Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

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

According to ColsdonUK, they aren't innocent if they are found guilty.

 

[Desert Fox]

According to ColsdonUK, they aren't innocent if they are found guilty.

ColsdonUK admitted a few pages ago that there are people in Italian prison who are innocent yet the conviction was confirmed by their supreme court. I want to know what that could not be the case with Amanda and Raff?

 

[RWVBWL]

Lame...

Greetings,
I'm looking for something,
so I am re-watching the Crime Scene video from Nov. 2, 2007.

At 19:27 pm,
the investigators are back upstairs, in Miss Kercher's bedroom.
As I watch them film her bloody clothing that was removed from her as she was raped and murdered,
I hear conversation between men and women in Italian.

Then at 19:27:46 as the camera pans over to marker K,
near where her sneakers are, surrounded by her blood,
I hear a female investigator laughing.

Link:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O4Zh3QxY!MLLxQsnTnxYs-zyAwlsjoak4-yw9QIPILsefu8ZDq08


Lame,
very dis-respectful,
and very un-professional,
in this surfers opinion...


Hey Machiavelli,
care to translate what is sooo funny?
Thanks, RW

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Greetings,
I'm looking for something,
so I am re-watching the Crime Scene video from Nov. 2, 2007.

At 19:27 pm,
the investigators are back upstairs, in Miss Kercher's bedroom.
As I watch them film her bloody clothing that was removed from her as she was raped and murdered,
I hear conversation between men and women in Italian.

Then at 19:27:46 as the camera pans over to marker K,
near where her sneakers are, surrounded by her blood,
I hear a female investigator laughing.

Link:
https://mega.co.nz/#!O4Zh3QxY!MLLxQsnTnxYs-zyAwlsjoak4-yw9QIPILsefu8ZDq08


Lame,
very dis-respectful,
and very un-professional,
in this surfers opinion...


Hey Machiavelli,
care to translate what is sooo funny?
Thanks, RW

I don't know why, but I get an error when trying to watch the video. I'm sure it is user error.

 

[Planigale]

I don't have made up my mind on the point yet, as for what concerns Guede's reliability on the 300 euros cash, frankly. I would need to re-read Nencini and pay attention to the specific point. But I can say preliminary that your two questions have two answers:
1) "because the testimony had not been given in their trial giving no opportunity to examine Guede", the answer to this question is: No. I disagree with you, this is not a valid reason, in my opinion, as for the law. A piece of information or a finding can be used in a trial whenever there are reasons to believe it truthful, also when it comes from somewhere else, like from some other venue or from some other trial. Judicial findings from other trials specifically can be used in cases different from the original ones. No, there is no requirement that the original source of the evidence is "examined" in a cross questioning as if he were a witness.

2) the second reason instead, that is "because Guede should be regarded as unreliable in all he says" is much more serious. Though I am not sure this can be considered universally valid; there might be some circumstances in which there is reason to believe that some information from an unreliable person is relevant, if such information happens to be crossed and corroborated. For example, this happens if it's about a detail which the witness was not supposed to know about.

On this particular point, I am not sure, but I acknowledge that Guede's telling the story of Meredith argueing over missing cash is a bit peculiar on the part of Rudy Guede, since there is no reason why he should know about a specific 300 sum and there is no reason why he should put this unnecessary element into his story. The fact that he puts it costantly into each one of his stories despite their changes and mutual cotnradictions, it's peculiar and suggests that maybe there a reason for this.

However I don't know the reason. It might have to do with Knox's 300 euros allegedly missing from her drawer. This money happens to be a much peculiar element of the story also in Amanda Knox's acount of facts, because she says she forgot to check about them. Which is intrinsically not credible and contradictory with other parts of her story.
The 300 € in Guede's story might also tehoretically be explained by other reasons, for example maybe it was Guede himself who stole the money and this is why he knows about them.
So the element exists, it is true that it has some peculiarity because it is present in all Guede's stories, it is unnecessary and he is not supposed to be aware about it, but it is also ambiguous, in my opinion, if taken by itself in isolation, at least until not crossed with Knox's testimony. Taken by itself it could be pointing in opposite directions. However if you cross it with the oddity of Knox contradicting herself about the money in her drawer, well, it casts a peculiar light; I'm not sure but I think once you assume Knox is guilty (and you also observe her unacounted for cash flow and her frequentation of drug dealers), the missing 300€ can be used as part of the picture to understand something of the motives in play in the murder, to build an explanatory conjecture.

Thanks. I understand that importing facts from other court findings is part of the legal process in Italy. I even think it is understandable. In theory if there has been a formal inquiry, and a conclusion reached it seems logical to take these findings forward into other cases so that no contradictions arise.

However, I think this case highlights a weakness of this process. Guede was charged with theft I believe (if I get my facts wrong please correct me someone). This was as part of the abbreviated process of trial, where Guede agreed to accept the evidence presented by the prosecution although he pled not guilty. The prosecution did not present evidence of his involvement in theft, they focussed on the murder and sexual assault. Guede was found not guilty of theft, and the comment was that this was because the prosecution failed to pursue this charge. We move on to Nencini, he comments that a theft occurred (true - all agree 300 euros and 2 telephones from MK). It is a judicial fact the Guede did not do this because a not guilty verdict was returned because the prosecution failed to argue the case. Therefore the only person with opportunity for the theft is Amanda, and Guede who is innocent of the theft knew about this from the beginning including the exact amount stolen. The only way he could know this is if MK told him prior to the murder (if the theft happened after the murder then Guede would have been party to this and guilty which he cannot be because it is a legal fact that he is innocent). So we have the situation that the prosecution's failure in the abbreviated court case leads to a finding of judicial fact of Guede's innocence in the theft, resulting in the conclusion that Knox must be guilty, this providing the motive for an argument between Knox and Kercher leading to murder (although at some point the sex has to come in). In theory I could understand the blazing row between flat mates leading to a stabbing scenario, but this does not include a sex element.

Now if the prosecution's case is to be believed. Knox and Sollecito took the money and phones to fake a break in. This happened after Guede left because Guede would not be party to faking a break in that matched (as Nencini says) his known method of breaking in (Nencini accepting that Guede is a burglar). In that case how did Guede know how much was stolen?

Guede cannot both be innocent of theft as Nencini argues he is, the theft be part of staging as Nencini says it was, and Guede know how much was stolen. But the Italian legal system prides itself on logic, so I am sure a logical explanation however unlikely will emerge.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks. I understand that importing facts from other court findings is part of the legal process in Italy. I even think it is understandable. In theory if there has been a formal inquiry, and a conclusion reached it seems logical to take these findings forward into other cases so that no contradictions arise.

However, I think this case highlights a weakness of this process. Guede was charged with theft I believe (if I get my facts wrong please correct me someone). This was as part of the abbreviated process of trial, where Guede agreed to accept the evidence presented by the prosecution although he pled not guilty. The prosecution did not present evidence of his involvement in theft, they focussed on the murder and sexual assault. Guede was found not guilty of theft, and the comment was that this was because the prosecution failed to pursue this charge. We move on to Nencini, he comments that a theft occurred (true - all agree 300 euros and 2 telephones from MK). It is a judicial fact the Guede did not do this because a not guilty verdict was returned because the prosecution failed to argue the case. Therefore the only person with opportunity for the theft is Amanda, and Guede who is innocent of the theft knew about this from the beginning including the exact amount stolen. The only way he could know this is if MK told him prior to the murder (if the theft happened after the murder then Guede would have been party to this and guilty which he cannot be because it is a legal fact that he is innocent). So we have the situation that the prosecution's failure in the abbreviated court case leads to a finding of judicial fact of Guede's innocence in the theft, resulting in the conclusion that Knox must be guilty, this providing the motive for an argument between Knox and Kercher leading to murder (although at some point the sex has to come in). In theory I could understand the blazing row between flat mates leading to a stabbing scenario, but this does not include a sex element.

Now if the prosecution's case is to be believed. Knox and Sollecito took the money and phones to fake a break in. This happened after Guede left because Guede would not be party to faking a break in that matched (as Nencini says) his known method of breaking in (Nencini accepting that Guede is a burglar). In that case how did Guede know how much was stolen?

Guede cannot both be innocent of theft as Nencini argues he is, the theft be part of staging as Nencini says it was, and Guede know how much was stolen. But the Italian legal system prides itself on logic, so I am sure a logical explanation however unlikely will emerge.

Planigale,

Thank you for explaining what otherwise would be somewhat confusing to those of us just beginning to appreciate the Italian judicial system for its unique characteristics.

Besides the "minor" issue of a few contradictions about the theft of the money, there is another "little" issue about the statement highlighted - about transporting "facts" (or should one write "judicial facts" - meaning things only "true" in an Italian court) from one court trial to another. That is, the statements from Mr. X (Guede) in his fast-track trial (or elsewhere) were not ever examined by representatives of Ms.Y (Knox) or Mr. Z (Sollecito). These statements of Mr. X became "judicial facts" when the CSC accepted the results of Mr. X's fast-track trial. Then in the 2nd level (Nencini) trial of Ms. Y and Mr. Z, these "judicial facts" are used in the motivation report as support for the conviction of Ms. Y and Mr. Z.

This transport of "judicial facts" across courts was all well and good in the inquisitional judicial system that Italy maintained:

1) prior to 1988 (when some changes were made by the Italian Parliament to the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, but were apparently annulled (maybe?) by decision of the Italian Constitutional Court [a different court than the CSC] or

2) prior to 1997 when changes were made to the Italian Constitution by the Italian Parliament and the current Constitutional language in, for example, Article 111 were instituted.

However, the said 1997 changes to the Italian Constitution eliminated the inquisitional system and instituted an adversarial judicial system. Specifically, Article 111 (after the 1997 changes) states:

The guilt of the defendants 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. {Text from the website of the Senate of the Italian Republic.}

Thus, the transport of "judicial facts" resulting from statements of non-cross-examined persons, such as Mr. X, from one court to another is contrary to Art. 111 of the Italian Constitution.

Furthermore, Italy is a (founding) signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the principles and ECtHR case-law of which are to bind Italy. The use of statements from non-cross-examined persons is not allowed to convict other defendants (Luca v. Italy, Appl. 33354/96, judgment 27 Feb 2001).

So, to sum up, IMO there are some additional "minor" contradictions for Italian Judicial Logic to address.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I haven't read entirely the Spezi/Preston "Monster of Florence" book, what I have read of it contained enough sheer indiocies, but the point is that I don't believe a single word from Spezi or Preston. Those two are proven liars, but the personality and history of Spezi is a kind of a monument to side-trackings and lies. He is basically a disinformation agancy.

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

This is true. Prosecutor Piero Tony argued on acquittal based on reasonable doubt (insufficient proof).
But the main feature of the 1996 appeal trial was evidence exclusion, that is that basically the entire Giuttari investigation was declared inadmissible by the Appeal judge on procedural grounds, because time-barred, presented beyond the deadline terms for appeal submissions.
The Supreme Court of Cassation later annulled the decision on those very procedural grounds.
Maybe Spezi and Preston do not explain this part of the story.

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

Well I only know one police chief that lead investigations prior to Giuttari, he was moved but I don't know where he was sent. Anyway the investigation that lead to the MoF theory was lead by Giuttari.

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?

Indeed this is absolutely wrong. It is false actually. Mignini never sought nor used Gabriella Carlizzi; quite on the contrary, as Gabriella Carlizzi wanted to become a witness at any cost, claiming that she had inside knowledge about facts, she asked to be heared as a witness, as she made up some delusional testimon Mignini arrested her (she was put on house arrest).
The facts are Mignini arrested her because of her mitomaniac claims, a quite different story!
Gabriella Carlizzi wrote her books and made her claims along with the development and rumors about the Narducci death. No investigator ever requested her contribution; she would have been useful to Mignini as a hole in the head. She has never been a source of any kind to any prosecutor.
However, she happened to be useful to Mario Spezi. She immediately became a ploy to his propaganda. He started to write article associating Mignini to her conspiracy theories, in order to attempt to discredit the investigation.

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.

You can't imagine, but imagination is unnecessary, because reading some Perugian newspaper or some legal paper would be enough. There is not something to actually believe: what happened is that the body swap was simply a proven fact, the investigators were forced to start with. Once they had found that the body "fished up" in the Trsimeno lake could not have been Narducci's body, they had to set an investigation about this. But then later also further cases have been opened concerning this topic. There has been a defamation case, for example, in which a person was convicted because reported false things about what a person said; without getting into details, the topic was the witness report by a man, a friend of Narducci's father, who was present when the body of a black man was sinked tied with weights and helped to the operation. The body swap was acknowledged also by judge Micheli, the one who dropped the charges against 20 people indicted by Mignini, he acknowledged as likely and did not disprove the body swap.

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.

The problem is that it seems like you have no idea of the actual proportion of the "madness" in the picture that the real MOF cases portrays, the madness does lie in investigators' scenario, but in the reality of events. In the actual maze of this criminal story. The amplitude of side-trackings on the MoF cases is breathtaking, the size of the "complication" in this maze of event is even larger and goes beyond the various scenarios that were put forward by the investigators. It is linked with other cases that have not been linked to the MoF yet, and the reason for those cover ups and side trackings is not directly due to the MoF killings, but related to one place called "Il Forteto", a place that was attended both by some people (Narducci) and by a most powerful politician. The side trackings around the MoF case are partly the work of a deviating branch of the SISDE, of which I beleive Spezi was a member. The purpose of the side trackings are to protect the "links", the environment in common between some Florentine politicians and those people around the MoF case, that would have "outed" the hideden system. The hidden ring I has to do with a ring of prostitution and paedophilia (parts of this were discovered decades later and not officially linked to the MoF side-trackings).

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.

Again, the problem is that you don't seem to have the perception of the real scale of "social criticism" that the true MoF investigation actually is. The people who want to sweep dirt under the carpet and hide the rotten truth are those like Mario Spezi. You seem to not consider the size and portion of rotten society that the investigators were going to unveil with MoF investigation. It's not Mignini, not Vigna, not Giuttari, not Canessa, not the judges who found pacciani Vanni and Lotti guilty, not the SUpreme Court, those are not "the systemic moral collapse", they are not "the system", they are not "the society" to criticize. The actual power, the actual system who didn't want to be dismantled is the powerful personalities at the head of the State and those parts of the political systems, a system that had a network of power including parts of security agencies at the time like the SISDE and actually had within its allies parts of the judiciary as big as the chief prosecutor of Florence Ubaldo Nannucci.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks. I understand that importing facts from other court findings is part of the legal process in Italy. I even think it is understandable. In theory if there has been a formal inquiry, and a conclusion reached it seems logical to take these findings forward into other cases so that no contradictions arise.

However, I think this case highlights a weakness of this process.

Guede was charged with theft I believe (if I get my facts wrong please correct me someone). This was as part of the abbreviated process of trial, where Guede agreed to accept the evidence presented by the prosecution although he pled not guilty.

It's correct, he was charged with theft.

The prosecution did not present evidence of his involvement in theft, they focussed on the murder and sexual assault. Guede was found not guilty of theft, and the comment was that this was because the prosecution failed to pursue this charge. We move on to Nencini, he comments that a theft occurred (true - all agree 300 euros and 2 telephones from MK). It is a judicial fact the Guede did not do this because a not guilty verdict was returned because the prosecution failed to argue the case. Therefore the only person with opportunity for the theft is Amanda, and Guede who is innocent of the theft knew about this from the beginning including the exact amount stolen.

This is legally incorrect. Follow me.
It is true that Guede was found not guilty of theft in his first instance. But you should not miss two further points of law:
1) the fact that Guede was found not guilty does not equate to a legal finding of innocence. Even more if it is an acquittal based on insufficient proof, such as the Guede one. It does not mean that it must have been someone else.
2) then, you should not forget that also Knox and Sollecito were found not guilty of the theft of 300 euros. They were only found guilty of the theft of the two mobile phones but they were acquitted about the theft of the cash.

So the actual situation, the actual "judicial fact", if you want to portray it like a prosecution failure it is that the prosecution "failed to prove" (or "failed to argue") the theft of 300 euros by all three defendants.
The prosecutor charged all three with this theft, and lost on all three cases.

But actually, it is maybe not so correct to say "the prosecutor failed to argue", we could equally say "the judges failed" or simply "it was impossible" to have that proof.

The only way he could know this is if MK told him prior to the murder (if the theft happened after the murder then Guede would have been party to this and guilty which he cannot be because it is a legal fact that he is innocent). So we have the situation that the prosecution's failure in the abbreviated court case leads to a finding of judicial fact of Guede's innocence in the theft, resulting in the conclusion that Knox must be guilty, this providing the motive for an argument between Knox and Kercher leading to murder (although at some point the sex has to come in). In theory I could understand the blazing row between flat mates leading to a stabbing scenario, but this does not include a sex element.

For the reasons I explained above, the highlited part is not true. There was no "judicial finding of innocence of Guede" (and there is no such finding in the Nencini report) as much as there was no "judicial finding of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito", although all three were found not guilty of the theft of the 300 euro cash in their first instances. Not guilty does not mean "finding of innocence".
In addition, there is no shifting of the guilt from Guede to the other two caused by his being found not guilty of the theft charge. His acquittal does not cause a shifting of guilt on the other two.

Now if the prosecution's case is to be believed. Knox and Sollecito took the money and phones to fake a break in. This happened after Guede left because Guede would not be party to faking a break in that matched (as Nencini says) his known method of breaking in (Nencini accepting that Guede is a burglar). In that case how did Guede know how much was stolen?

In fact, as you seem to realize, there was no formal pinning on Knox and Sollecito of the stealing of 300 euros; they were not found guilty of such charge. They were only found guilty of the theft of the cell phones. Because the cell phones, rather than the 300 euros, are directly linked to the staging and altering of the crime scene to which Guede could not be part of. Guede would have no clear interest in stealing phones just to throw them away, and evidence indicates he did not attempt any "cleaning" of the scene. The situation about the 300 theft is much more ambiguous: they are not a cleaning of the scene, they are not so linked to a staging, anyone could have had an interest in taking them. The real reason why they are missing, who took them from Meredith and who was the last recipient of them, is unknown.

But I think you realize how the attribution of the theft of the cell phones as well as any judges' reasoning about the 300 euros theft, in fact does not stem from direct evidence about the theft, and does not stem from a shifting of guilt caused by Guede's acquittal; their belief will be just consequence that stems from the overall scenario that the judges believe.

 

[Machiavelli]

However, the said 1997 changes to the Italian Constitution eliminated the inquisitional system and instituted an adversarial judicial system. Specifically, Article 111 (after the 1997 changes) states:

(...)

It's wrong. The transportation of findings facts from a judicial trial to another is not contrary to Art. 111. On the contrary, it was specifically ruled to be compatible with the Constitution and it is fully applied, regulated and provided for by the Code and by jurisprudence.

It is also not true that the inquisitorial system was eliminated by the changing of Art. 111. The whole Constitution itself would be actually incompatible with a comlte removal of some "civil law" and "inquisitorial" foundations, since the Constitution prohibits a separation of bodies between judges and prosecutors (so prosecutors are judges), and strips prosecutors from the discretional power typical of adversarial systems.

The existence of a fast track-trial option, for example, itself is a typical inquisitorial feature. The fast track tria is just an inquisitory trial that ends at the preliminary stage, taking the option means the defendant waives his right to enter an adversarial trial, in exchange for a ban to admission of further evidence and a possible discount. The fast track trial is a discussion about an investigation, judgement entirely decided by an investigating judge behind closed doors, therefore a trial with whole inquisitory features. The only thing that differs from the full inquisitory procedure is that the finding of truth is not taken to the end, but halted while at an approximate stage on a limited set of collected evidence.

The point is: you can see the civil law "inquisitorial" foundations of the Italian system better when you look at the preliminary stages. The trial discussion looks typically adversarial, but this is maybe just about what is more apparent, the investigation and preliminary phase has features that make the inquisitorial foundation instead more apparent.

 

[Numbers]

It's wrong. The transportation of findings facts from a judicial trial to another is not contrary to Art. 111. On the contrary, it was specifically ruled to be compatible with the Constitution and it is fully applied, regulated and provided for by the Code and by jurisprudence.

It is also not true that the inquisitorial system was eliminated by the changing of Art. 111. The whole Constitution itself would be actually incompatible with a comlte removal of some "civil law" and "inquisitorial" foundations, since the Constitution prohibits a separation of bodies between judges and prosecutors (so prosecutors are judges), and strips prosecutors from the discretional power typical of adversarial systems.

The existence of a fast track-trial option, for example, itself is a typical inquisitorial feature. The fast track tria is just an inquisitory trial that ends at the preliminary stage, taking the option means the defendant waives his right to enter an adversarial trial, in exchange for a ban to admission of further evidence and a possible discount. The fast track trial is a discussion about an investigation, judgement entirely decided by an investigating judge behind closed doors, therefore a trial with whole inquisitory features. The only thing that differs from the full inquisitory procedure is that the finding of truth is not taken to the end, but halted while at an approximate stage on a limited set of collected evidence.

The point is: you can see the civil law "inquisitorial" foundations of the Italian system better when you look at the preliminary stages. The trial discussion looks typically adversarial, but this is maybe just about what is more apparent, the investigation and preliminary phase has features that make the inquisitorial foundation instead more apparent.

Mach,

Thanks for the quick response, which I fully appreciate. I am still unclear about some of these issues, however. First, for ease of reference, I copy below Article 111 from the Italian Constitution {sentence/clause numbering added}:

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.
___________
For Fast-Track trials, I believe that clause [sentence] (9) applies. Restating the first part of this clause, I interpret:

(a) With the consent of the defendant, evidence may be developed in a non-adversarial hearing, such as a fast-track trial, as regulated by law.
(b) In situations where there is hearsay evidence, for example, a statement left by someone who has died, that statement may be admitted as evidence because it is impossible to cross-examine the witness. May also apply to testimony from secret agents in terrorist cases, etc.
(c) Situations where the witness may be truly endangered by public appearance. {I am really guessing on this part.}

As a comment, the Fast-Track trial seems not too different from pleading "guilty" or "no contest" in a common-law system trial.

Now what I don't understand, in terms of fairness of trial (ECHR Article 6) and legally from Italian Constitution clauses (2), (5), (7), and (8), how findings or "judicial facts" from a Fast-Track trial, where say an individual named X was tried and found guilty, can be brought over to a separate adversarial trial, where say individuals Y and Z are defendants pleading "innocent" or "not guilty" [whichever terminology may be used in Italy] but where Y and Z were not represented in the Fast-Track trial to contest evidence, including testimony or statements, and in particular any statements by X.

I also don't understand how a judge or prosecutor (who in Italy must also investigate evidence in favor of a defendant, IIUC) can deny Y and/or Z access to exculpatory or potentially exculpatory evidence according to the wording of Italian Constitution clause (5).

[All constitution clauses being those of Article 111, as laid out above; the clause numbers I have added simply for reference.]

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps the literate Machiavelli can explain what facts were used to convict Amanda and Raffaele of the theft.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps the literate Machiavelli can explain what facts were used to convict Amanda and Raffaele of the theft.

Of the phones?

As I understand it they were convicted by a logical process. Rudy would not steal them then toss them, but A and R would for strategic reasons.

On the other hand there is another logical construction Massei and Nencini have not considered.
Rudy took the phones out of habit, then got the old grey matter into gear and realised they tied the possessor to a bloody murder, and were not going to be the great cash converter of choice.

 

[Desert Fox]

Of the phones?

As I understand it they were convicted by a logical process. Rudy would not steal them then toss them, but A and R would for strategic reasons.

On the other hand there is another logical construction Massei and Nencini have not considered.
Rudy took the phones out of habit, then got the old grey matter into gear and realised they tied the possessor to a bloody murder, and were not going to be the great cash converter of choice.

We can always come up with reasons why somebody might do something but a fascination story should not constitute evidence. . . . That is if we can even call it a fascinating story of course.

Even so, every story involving Amanda and Raffaele include do kind of Machiavellian plot line. When you hear hooves, think horses not zebras. Every one of the simpler explanations for the murder involves Guede alone.

 

[Diocletus]

Here's a case where some idiots decided that because alleged co-conspirators were previously convicted, they should also convict a third alleged co-conspirator without conducting a real trial. Result: this was a violation if the third guy's fair trial rights under the echr. Vaduva, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/...x?i=001-141172

 

[Diocletus]

It's wrong. The transportation of findings facts from a judicial trial to another is not contrary to Art. 111. On the contrary, it was specifically ruled to be compatible with the Constitution and it is fully applied, regulated and provided for by the Code and by jurisprudence.

Don't be ridiculous. See above.

 

[Matthew Best]

The problem is that it seems like you have no idea of the actual proportion of the "madness" in the picture that the real MOF cases portrays, the madness does lie in investigators' scenario, but in the reality of events. In the actual maze of this criminal story. The amplitude of side-trackings on the MoF cases is breathtaking, the size of the "complication" in this maze of event is even larger and goes beyond the various scenarios that were put forward by the investigators. It is linked with other cases that have not been linked to the MoF yet, and the reason for those cover ups and side trackings is not directly due to the MoF killings, but related to one place called "Il Forteto", a place that was attended both by some people (Narducci) and by a most powerful politician. The side trackings around the MoF case are partly the work of a deviating branch of the SISDE, of which I beleive Spezi was a member. The purpose of the side trackings are to protect the "links", the environment in common between some Florentine politicians and those people around the MoF case, that would have "outed" the hideden system. The hidden ring I has to do with a ring of prostitution and paedophilia (parts of this were discovered decades later and not officially linked to the MoF side-trackings).

We have a whole sub-forum dedicated to this kind of thing, Mach.

It's thataway ====>

 

[Numbers]

Here's a case where some idiots decided that because alleged co-conspirators were previously convicted, they should also convict a third alleged co-conspirator without conducting a real trial. Result: this was a violation if the third guy's fair trial rights under the echr. Vaduva, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/...x?i=001-141172

Diocletus,
I'm getting an "access denied" from your referenced ECHR site. Can you give a fuller cite for Vaduva, such as v. contracting state, year, application number?
Thanks in advance!

 

[carbonjam72]

I haven't read entirely the Spezi/Preston "Monster of Florence" book, what I have read of it contained enough sheer indiocies, but the point is that I don't believe a single word from Spezi or Preston. Those two are proven liars, but the personality and history of Spezi is a kind of a monument to side-trackings and lies. He is basically a disinformation agancy.

Ok, I get it. You don't like them. Their MOF book is one of the few sources I have on these matters. I am a bit surprised though at your depth of mistrust in them.

You acknowledged I believe, that the police in the monster squad were "punished", and I'm guessing you don't dispute that Mignini and Giutarri were charged with abuse of office in relation to their 'Narducci Trail' investigations.

So what were the police in the Monster squad being 'punished for', if not for the same reasons that Mignini and Giutarri were indicted and convicted? (I'm aware the MIgnini/Giutarri convictions were set aside due to jusrisdiction, but that's not a denial on the merits, right?).

This is true. Prosecutor Piero Tony argued on acquittal based on reasonable doubt (insufficient proof).

But the main feature of the 1996 appeal trial was evidence exclusion, that is that basically the entire Giuttari investigation was declared inadmissible by the Appeal judge on procedural grounds, because time-barred, presented beyond the deadline terms for appeal submissions. The Supreme Court of Cassation later annulled the decision on those very procedural grounds.
Maybe Spezi and Preston do not explain this part of the story.

As Spezi/Preston tell it, Giutarri's men 'burst' into the courtroom the day before the appeal verdict was due to be announced, claiming they had four new witnesses. The four witnesses, were referred to by greek letters and called, "algebraic witnesses". The judge was willing to hear the witnesses if they would reveal their identities, which Giutarri claimed would be too dangerous for them. On this basis the judge declined to hear them. The next days headlines in the newspapers was of these "new witnesses", and the judge acquitted Pacciani. (Pacciani died two days before his retrial was set to begin and technically, 'died an innocent man'. The physical handicaps of Pacciani, when compared with the presumed athleticism of the MOF killer, for one thing hopping a fence and chasing down an amateur sprinter (though wounded), made the claims against Pacciani seem a bit incredible.

The algebraic witnesses were rpesented by Preston/Spezi as unrelaible. For example, one was a homeless prostitute who had been known to turn tricks for a 25 cent glass of red wine. Another was a pimp, and another was Lotti, a village idiot who became a super witness against himself.

They didn't go into the reasons for the ISC reversing the acquittal of Pacciani other than to suggest there was a conflict with public confidence - as in the public would ask; 'how could there be an acquittal if there were new witnesses who hadn't been heard?'

I took this as Giutarri trying to save the case against Pacciani, when it was pretty clear there was no merit to it (per Spezi/Preston).

Well I only know one police chief that lead investigations prior to Giuttari, he was moved but I don't know where he was sent. Anyway the investigation that lead to the MoF theory was lead by Giuttari.

I believe there was a prosecutor and investigator, i can fish out their names if it matters. One was sent to Washington DC as liaison with the US FBI, a high profile post. I believe the other received a senior position in fighting the mafia in Italy (I'd have to check, but Preston/Spezi listed both as receiving high profile promotions.

If I recall correctly, Giutarri took over as chief of the monster squad four months before the Pacciani acquittal, when it was clearly heading for trouble at the appeal.

Indeed this is absolutely wrong. It is false actually. Mignini never sought nor used Gabriella Carlizzi; quite on the contrary, as Gabriella Carlizzi wanted to become a witness at any cost, claiming that she had inside knowledge about facts, she asked to be heared as a witness, as she made up some delusional testimon Mignini arrested her (she was put on house arrest).
The facts are Mignini arrested her because of her mitomaniac claims, a quite different story!
Gabriella Carlizzi wrote her books and made her claims along with the development and rumors about the Narducci death. No investigator ever requested her contribution; she would have been useful to Mignini as a hole in the head. She has never been a source of any kind to any prosecutor.
However, she happened to be useful to Mario Spezi. She immediately became a ploy to his propaganda. He started to write article associating Mignini to her conspiracy theories, in order to attempt to discredit the investigation.

Preston/Spezi detail Carlizzi's meetings with Mignini, dating from 2002 through the Kercher murder in 2007. They report Carlizzi immediately linked the Kercher killing to the MOF cases, and also to Mignini's own legal troubles as all part of the same conspiracy, warning that Mignini would be hit by a car and it would be claimed to be an accident. Spezi/Preston say Mignini met with Carlizzi in Perugia within days of the killing (I presume before the Nov5/6 interrogtions of Knox/Sollecito), but no transcript of the meeting has been released.

So this is an area of disagreement. Spezi has repeatedly linked Mignini to Carlizzi, you say its false. How would I know who to believe?

You can't imagine, but imagination is unnecessary, because reading some Perugian newspaper or some legal paper would be enough. There is not something to actually believe: what happened is that the body swap was simply a proven fact, the investigators were forced to start with. Once they had found that the body "fished up" in the Trsimeno lake could not have been Narducci's body, they had to set an investigation about this. But then later also further cases have been opened concerning this topic. There has been a defamation case, for example, in which a person was convicted because reported false things about what a person said; without getting into details, the topic was the witness report by a man, a friend of Narducci's father, who was present when the body of a black man was sinked tied with weights and helped to the operation. The body swap was acknowledged also by judge Micheli, the one who dropped the charges against 20 people indicted by Mignini, he acknowledged as likely and did not disprove the body swap.

Spezi/Preston are fairly detailed in disputing the evidence Giutarri and Mignini put forward in suggesting the body had been swapped. It sounds absurd on its face, to my ears.

One of the problems I have with your reasoning here, is that the exhumation of Narducci, only occurred 17 years after the drowning. So how did Mignini and Giutarri discover the bodies had been swapped? Spezi/Preston claim this information came from Carlizzi. If Preston/Spezi are wrong and this information didn't come from Carlizzi, then who did it come from?

If you can share any information on the defamation case against the friend of Narducci's father, I'd be very curious to hear it.

Micheli's rejection of the claims against the 'Florence 20' was voluminous (900 plus pages?), and took over a year to write. Not published until about 3 months after the Hellman motivation for acquittal of Amanda and Raf. I find that very interesting.

When the supreme court sent 'Florence 20' case back down to be reheard, it appeared to have been guaranteed to result in acquittal, and the end of the 'Narducci Trail'.

The problem is that it seems like you have no idea of the actual proportion of the "madness" in the picture that the real MOF cases portrays, the madness does lie in investigators' scenario, but in the reality of events. In the actual maze of this criminal story. The amplitude of side-trackings on the MoF cases is breathtaking, the size of the "complication" in this maze of event is even larger and goes beyond the various scenarios that were put forward by the investigators. It is linked with other cases that have not been linked to the MoF yet, and the reason for those cover ups and side trackings is not directly due to the MoF killings, but related to one place called "Il Forteto", a place that was attended both by some people (Narducci) and by a most powerful politician. The side trackings around the MoF case are partly the work of a deviating branch of the SISDE, of which I beleive Spezi was a member. The purpose of the side trackings are to protect the "links", the environment in common between some Florentine politicians and those people around the MoF case, that would have "outed" the hideden system. The hidden ring I has to do with a ring of prostitution and paedophilia (parts of this were discovered decades later and not officially linked to the MoF side-trackings).

I'm thoroughly enjoying your writing here. Unfortunately, though while fascinating, I think its beyond the context of the claims against Amanda and Raf. This case taken on its own merits, shows not one shred of evidence against Amanda and Raf, and the evidence that does exist scientifically excludes the possibility that anyone other than Rudy Guede alone, killed Meredith Kercher. That's how I read this case, I understand you may think differently.

Again, the problem is that you don't seem to have the perception of the real scale of "social criticism" that the true MoF investigation actually is. The people who want to sweep dirt under the carpet and hide the rotten truth are those like Mario Spezi. You seem to not consider the size and portion of rotten society that the investigators were going to unveil with MoF investigation. It's not Mignini, not Vigna, not Giuttari, not Canessa, not the judges who found pacciani Vanni and Lotti guilty, not the SUpreme Court, those are not "the systemic moral collapse", they are not "the system", they are not "the society" to criticize. The actual power, the actual system who didn't want to be dismantled is the powerful personalities at the head of the State and those parts of the political systems, a system that had a network of power including parts of security agencies at the time like the SISDE and actually had within its allies parts of the judiciary as big as the chief prosecutor of Florence Ubaldo Nannucci.

I don't know what SISDE stands for. I'm not sure if this relates to the theory of the "P2" group, of which is thought to have a broad membership among powerful people in Italy, and apparently there is some justification for paranoia in that regard. SO I am fascinated by your arguments on these issues.

I would simply ask you if you really believe any of this has anything to do with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? Isn't it kind of obvious these are two young people who had nothing to do with a terrible crime, and their only fault was to be blinded by love, and unaware of the dire circumstances and events that surrounded them?

Thanks again for your responses. You're the only person I've encountered willing to argue these matters from the other side, with some knowledge of the events at issue. I take no offense at points of disagreement, nor intend any.

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus,
I'm getting an "access denied" from your referenced ECHR site. Can you give a fuller cite for Vaduva, such as v. contracting state, year, application number?
Thanks in advance!

Sorry, bad link. Vaduva v Romania (2014) 27781/06

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think the Machiavelli collective (whose English is remarkably good just now compared to some earlier versions) is running a God of the Gaps strategy here. We all know the Knox case very well and there are multiple, detailed, English-language sources to refer to so he can't lie about the facts to any great extent without getting caught out.

However Mignini's delusional bungling of the Monster of Florence case is more poorly documented so they might as well try just denying all the facts completely. If all we have to go on are books by two journalists, who is to say that it was not all a labyrinthine conspiracy of Mafia ninja Mason paedophiles to frame the heroic master detective?

The problem with this line of argument is that we do know the Knox case, and so we do know that Mignini was at that time a delusional, corrupt bungler who made up wild conspiracy theories. Hence there is a major plausibility problem with the narrative that Mignini was a master detective on the trail of a huge conspiracy and was absolutely right about everything in the Narducci case, but then turned into an incompetent and unethical fantasist with no concept of proper police work in the Kercher case.