken Italian or European law? You have read the paper I have quoted from?

On the innocence forum, there is a multipage post on just how many places the Italian judges / prosecutions are violating their own legal system in this case. The system might work if they actually followed it.

 

[carbonjam72]

I guess you recall reading this section:

​

IV. WHY ARE AMERICANS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE

​

ITALIAN SYSTEM?

As it stands today, the Italian criminal procedure code is neither a fully
inquisitorial system nor an adversarial system; it is a hybrid. The criminal
procedure code has been criticized in the United States for failing to create
a truly adversarial system – a complaint that reached a crescendo in
the publicity surrounding the Amanda Knox case. Watching the trial take
place, Americans were appalled by the foreign and seemingly relaxed evidentiary rules, provoking widespread outrage in the American media and
the viewing public. Criticism of the mixed civil and criminal trials, the
admission of character evidence without any real objection from the
defense attorneys, the lack of jury sequestration, the use of the DNA evidence, and the court’s assumptions on motive led to widespread
denouncement of the verdict in the United States.

Meanwhile, Italians expressed belief that the trial was fair.125 The anger felt over the verdict in the United States translated into a focus on the weaknesses of the 1989 Italian criminal procedure code as a whole, with commentators attributing the verdict to the fact that Italy had not adapted “the American judicial system” correctly.126

Think I've looked at this paper before. Doesn't the author rely on Nadeau's book for the essential facts of the case?

More biased junk. You can't expect to rely on inaccurate sources and come out with a reliable result. Garbage in, garbage out.

Anything but facing the actual evidence, eh?

 

[NancyS]

Shouldn't it be about whether this case has broken Italian or European law? You have read the paper I have quoted from?

It should be about proof beyond a reasonable doubt - and not convicting innocent people of something they didn't do. I don't think there is a legal system anywhere in the world, that hasn't experienced its own shameful miscarriages of justice

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Definitely, they all seem to be fairly basic principles of a fair trial, for any system? Do you really disagree with them Coulsdon?

I think one should read the paper rather than cherry pick bits that agree with one’s position, don’t you think?

Do you agree with papers conclusions?

 

[Desert Fox]

I think one should read the paper rather than cherry pick bits that agree with one’s position, don’t you think?

Do you agree with papers conclusions?

You are playing games here and not having a serious discussion.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Think I've looked at this paper before. Doesn't the author rely on Nadeau's book for the essential facts of the case?

More biased junk. You can't expect to rely on inaccurate sources and come out with a reliable result. Garbage in, garbage out.

Anything but facing the actual evidence, eh?

I couldn't agree with you more. Garbage in, garbage out

 

[NancyS]

I think one should read the paper rather than cherry pick bits that agree with one’s position, don’t you think?

Do you agree with papers conclusions?

Just answer the question Mr Howard?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You are playing games here and not having a serious discussion.

Game? No you said you read the paper, I posted a extract the paper, how is that playing games?