Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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

The Italian judicial system was changed by changes to the Italian Constitution in 1997 (IIRC) to better conform to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including adversarial trials under a neutral judge ("3rd party position") and limitations on hearsay evidence from a witness who exercises the right not to be cross-examined. (See Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.)

These de jure changes, however, are clearly not reflected de facto, as seen in the 1st level, Nencini 2nd level, and CSC annulment of Hellmann 2nd level trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Many of the principles of the EConHR are indeed similar but not necessarily identical to the principles of the US Constitution and US judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Part of the difference is that generally in the US, common law rather than civil law systems are in place (the exception is the state of Louisiana, which employs a civil law system; their legal code predates the Napoleonic code).

 

[carbonjam72]

I hope the mods won't take offense, but I missed this response from Mach, not sure how or why it got squirrled off to another thread, but I wanted to respond -

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
(...)
The original investigators who obtained convictions based on a satanic sect theory in the Monster of Florence case, received high profile career promotions. They left before the conviction against pacciani began to fall apart on appeal.

Michele Giutarri took over the Monster squad and it fell to him to save the convictions, and save the Italian judicial authorities the indignity of never having caught the true Monster of Florence.

Mignini and Giutarri, in pursuing their claims that the drowning of Dr Narducci was connected to the MOF crimes, was using the Italian judicial system's blessing of the satanic cult theory, as a vehicle for personal advancement.(...)

MACH: I feel curious about this poster, I wonder what motivates him/her to concoct series of the most nauseating lies; they're always also vowen with more or less explicit xenophobic insults (they embrace the whole land) and a kind of gloating disdain for facts related with truth or justice for the victims (at least within the Italian context).
These lies sound like a Preston or Spezi's book.
Just to note that Giuttari entered the "monster" investigation in 1995, and Pacciani was acquitted in on Appeal 1996.

The prosecutors absolutely did not leave the MoF trials before the appeal acquittals, instead chief prosecutor Vigna remained until 1997, and Canessa dealt with cases long after that, still in 2005 and after.

Giuttari did not advance in his career at all, he was transferred and removed (forced to leave the Florence to a peripheral post in Prato) on pressure of politicals powers. The GIDeS was dissolved and its detective member teams "punished" by forcing them into low-prestige and "harmless" roles.

Spezi was captured while he was planting false evidence against Antonio Vinci in a plot that he organized together with the multiple previous offender Ruocco (a mafia mobster) and ex-police executive Zaccaria (a megalomaniac). Spezi also used to plot together with the new Florence chief prosecutor Ubaldo Nannucci (a judiciary authority quite on a higher post than Mignini, Canessa or Giuttari).

Finally, the Narducci scenario was never de-construed nor discredited. The bodies-swap had been acknowledged by Perugian courts, linkes between MoF and Narducci have been established by Florentine courts and public opinion in Perugia firmly believes the Narducci connections with the MoF case are solid facts and thinks the Narducci investigation was sound.

Compared to my full post:

Originally Posted by anglolawyer
And yet there it is, in the translation by those dozy jackasses at TJMK who think they have discovered the Oracle. My theory is that Mignini was brilliantly covering his corruption by pretending to be an utter moron. You really need the IQ of a pencil to take this crap seriously. He should have been drowned in gales of laughter.
Quote:
Numbers - What is further troubling is that in the Italian justice system this obsessive and irrational prosecutor could carry out these criminal abuses, which resulted in Amanda and Raffaele each spending nearly four years in prison, and which I am sure are still costing them and their families enormous emotional and financial resources, with impunity. Impunity even after he tried to wreck the lives of about 20 other persons with his abusive and irrational prosecutions in his extension of the Monster of Florence cases.
It's actually an amazing moment, this Mignini. A literal madman, who became a prosecutor, spinning crazy fantasies that he himself actually believes, and sells to a gullible public via a profit hungry amoral tabloid press.

The original investigators who obtained convictions based on a satanic sect theory in the Monster of Florence case, received high profile career promotions. They left before the conviction against pacciani began to fall apart on appeal.

Michele Giutarri took over the Monster squad and it fell to him to save the convictions, and save the Italian judicial authorities the indignity of never having caught the true Monster of Florence.

Mignini and Giutarri, in pursuing their claims that the drowning of Dr Narducci was connected to the MOF crimes, was using the Italian judicial system's blessing of the satanic cult theory, as a vehicle for personal advancement.

And the Italian judiciary wast stuck in a bind. When Mignini pursued Mario Spezi for ridiculing Mignini's investigation, and imprisoned Spezi as the actual MOF, it brought international ridicule to Italy. But does anyone doubt that Mignini actually believed it?

It was those excesses for which Mignini and Giutarri were under indictment when Ms Kercher was killed. And Mignini refused to acceot his shame, instead, he doubled down by continuing to luanch additional cases in the same MOF vein. And the Italian judiciary was stuck. They couldn't let Mignini fail too hard, without jeopardizing the bogus MOF convictions they had signed off on. Yet, they very carefully walked Mignini back from the edge, by methodically deconstructing, and eventually dismissing only this year, his Narducci trail investigations.

That's why I think Amanda and Raf will now be let go. It was never about the evidence. The case was always about putting a leash around Mignini, because they knew full well they had a maniac prosecutor on their hands. In the end, it was easier to promote him out of his job, then to jail him.

BUt this example of Mignini's reasoning skills confirms for me he is a 100% gold plated lunatic, who invents crazy sexual fantasies, and then believes his own fairy tales.

In time, giuliano Mignini will end up in a lunatic asylum or prison. For now, I'm just hoping to see Amanda and Raf set free. BUt I won't forget what these people have done.

Well Mach, I do rely on Spezi/Preston's book, 'The Monster of Florence', so you're correct there. I find them credible as journalists, whereas I find that Mignini and his team have done nothing but lie, copiously.I understand that you disagree.

Regarding Pacciani's acquittal, Preston/Spezi wrote that the prosecutor at the appeal argued for acquittal. Did they get that wrong?

The two lead investigators on the MOF prior to Giutarri, both received high level promotions. Did they get that wrong?

Mignini relied upon the theories of the "psychic medium" Gabriella Carlizzi in all his Narducci Trail/MOF cases, including the Kercher case; Did they get that wrong too?

I can't imagine anyone believes there was a 'double swap' of the Narducci corpse, and its an indication of Mignini and Giutarri's inability to admit they were wrong that they cling so desperately to such an obviously farcical error.

It is a fine madness you have over there, and I wonder if Italy has the courage and integrity to admit they've made a mistake in the Kercher case, and indeed several mistakes in several cases.

It's sad Mach, you have a society in systemic moral collapse, where social criticism is itself a crime. Italians and visitors deserve much better than they have. Perhaps this case will be an impetus for change.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Just answer the question Mr Howard?

I have learnt over the lifetime of this case that it is unwise to cherry pick. As for Mr Howard, there nothing of the night about me Mrs Widdecombe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris Halkides

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

CoulsdonUK,

What flaws have you found in the paper, if any?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The Italian judicial system was changed by changes to the Italian Constitution in 1997 (IIRC) to better conform to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including adversarial trials under a neutral judge ("3rd party position") and limitations on hearsay evidence from a witness who exercises the right not to be cross-examined. (See Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.)

These de jure changes, however, are clearly not reflected de facto, as seen in the 1st level, Nencini 2nd level, and CSC annulment of Hellmann 2nd level trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Many of the principles of the EConHR are indeed similar but not necessarily identical to the principles of the US Constitution and US judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Part of the difference is that generally in the US, common law rather than civil law systems are in place (the exception is the state of Louisiana, which employs a civil law system; their legal code predates the Napoleonic code).

Would you agree with the observation that the Italian justice system is not adversarial more a hybrid of adversarial system within inquisitorial foundations?

 

[Desert Fox]

The Italian judicial system was changed by changes to the Italian Constitution in 1997 (IIRC) to better conform to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including adversarial trials under a neutral judge ("3rd party position") and limitations on hearsay evidence from a witness who exercises the right not to be cross-examined. (See Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.)

These de jure changes, however, are clearly not reflected de facto, as seen in the 1st level, Nencini 2nd level, and CSC annulment of Hellmann 2nd level trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
Many of the principles of the EConHR are indeed similar but not necessarily identical to the principles of the US Constitution and US judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Part of the difference is that generally in the US, common law rather than civil law systems are in place (the exception is the state of Louisiana, which employs a civil law system; their legal code predates the Napoleonic code).

That is essentially what I am arguing. . . . . The Italian system is not working as it is suppose to. I am afraid that Raff is going to get eaten by that system as well.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

What flaws have you found in the paper, if any?

Chris Halkides

I am interested to know what you views are?

 

[Matthew Best]

This article in the guardian today reminded me of some of the most mentally deranged posters

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...author-confronts-her-number-one-online-critic

Thanks for that link - it was fascinating.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some problems with Ms. Mirabella's article

Chris Halkides

I am interested to know what you views are?

It is far from the worst article I have read about the case, but it is also far from perfect. Its sins of omission are perhaps greater than its sins of commission. "Perhaps the most fundamental difference between inquisitorial and adversarial systems is that the inquisitorial system puts a strong emphasis on the discovery of truth in criminal proceedings.128" If an inquisitorial system were actually interested in seeking the truth, it would adopt open discovery. Nowhere in Ms. Mirabella's article does it say that the DNA evidence went largely undiscovered, despite the defense's repeated requests, to take just one example. Nowhere are the damaged computers discussed.

Most of Ms. Mirabella's criticisms are directed at her view of how Americans saw the trial. I don't see much interest on her part in discussing what is wrong with the Italian system. One also wishes that Ms. Mirabella would return to this subject, now that the SCC and Nencini have weighed in. Some of the most serious problems with the fairness of the trial relate to using untested evidence from Guede's trials in the Knox/Sollecito trials.

"Therefore, unsurprisingly, Italian jurists feel that the mixed jury is capable of knowing about the existence of evidence without making use of that evidence in the deliberation." This judgment is provably false with respect to coerced confessions, as research has shown. I provided a link several years ago in these threads which discusses this point, but I don't have it handy. It also raises the question of why a jury should hear evidence that it will not make use of.

There are also a number of errors of fact and interpretation, though she gets closer to the truth on the luminol evidence than some commentators. I don't have time to list all of the errors today, but perhaps you would be so kind as to do so, as I requested previously.

EDT
This link discusses the problem of how a coerced confession can influence a jury's verdict, even when they are told to disregard a confession they judge to be coerced.

 

[Desert Fox]

Would you agree with the observation that the Italian justice system is not adversarial more a hybrid of adversarial system within inquisitorial foundations?

Does it matter what system it is if innocent people are being convicted of a crime that they did not commit?

 

[Numbers]

Italian Constitution calls for an adversarial system.

Would you agree with the observation that the Italian justice system is not adversarial more a hybrid of adversarial system within inquisitorial foundations?

From the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

{I have numbered and highlighted the sentences of Article 111 for ease of reading and reference.}

Art. 111

1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.

2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.

4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be
promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges
that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a
defence.

5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence. 6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in
the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which
the court proceedings are conducted.

7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8) The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct. 10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are
always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal
freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be
waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

______
Note that the highlighted sentences all call for adversarial proceedings; the exception, (9) is a limitation or extension similar to that in other countries allowing for hearsay evidence even in adversarial systems. ETA: (9) also allows for fast-track trials with the consent of the defendant.

Note also that the 1st, 2nd (Nencini), and CSC annulment of 2nd (Hellmann) trials violated the Italian Constitution.

ETA: Note that there is no provision in the Italian Constitution for "hybrid" proceedings.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Does it matter what system it is if innocent people are being convicted of a crime that they did not commit?

Ha ha! I'll tell the Supreme Court to take your distinguished view into account.

They might ask how you know the culprits are innocent, so be prepared Sherlock with your paperwork.

Btw, a word to the wise, they probably won't find it endearing for you to start by calling them anti-American, stupid, corrupt, evil, mad, sex-obsessed or any farcical combination thereof. It will just give them some idea of where you're coming from, before you've even begun to make any pathetic case you may think you have.

 

[LondonJohn]

From the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

{I have numbered and highlighted the sentences of Article 111 for ease of reading and reference.}

Art. 111

1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.

2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.

4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be
promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges
that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a
defence.

5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence. 6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in
the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which
the court proceedings are conducted.

7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8) The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct. 10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.

11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are
always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal
freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be
waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

______
Note that the highlighted sentences all call for adversarial proceedings; the exception, (9) is a limitation or extension similar to that in other countries allowing for hearsay evidence even in adversarial systems. ETA: (9) also allows for fast-track trials with the consent of the defendant.

Note also that the 1st, 2nd (Nencini), and CSC annulment of 2nd (Hellmann) trials violated the Italian Constitution.

ETA: Note that there is no provision in the Italian Constitution for "hybrid" proceedings.

Exactly. As I said the other day, the codes as they are written are wholly adversarial in nature, while allowing the court the facility to perform its own investigations and reach its own conclusions if so desired.

In practice, what has happened is clearly this: deeply reactionary elements within the Italian judiciary and police - many of whom are powerful and influential - have seen fit to ride roughshod over the code in favour of their own warped version of it. This warped version reverts in many ways to the old inquisitorial system. The most damning indictment of the Italian judiciary is that the Supreme Court - the body charged explicitly with ensuring that the law is properly applied - has signally failed in its obligations. What should have happened is that the SC should have come down hard and immediately upon any judges or PMs that were failing to apply the new codes correctly. In reality, however, it's obvious that the SC (for many potential reasons...) has essentially allowed this ugly hybrid to develop, totally contrary to the codes as they are written.

 

[carbonjam72]

Exactly. As I said the other day, the codes as they are written are wholly adversarial in nature, while allowing the court the facility to perform its own investigations and reach its own conclusions if so desired.

In practice, what has happened is clearly this: deeply reactionary elements within the Italian judiciary and police - many of whom are powerful and influential - have seen fit to ride roughshod over the code in favour of their own warped version of it. This warped version reverts in many ways to the old inquisitorial system. The most damning indictment of the Italian judiciary is that the Supreme Court - the body charged explicitly with ensuring that the law is properly applied - has signally failed in its obligations. What should have happened is that the SC should have come down hard and immediately upon any judges or PMs that were failing to apply the new codes correctly. In reality, however, it's obvious that the SC (for many potential reasons...) has essentially allowed this ugly hybrid to develop, totally contrary to the codes as they are written.

Just wondering how well Italy's supreme court of cassation could ever function if they have to process 80,000 cases per year?

Supercal as usual wisely avoids any discussion of evidence, as does CouldstonUK. No one but Mach tries to argue on the merits, however flawed his posts may be.

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. As I said the other day, the codes as they are written are wholly adversarial in nature, while allowing the court the facility to perform its own investigations and reach its own conclusions if so desired.

In practice, what has happened is clearly this: deeply reactionary elements within the Italian judiciary and police - many of whom are powerful and influential - have seen fit to ride roughshod over the code in favour of their own warped version of it. This warped version reverts in many ways to the old inquisitorial system. The most damning indictment of the Italian judiciary is that the Supreme Court - the body charged explicitly with ensuring that the law is properly applied - has signally failed in its obligations. What should have happened is that the SC should have come down hard and immediately upon any judges or PMs that were failing to apply the new codes correctly. In reality, however, it's obvious that the SC (for many potential reasons...) has essentially allowed this ugly hybrid to develop, totally contrary to the codes as they are written.

LondonJohn,

Thank you for supplying the cite for the Pizzi and Montagna paper.

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

As you may be aware, there is a similar paper by G. Illuminati:

The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy
Washington University Global Studies Law Review 567 Vol. 4 Issue 3 (2005)

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=law_globalstudies

 

[Samson]

Nencini writes this as a reason to convict Amanda Knox

Firstly, it is Amanda Marie Knox who, on the evening of 6 November 2007, indicated a sexual motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher. At this time, no autopsy results were available to the investigators, only an external examination of the body. In essence, if we read the court papers, the whole subsequent development of the defense cases, until the end, has focused on giving credibility to the version according to which the murder was committed by a burglar (later identified as Rudy Hermann Guede) who entered the window of the flat and was subsequently caught in flagrante delicto by the unfortunate victim. Why, then, in the early hours of the morning of 6 November 2007, should Amanda Marie Knox introduce a sexual “motive” to the murder?

On november the 4th 2007 the main newspaper wrote this. (google translate)

PERUGIA - Meredith Kercher would have been first raped and then killed by a blow to the throat. These are the first results of the post-mortem conducted on the body of British student in Italy for a study program, who was murdered on the night between Thursday and Friday. And investigators do not rule out that they may have been in two to attack the girl and her violence.

An autopsy has therefore already given the first confirmation to the investigative hypotheses.

signed off

Meredith, Arlene, è separata dal marito 64enne, John Kercher, giornalista freelance, dal quale ha avuto quattro figli.

(4 novembre 2007)

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa/autopsia/autopsia.html

Thanks to PMF for finding and discussing this.

The best bit is

Not only that but she never mentioned she'd read the Repubblica article (which any innocent person would have done) nor was this mooted by her defence

Keep up the good work Corpusvile.

 

[Numbers]

Nencini writes this as a reason to convict Amanda Knox

Firstly, it is Amanda Marie Knox who, on the evening of 6 November 2007, indicated a sexual motive for the murder of Meredith Kercher. At this time, no autopsy results were available to the investigators, only an external examination of the body. In essence, if we read the court papers, the whole subsequent development of the defense cases, until the end, has focused on giving credibility to the version according to which the murder was committed by a burglar (later identified as Rudy Hermann Guede) who entered the window of the flat and was subsequently caught in flagrante delicto by the unfortunate victim. Why, then, in the early hours of the morning of 6 November 2007, should Amanda Marie Knox introduce a sexual “motive” to the murder?

On november the 4th 2007 the main newspaper wrote this. (google translate)

PERUGIA - Meredith Kercher would have been first raped and then killed by a blow to the throat. These are the first results of the post-mortem conducted on the body of British student in Italy for a study program, who was murdered on the night between Thursday and Friday. And investigators do not rule out that they may have been in two to attack the girl and her violence.

An autopsy has therefore already given the first confirmation to the investigative hypotheses.

signed off

Meredith, Arlene, è separata dal marito 64enne, John Kercher, giornalista freelance, dal quale ha avuto quattro figli.

(4 novembre 2007)

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa/autopsia/autopsia.html

Thanks to PMF for finding and discussing this.

The best bit is

Not only that but she never mentioned she'd read the Repubblica article (which any innocent person would have done) nor was this mooted by her defence

Keep up the good work Corpusvile.

Samson,

Not only did Nencini violate the Italian Constitution in the format of the trial, but his "evidence" is arbitrary and false, and his reasoning contrary to accepted judicial logic. His motivation report could not be upheld by a reasonable review court. If the CSC were to accept it, the ECHR would find, besides the violations of defendants' rights, an unacceptable statement of reasons for conviction.

 

[Samson]

Samson,

Not only did Nencini violate the Italian Constitution in the format of the trial, but his "evidence" is arbitrary and false, and his reasoning contrary to accepted judicial logic. His motivation report could not be upheld by a reasonable review court. If the CSC were to accept it, the ECHR would find, besides the violations of defendants' rights, an unacceptable statement of reasons for conviction.

Numbers, I am too far from this to be relevant, but I hope a portfolio of absolute and unequivocal falsehoods on Nencini's part is being collated to put in front of the state department long before March 25th 2015.
This example alone is staggering.

 

[Desert Fox]

Ha ha! I'll tell the Supreme Court to take your distinguished view into account.

They might ask how you know the culprits are innocent, so be prepared Sherlock with your paperwork.

Btw, a word to the wise, they probably won't find it endearing for you to start by calling them anti-American, stupid, corrupt, evil, mad, sex-obsessed or any farcical combination thereof. It will just give them some idea of where you're coming from, before you've even begun to make any pathetic case you may think you have.

I think there is a political element to this case with several prominent cases where the Italian legal system sees Americans getting away with crimes.
These include
1. Cavalese cable car disaster
2. Shooting of Nicola Calipari
3. Abu Omar case and Robert Seldon Lady
In two out of the three I am actually sympathetic to Italy. The problem is that two wrongs do not make a right. If the personel involved the cable care incident and the Abu Omar case should have been pursued, punishing Ms Knox for them is not right.

As far as the evidence, I think pretty much all of the evidence in the case has been brought to the table. I have read significant portions of the Italian Supreme Court original decision. I have also read many discussions of the newest decision.

I have also read of similar cares as far as certain aspects. A similar situation especially occurred with the Norfolk Four case.

I also know that eye witness testimony months after the fact is pretty close to useless. This almost skeptic 101 as far as understanding the human mind.
I know that the memory of a person of heroin is even worse.

Even without contamination, all of the physical evidence can be explained by contact between Amanda, Raff, and Meredeth involving secondary contamination. Being that the Italian investigators cannot even follow the procedures laid out in a basic book of forensics, contamination becomes the most likely cause however.

All your side seem to be that she acted a little weird in Italian eyes

So yes, she was innocent. There is nothing I (as an American) can do for Raff except complain. I can however try to make sure that Amanda never gets extradited.

 

[toto]

regarding memory

Regarding memory, my staff car park should have been taking out £1 out of my car pass every time I exited the car park. When the barriers did not work one night it turned out the car park computer had been taking out sums like £4 and £6. When asked when I last filled my card (without knowing that detail outlined above) I said since I had pre paid about £20 it must have been about 3 weeks ago (because I had no funds left on the card). Of course I had actually refilled my card about a week ago and hadn't noticed the excessive debits as I exited.
The fallibility of the human memory is so obvious it is really quite irritating reading the pro guilt people go on and on about relatively small inconsistencies.