Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli is suggesting that there is some sort of behind the scenes shenanigans in Hellmann and Zanetti's appointment as judges for the 2011 trial.

He has in this post done more than suggest that De Nunzio may have participated in wrong-doing. Machiavelli here in this thread, in one of the continuations, suggested that at the end of the day Hellmann participated in a Masonic-involved plot, generated by US media interests, to (in essence) throw the trial in 2011.... much like a boxer might throw a boxing match.

I have asked Machiavelli here on this thread if he thinks De Nunzio, the president of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, is a criminal. Your own mileage may vary, but that post of Machiavelli's certainly seems to lean in that direction.

If Machiavelli himself wants to ignore this, then his words about De Nunzio are going to just sit there, I guess.

Intriguingly, Machiavelli suggests that Galati made some unclear tactical mistake because of "caution" or "reluctance" by letting whatever it was De Nunzio was supposed to have done go unchallenged. That is a fair reading of M.'s piece. I, for one, would like clarity on that, as Galati is a major player in this. Caution for what? Reluctance to do what? Galati's mistake in doing what?

Machiavelli thinks that anyone who thinks the MOF victims..(I'm not talking about the murder victims..I'm talking about the prosecutor's victims) or anyone who supports Amanda and Raffaele are criminals. It's part of his mantra.

 

[anglolawyer]

Machiavelli is suggesting that there is some sort of behind the scenes shenanigans in Hellmann and Zanetti's appointment as judges for the 2011 trial.

He has in this post done more than suggest that De Nunzio may have participated in wrong-doing. Machiavelli here in this thread, in one of the continuations, suggested that at the end of the day Hellmann participated in a Masonic-involved plot, generated by US media interests, to (in essence) throw the trial in 2011.... much like a boxer might throw a boxing match.

I have asked Machiavelli here on this thread if he thinks De Nunzio, the president of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, is a criminal. Your own mileage may vary, but that post of Machiavelli's certainly seems to lean in that direction.

If Machiavelli himself wants to ignore this, then his words about De Nunzio are going to just sit there, I guess.

Intriguingly, Machiavelli suggests that Galati made some unclear tactical mistake because of "caution" or "reluctance" by letting whatever it was De Nunzio was supposed to have done go unchallenged. That is a fair reading of M.'s piece. I, for one, would like clarity on that, as Galati is a major player in this. Caution for what? Reluctance to do what? Galati's mistake in doing what?

His post wasn't cryptic. He said what he thinks. That the acquittal resulted from a corrupt conspiracy. Do you really think he'll tell us how he knows?

 

[Desert Fox]

His post wasn't cryptic. He said what he thinks. That the acquittal resulted from a corrupt conspiracy. Do you really think he'll tell us how he knows?

Think of it this way. . . .He is admitting that there are conspiracies going on.

 

[Bill Williams]

Intriguingly, Machiavelli suggests that Galati made some unclear tactical mistake because of "caution" or "reluctance" by letting whatever it was De Nunzio was supposed to have done go unchallenged. That is a fair reading of M.'s piece. I, for one, would like clarity on that, as Galati is a major player in this. Caution for what? Reluctance to do what? Galati's mistake in doing what?

His post wasn't cryptic. He said what he thinks. That the acquittal resulted from a corrupt conspiracy. Do you really think he'll tell us how he knows?

What, then, are the answers to the questions about Galati? Looks cryptic to me!

You are correct, though, he will not tell us what he knows. One can hope. I'm not sure why Machiavelli said anything to begin with - spill the beans by taking his narrative this far, only to leave it hanging. There is some de facto "blaming" of Galati here. I'd like to know more about that.

Maybe he hasn't invented the rest of the narrative yet.

 

[carbonjam72]

Masonic conspiracies, etc

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
Wladimiro De Nunzio is a riddle.

He did not have the power to remove Sergio Matteini Chiari, but he was able to force him to step back through a machiavellian chess move, which we can say included a practice of ostracism and blackmail; and it was totally unjustified and unexplainable (to me).

The simple problem is, I don’t have evidence on Wladimiro De Nunzio. He is not an outsider and a discredited small fish like Hellmann and Zanetti.

Moreover, Manuela Comodi had arrested - while in Spoleto - a right-wing politician, a very close friend of Hellmann. They all knew about his resentment, de Nunzio too. The fact that De Nunzio’s role remains in the dark is probably partly a consequence of a Galati’s mistake.

Comodi (and Mignini) understood the trap and wanted to impeach Hellmann and Zanetti on their first wild words at the beginning, but Galati - who as a newcomer had just arrived from Rome - was probably afraid, as he understood the gravity of the situation, about waging a total war against the head of the appeal courts as a first step.

So he did not impeach Hellmann and his court; thus De Nunzio remained in the shadow. This reluctance or caution by Galati was the mistake.

Machiavelli is suggesting that there is some sort of behind the scenes shenanigans in Hellmann and Zanetti's appointment as judges for the 2011 trial.

He has in this post done more than suggest that De Nunzio may have participated in wrong-doing. Machiavelli here in this thread, in one of the continuations, suggested that at the end of the day Hellmann participated in a Masonic-involved plot, generated by US media interests, to (in essence) throw the trial in 2011.... much like a boxer might throw a boxing match.

I have asked Machiavelli here on this thread if he thinks De Nunzio, the president of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, is a criminal. Your own mileage may vary, but that post of Machiavelli's certainly seems to lean in that direction.

If Machiavelli himself wants to ignore this, then his words about De Nunzio are going to just sit there, I guess.

Intriguingly, Machiavelli suggests that Galati made some unclear tactical mistake because of "caution" or "reluctance" by letting whatever it was De Nunzio was supposed to have done go unchallenged. That is a fair reading of M.'s piece. I, for one, would like clarity on that, as Galati is a major player in this. Caution for what? Reluctance to do what? Galati's mistake in doing what?

At the risk of making Mach's head explode, I'd like to explore his comments, which I find both horrifying, delightful, and possibly also magnificent.

As to whether Mac is more than one person, I cannot say. And while there are some drive by guilters who leave smug comments insinuating guilt yet never attempt to reason their position beyond pointing out the judicial outcomes, mach really isn't one of those.

Mach, like CouldsonUK, seems more dedicated to distraction and obfuscation, rather than knowledge or reason. If a point is well made that destroys whatever the "lie of the day" is from the prosecution, tabloids or would be Kercher stand-ins, there is Mac and CoudlsonUK there to show up and immediately distract the conversation, as though preventing people from focusing on the dishonest Italian process over this case is somehow a victory in itself. They fight like soldiers on an obscure front line, carrying out the orders from some strategic command center far removed.

It doesn't even matter what the subject of discussion is; forensic science, Italian jurisprudence, digital photography, Mach seems to know everything, or claim to.

But here's the crazy part. It is really, really hard to tell from my position, but the masonic conspiracy Mach is pointing to, and I hate to say this, may not be totally fictional.

It revolves around an organization called "P2", and supposedly includes politicians like Burlesconi, and a plan to capture all media in favor of developing a society along corporate interests, or something of the sort.

I saw on a wiki, that secret plans had been found, harbored by people who led a masonic lodge to shut/re-open/ and shut again some errant masonic lodge. I'd have to re-read it to get a better sense of it, but I feel like Mach is just giving us the tip of the ice-berg so far as his masonic conspiracy is concerned.

Hence this memorable post below, from Mach. whose linguistic elegance in the invocation of fear and unseen terrors beyond our understanding feels almost vaguely Lovecraftian, and I mean that as positively as can be, under the circumstances.

CJ72 Quote:
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?

MACH: 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.

Quote:
CJ72: 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.

MACH: 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.

Quote:
CJ72: 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.

MACH: 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).

Quote:
CJ72: 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.

MACH: 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.

The amplitude of the side-trackings in the Kercher/MOF cases is indeed breath taking, and Big Mach, whoever, whomever, or wherever you are, your talents are wasted on this blog.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are completely innocent. To suggest otherwise is the stuff of fiction.

 

[Numbers]

Much of what we see in the behavior of the Italian courts and the guilters may be products of authoritarian beliefs.

The Masons (Freemasons and their subgroup, the Shriners) are known in the US as one of many dozens (or hundreds or thousands?) of fraternal organizations generally devoted to charitable work, such as funding hospitals, and generally other civic-minded activities, such as establishing parks and playgrounds.

Several founders of the US are claimed to have been Masons, including but not limited to George Washington, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Henry Lee, and Lafayette (Gilbert du Motier). On the other hand, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate Civil War general who after the war became a founder of the Ku Klux Klan was also a Mason.

But civic organizations such as the Masons, seemingly innocuous in western democracies, have been viewed with alarm in totalitarian countries. In totalitarian societies, only the state and the political party controlling it, along with any fully-controlled satellite organizations are intended to be the only legal civic bodies.

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Political_opposition:

Historically, Freemasonry has attracted criticism—and suppression—from both the politically extreme right (e.g., Nazi Germany) and the extreme left (e.g. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe).

Thus, in Fascist Italy, Freemasonry and other secret societies were outlawed in 1925 and all opposition parties banned in 1926. (The Catholic Church was much too deeply entrenched to be banned, of course; the Church and State found mutual accommodation through the Lateran Pacts and concordat in 1929.) {Source: Fascist Voices: An intimate history of Mussolini's Italy, by Christopher Duggan (c) 2013}

What I find interesting by alarming is the parallel between the denunciations of Masonic conspiracies by current-day "Machiavelli" and others and the denunciations by Italian fascists quoted (from their diaries or letters) by Duggan. For example, the diary of Aldo Bacci, an Italian soldier captured near Palmero on 22 July 1943 contains this:

"In a short time the whole world will see a natural rebirth of this ideal {Fascism}, its foundations made firm with blood and magnified and purified by men tempered in their faith and feeling by the hardships, anguish and dangers arising from the deliberate attempt of Masonic and Jewish capitalism and moribund democracy to save itself. If Fascism must emerge materially defeated from this massive struggle, it must nonetheless emerge morally victorious."

There are several other quotes from the writings of Italian citizens of that period with similar linkages of hated objects as those in the highlight clause. In some, the word "plutocracy" is added to the hate-objects; this was a catch-phrase referring to the democracies (at least the UK and France) considered unfairly prosperous at Italy's expense.

So again, whenever I see current references to Masonic conspiracies, I think about what I learned reading Duggan's Fascist Voices.

 

[carbonjam72]

Much of what we see in the behavior of the Italian courts and the guilters may be products of authoritarian beliefs.

The Masons (Freemasons and their subgroup, the Shriners) are known in the US as one of many dozens (or hundreds or thousands?) of fraternal organizations generally devoted to charitable work, such as funding hospitals, and generally other civic-minded activities, such as establishing parks and playgrounds.

Several founders of the US are claimed to have been Masons, including but not limited to George Washington, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Henry Lee, and Lafayette (Gilbert du Motier). On the other hand, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate Civil War general who after the war became a founder of the Ku Klux Klan was also a Mason.

But civic organizations such as the Masons, seemingly innocuous in western democracies, have been viewed with alarm in totalitarian countries. In totalitarian societies, only the state and the political party controlling it, along with any fully-controlled satellite organizations are intended to be the only legal civic bodies.

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Political_opposition:

Historically, Freemasonry has attracted criticism—and suppression—from both the politically extreme right (e.g., Nazi Germany) and the extreme left (e.g. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe).

Thus, in Fascist Italy, Freemasonry and other secret societies were outlawed in 1925 and all opposition parties banned in 1926. (The Catholic Church was much too deeply entrenched to be banned, of course; the Church and State found mutual accommodation through the Lateran Pacts and concordat in 1929.) {Source: Fascist Voices: An intimate history of Mussolini's Italy, by Christopher Duggan (c) 2013}

What I find interesting by alarming is the parallel between the denunciations of Masonic conspiracies by current-day "Machiavelli" and others and the denunciations by Italian fascists quoted (from their diaries or letters) by Duggan. For example, the diary of Aldo Bacci, an Italian soldier captured near Palmero on 22 July 1943 contains this:

"In a short time the whole world will see a natural rebirth of this ideal {Fascism}, its foundations made firm with blood and magnified and purified by men tempered in their faith and feeling by the hardships, anguish and dangers arising from the deliberate attempt of Masonic and Jewish capitalism and moribund democracy to save itself. If Fascism must emerge materially defeated from this massive struggle, it must nonetheless emerge morally victorious."

There are several other quotes from the writings of Italian citizens of that period with similar linkages of hated objects as those in the highlight clause. In some, the word "plutocracy" is added to the hate-objects; this was a catch-phrase referring to the democracies (at least the UK and France) considered unfairly prosperous at Italy's expense.

So again, whenever I see current references to Masonic conspiracies, I think about what I learned reading Duggan's Fascist Voices.

Thanks NUmbers, this was great. The use of "masonic conspiracies", in conjunction with the anti-semitic propaganda of "Jewish Banking conspiracies" you quoted, is just sickening. It's a dark and lurid history that's been opened up with this line of inquiry.

Remember, Judge Hellman thought the acquittals would be reversed once the case became political and a bill was introduced to investigate the arrests & prosecution. And Burlesconi's court troubles (also supposedly on the secret list of masons referred to below), have ebbed and flowed with the Florence 20/Amanda & Raf saga.

Burlesconi's conflict with the judiciary is currently in rapprochement, another reason I believe Amanda and Raf are heading for exoneration in the upcoming round at ISC.

So, Mach doesn't come out of nowhere.

Here's a link to a wiki on "P2".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due

Here's a taste from the link, but I don't know what to make of it. It adds fascinating context to the background of the Knox/Sollecito convictions. (I'd hate to think this is fake propaganda and I've just reposted it).

New Italian law prohibiting "secret lodges"[edit]
Even though outlawed by Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in 1925, Masonic institutions have been tolerated in Italy since the end of World War II and are quite open about their activities and membership. However, a special law was issued that prohibited secret lodges. The Grande Oriente d'Italia, after taking disciplinary action against members with P2 connections, distanced itself from Gelli's lodge. Other laws introduced a prohibition on membership in allegedly secret organizations for some categories of state officials (especially military officers). These laws have been recently questioned by the European Court of Human Rights. Following an action brought by a serving British naval officer, the European Court has established as precedent the illegality of any member nation attempting to ban Masonic membership for military officers, as a breach of their human rights.[20] Licio Gelli's list found in 1981[edit]
On March 17, 1981, a list composed by Licio Gelli was found in his country house (Villa Wanda). The list should be contemplated with some caution, as it is considered to be a compilation of P2 members and the contents of Gelli's Rolodex. Many on the list were apparently never asked if they wanted to join P2, and it is not known to what extent the list includes members who were formally initiated into the lodge. Since 1981, some of those on the list have demonstrated their distance from P2 to the satisfaction of the Italian legal system.[21]On May 21, 1981, the Italian government released the list.[22] The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry headed by Tina Anselmi considered the list reliable and genuine. It decided to publish the list in its concluding report, Relazione della Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sulla Loggia massonica P2.[23]
The list contains 962 names (including Gelli's). It has been claimed that at least a thousand names may still be secret, as the membership numbers begin with number 1,600, which suggests that the complete list has not yet been found.[7] The list included all of the heads of the secret services, 195 officers of the different armed forces (12 generals of the Carabinieri, 5 of the financial police Guardia di Finanza, 22 of the army, 4 of the air force and 8 admirals), as well as 44 members of parliament, 3 ministers and a secretary of a political party, leading magistrates, a few prefects and heads of police, bankers and businessmen, civil servants, journalists and broadcasters.[7] Also included were a top official of the Banca di Roma, Italy's third largest bank at the time, and a former director-general of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the country's largest.[11]

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks NUmbers, this was great. The use of "masonic conspiracies", in conjunction with the anti-semitic propaganda of "Jewish Banking conspiracies" you quoted, is just sickening. It's a dark and lurid history that's been opened up with this line of inquiry.

Remember, Judge Hellman thought the acquittals would be reversed once the case became political and a bill was introduced to investigate the arrests & prosecution. And Burlesconi's court troubles (also supposedly on the secret list of masons referred to below), have ebbed and flowed with the Florence 20/Amanda & Raf saga.

Burlesconi's conflict with the judiciary is currently in rapprochement, another reason I believe Amanda and Raf are heading for exoneration in the upcoming round at ISC.

So, Mach doesn't come out of nowhere.

Here's a link to a wiki on "P2".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due

Here's a taste from the link, but I don't know what to make of it. It adds fascinating context to the background of the Knox/Sollecito convictions. (I'd hate to think this is fake propaganda and I've just reposted it).

I'm sorry, but these people are insane.

 

[carbonjam72]

I'm sorry, but these people are insane.

Hard to disagree with you. I really appreciate the level of analysis you and others have brought to bear on the forensic evidence, and related issues like Italian legal and ECHR processes, etc.

But these convictions have never been about the evidence. There's a whole layered drama going on behind the scenes that only occasionally allows someone like Judge Hellman to conduct what we might consider a fair trial.

When 1st level trial jurors are only required to have finished 8th grade, and appeal lay jurors to have finished high school, where judges can set aside the court's own independent scientific experts in favor of ignorant preconceptions, and the police and prosecutors can violate any laws, brutally coerce false confessions, fabricate evidence and suppress exculpatory evidence - and their word must be taken at face value, there is little hope for consistent or timely justice.

In any functioning society, a Giuliano Mignini would have been institutionalized in an insane asylum, not given power over other people's lives to enact his sadistic, narcissistic paranoid fantasies on a defenseless innocent populace under the color of law.

As I say, I believe Amanda and Raf will escape the vise of this injustice, this time. But this case has made me aware of the phenomenon of wrongful convictions in Italy and around the world.

Italy will continue to suffer from this institutionalized corruption, ignorance and brutality, absent fundamental change to the police, the judiciary, political system, and basic educational systems. I wonder to what extent the locus in Italy of the "Holy See" has retarded the modernization of a country that would otherwise have so much to offer the world.

We have our own troubles in the US, no doubt, and the predicted outcomes for the mid-term elections coming next week are no cause for celebration, imo. But at least we can still recognize a miscarriage of justice when the facts are brought before us.

The internet has given a new home to the most rabid conspiracy theories, and given free reign to the most malicious, deranged, broken people to project their own illness onto others. I am all in favor of free speech. But there also needs to be accountability for reckless slander, and a mechanism for redress. There will always be Mignini's and Harry Rags, the question is, how does a society deal with them?

 

[Numbers]

Hard to disagree with you. I really appreciate the level of analysis you and others have brought to bear on the forensic evidence, and related issues like Italian legal and ECHR processes, etc.

But these convictions have never been about the evidence. There's a whole layered drama going on behind the scenes that only occasionally allows someone like Judge Hellman to conduct what we might consider a fair trial.

When 1st level trial jurors are only required to have finished 8th grade, and appeal lay jurors to have finished high school, where judges can set aside the court's own independent scientific experts in favor of ignorant preconceptions, and the police and prosecutors can violate any laws, brutally coerce false confessions, fabricate evidence and suppress exculpatory evidence - and their word must be taken at face value, there is little hope for consistent or timely justice.

In any functioning society, a Giuliano Mignini would have been institutionalized in an insane asylum, not given power over other people's lives to enact his sadistic, narcissistic paranoid fantasies on a defenseless innocent populace under the color of law.

As I say, I believe Amanda and Raf will escape the vise of this injustice, this time. But this case has made me aware of the phenomenon of wrongful convictions in Italy and around the world.

Italy will continue to suffer from this institutionalized corruption, ignorance and brutality, absent fundamental change to the police, the judiciary, political system, and basic educational systems. I wonder to what extent the locus in Italy of the "Holy See" has retarded the modernization of a country that would otherwise have so much to offer the world.

We have our own troubles in the US, no doubt, and the predicted outcomes for the mid-term elections coming next week are no cause for celebration, imo. But at least we can still recognize a miscarriage of justice when the facts are brought before us.

The internet has given a new home to the most rabid conspiracy theories, and given free reign to the most malicious, deranged, broken people to project their own illness onto others. I am all in favor of free speech. But there also needs to be accountability for reckless slander, and a mechanism for redress. There will always be Mignini's and Harry Rags, the question is, how does a society deal with them?

Christopher Duggan's book Fascist Voices gives some information about the transition from Fascism to the current status of Italy in an Epilogue. Here's a quote:

"Without a significant purge {of Fascists}, the post-war state showed remarkable continuity from the fascist period. A survey in 1960 found that 62 of the country's 64 prefects had been civil servants under Mussolini. The same was true of all the 135 police chiefs and their 139 deputies. And many senior figures in the army and the judiciary had likewise established their careers during fascism: the man appointed in 1957 as president of the Constitutional Court, Gaetano Azzariti, had served between 1938 and 1943 as president of the Tribunal of Race - the court which adjudicated on issues relating to the fascist racial laws. Of course, not all these officials had shared the virulently illiberal views of fascism: some in fact claimed in self-defense that they had been covert anti-fascists who had taken on major positions of responsibility precisely so as to shield people against the more vicious aspects of the regime. But inevitably large parts of the bureaucracy of the Republic were staffed with men and women who had been brought up to believe that democratic principles were far from healthy."

 

[LondonJohn]

Christopher Duggan's book Fascist Voices gives some information about the transition from Fascism to the current status of Italy in an Epilogue. Here's a quote:

"Without a significant purge {of Fascists}, the post-war state showed remarkable continuity from the fascist period. A survey in 1960 found that 62 of the country's 64 prefects had been civil servants under Mussolini. The same was true of all the 135 police chiefs and their 139 deputies. And many senior figures in the army and the judiciary had likewise established their careers during fascism: the man appointed in 1957 as president of the Constitutional Court, Gaetano Azzariti, had served between 1938 and 1943 as president of the Tribunal of Race - the court which adjudicated on issues relating to the fascist racial laws. Of course, not all these officials had shared the virulently illiberal views of fascism: some in fact claimed in self-defense that they had been covert anti-fascists who had taken on major positions of responsibility precisely so as to shield people against the more vicious aspects of the regime. But inevitably large parts of the bureaucracy of the Republic were staffed with men and women who had been brought up to believe that democratic principles were far from healthy."

I believe that this is strongly relevant to the condition of the Italian criminal justice system today, and that therefore by extension it's relevant to the Knox/Sollecito trials.

I'd go even further than this though. My take on "epoch transition" government is that although the head of the serpent is cut off (Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam...) and the overarching political philosophy may change, it usually takes an incredibly long time for the long civil service arms of government to change. Partly this is out of necessity and a desire to maintain public order: the US saw in Iraq that you can't just sack the entire police force without chaos and disorder ensuing, and that's even more of an issue when it comes to criminal justice. It's incredibly dangerous (from a public order and public confidence point of view) to tell the people that vasts amounts of things which were illegal yesterday are legal today, and vice versa. Instead, even with a total will for change, things must happen slowly and gradually in order to make a smooth transition to a new philosophy.

However, as your quote illustrates well, there's often a fundamental barrier to change inasmuch as the people responsible for day-to-day administration of government (in this case the judges, prosecutors and police) are very often a) reactionary by nature, and b) philosophically wedded to a greater or lesser extent in the old system. So these two factors, combined with the underlying natural inertia, mean that old habits and philosophies can die very hard indeed.

And that's exactly what I believe we're seeing in the Knox/Sollecito trials. I think that most of the judges, prosecutors and police involved in this case have unlawfully reverted to past, defunct legislation (now overwritten and discredited) in order to ensnare Knox and Sollecito. Furthermore, I think the Supreme Court has failed spectacularly so far in its sovereign duty to uphold the law as it is written today. My observation is that the SC is possibly in the thrall of reactionary bigots with quasi-fascist leanings, who have established - unchecked thus far - a system where they can dictate law to the lower courts in a way that is not enshrined in legislation.

 

[Numbers]

I believe that this is strongly relevant to the condition of the Italian criminal justice system today, and that therefore by extension it's relevant to the Knox/Sollecito trials.

I'd go even further than this though. My take on "epoch transition" government is that although the head of the serpent is cut off (Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam...) and the overarching political philosophy may change, it usually takes an incredibly long time for the long civil service arms of government to change. Partly this is out of necessity and a desire to maintain public order: the US saw in Iraq that you can't just sack the entire police force without chaos and disorder ensuing, and that's even more of an issue when it comes to criminal justice. It's incredibly dangerous (from a public order and public confidence point of view) to tell the people that vasts amounts of things which were illegal yesterday are legal today, and vice versa. Instead, even with a total will for change, things must happen slowly and gradually in order to make a smooth transition to a new philosophy.

However, as your quote illustrates well, there's often a fundamental barrier to change inasmuch as the people responsible for day-to-day administration of government (in this case the judges, prosecutors and police) are very often a) reactionary by nature, and b) philosophically wedded to a greater or lesser extent in the old system. So these two factors, combined with the underlying natural inertia, mean that old habits and philosophies can die very hard indeed.

And that's exactly what I believe we're seeing in the Knox/Sollecito trials. I think that most of the judges, prosecutors and police involved in this case have unlawfully reverted to past, defunct legislation (now overwritten and discredited) in order to ensnare Knox and Sollecito. Furthermore, I think the Supreme Court has failed spectacularly so far in its sovereign duty to uphold the law as it is written today. My observation is that the SC is possibly in the thrall of reactionary bigots with quasi-fascist leanings, who have established - unchecked thus far - a system where they can dictate law to the lower courts in a way that is not enshrined in legislation.

I believe you have summarized the true situation. The Knox/Sollecito trials (with the partial exception of the Hellmann court) are not about the evidence, but about how the police and judiciary are to function in Italy. Should a liberal constitution - which may be considered a foreign imposition by some important officials - be followed, or should an earlier, native form of practice be followed?

Here is a quote from Giulio Illuminati's paper, The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy, illustrating the earlier judicial practice and how it survived until 1988; indeed, we see from the AK/RS trials remnants still survive despite Constitutional change:

The Code of 1930, drafted in the fascist era, also suffered a strong
influence from the Napoleonic Code: criminal proceedings were divided
into two phases, the investigative stage (“istruzione”) and the trial stage
(“dibattimento”), with the investigative stage holding more influence over
the proceedings. The Code provided for an investigating judge (“giudice
istruttore”) with extensive powers. On recommendation of the public prosecutor, the investigating judge would direct the investigation in order to “ascertain the truth.” He would hear witnesses and experts, perform searches, seizures and experiments. The investigating judge could also summon and question the accused. All the evidence obtained in the course of the investigation would be recorded in the investigative dossier, upon which the trial judge based his decision.
Originally the defense was forbidden to participate in the investigative phase. Later reforms and a series of decisions of the Constitutional Court
in the 1970s allowed the defense opportunities to challenge or contradict information that was gathered. However, confrontational and adversarial
initiatives were permitted in the trial phase, which took place only if the
investigation had collected sufficient evidence. The principles of orality
and immediacy were granted in court. But those same principles were frustrated by the trial judge having access to the investigative dossier and being able to base a decision upon the records contained therein. It is easy to understand why the preliminary investigative phase served as the central process of criminal proceedings, as this was when evidence was actually collected. In most cases the trial phase did not add to what had been done in the investigative phase or disavow the conclusion reached during the investigation. The trial simply functioned as a control on what had been previously decided. The trial often turned out to be merely an occasion for the “official reading” of the record formed during the investigative stage.
It is true that witnesses could be called to trial to testify and their
testimony could differ from that given to the investigating judge. But the decision still could be based solely on the investigative dossier, disregarding the evidence presented during the trial phase. Moreover, in most cases the witness was asked to simply “confirm” the statements given to the investigating judge. The ability of the trial judge to rely exclusively upon the investigative dossier is determinant in establishing the inquisitorial profile of this system.
The Code of 1930 remained in force until 1988. Even though many amendments were promulgated in an effort to update the procedure, the Code of 1930 and its inquisitorial nature was unfit in light of the supervening Constitutional system.

 

[Bill Williams]

I believe that this is strongly relevant to the condition of the Italian criminal justice system today, and that therefore by extension it's relevant to the Knox/Sollecito trials.

I'd go even further than this though. My take on "epoch transition" government is that although the head of the serpent is cut off (Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam...) and the overarching political philosophy may change, it usually takes an incredibly long time for the long civil service arms of government to change. Partly this is out of necessity and a desire to maintain public order: the US saw in Iraq that you can't just sack the entire police force without chaos and disorder ensuing, and that's even more of an issue when it comes to criminal justice. It's incredibly dangerous (from a public order and public confidence point of view) to tell the people that vasts amounts of things which were illegal yesterday are legal today, and vice versa. Instead, even with a total will for change, things must happen slowly and gradually in order to make a smooth transition to a new philosophy.

However, as your quote illustrates well, there's often a fundamental barrier to change inasmuch as the people responsible for day-to-day administration of government (in this case the judges, prosecutors and police) are very often a) reactionary by nature, and b) philosophically wedded to a greater or lesser extent in the old system. So these two factors, combined with the underlying natural inertia, mean that old habits and philosophies can die very hard indeed.

And that's exactly what I believe we're seeing in the Knox/Sollecito trials. I think that most of the judges, prosecutors and police involved in this case have unlawfully reverted to past, defunct legislation (now overwritten and discredited) in order to ensnare Knox and Sollecito. Furthermore, I think the Supreme Court has failed spectacularly so far in its sovereign duty to uphold the law as it is written today. My observation is that the SC is possibly in the thrall of reactionary bigots with quasi-fascist leanings, who have established - unchecked thus far - a system where they can dictate law to the lower courts in a way that is not enshrined in legislation.

With all due respect, LJ, that bit about "unlawfully reverted to the past," may not be entirely true. (Remember the Golden Rule? "Them with the gold makes the rules!")

Italy is currently in a stalled transition between Inquisitorial courts to Adversarial courts - and no role-change is more significant in that than the role of prosecutor.

It is perhaps more correct to say that it is currently unknown, if Italy is acting "unlawfully". I mean, courts around the world "make law" all the time through their rulings. It's what happens in other countries with no written constitution, where the de facto "constitution" becomes the chain of precedents which some lawyer has to unearth from dusty law journals somewhere.

However, taking another tact - one subject of conversation in these threads is Machiavelli. Upthread I listed brief comments from nearly a dozen posters here, who have evaluated Machiavelli's contribution here. They are not complimentary, they range from implying he's deluded, to being an outright liar.

The issue for me is this: Machiavelli has made implied claims of criminality regarding Wladimiro De Nunzio, the president of the Court of Appeal of Perugia.....

The simple problem is, I don’t have evidence on Wladimiro De Nunzio. He is not an outsider and a discredited small fish like Hellmann and Zanetti.

Moreover, Manuela Comodi had arrested - while in Spoleto - a right-wing politician, a very close friend of Hellmann. They all knew about his resentment, de Nunzio too. The fact that De Nunzio’s role remains in the dark is probably partly a consequence of a Galati’s mistake.

Comodi (and Mignini) understood the trap and wanted to impeach Hellmann and Zanetti on their first wild words at the beginning, but Galati - who as a newcomer had just arrived from Rome - was probably afraid, as he understood the gravity of the situation, about waging a total war against the head of the appeal courts as a first step.

So he did not impeach Hellmann and his court; thus De Nunzio remained in the shadow. This reluctance or caution by Galati was the mistake.​

In that post, Machiavelli also talks of Hellmann, Comodi and Galati.

If you (meaning you, LJ) are taking a global view of the current situation in Italy which has ensnared (unjustly) Sollecito and Knox, then Machiavelli (maybe) is giving us a glimpse from way, way, way down the rabbit hole where he obviously takes a side in the judicial internecine war which nearly everyone agrees is behind this - guilters and good-guys alike!

So, either Machiavelli is randomly pounding at a keyboard somewhere and just so happens to accidentally produce these things....

.... or he's got some measure of access. This could be as simple as that he himself has a seat way, way up in the bleachers at guilter home games. (Most posters here do not have seats at those games.)

But, I for one, want to know why he is so critical of Galati in this - that Galati somehow misplayed the game which is on behind the scenes, which allowed De Nunzio to play that "machiavellian" move to have Hellmann/Zanetti appointed? This misplay, so Machiavelli implies, let down the side. Machiavelli, friend to Galati, is saying Galati is somehow responsible for Knox and Sollecito being (currently) free.

Will Machiavelli ever comment more on that?

 

[Desert Fox]

If the Italian court does not find a way to make these charges fade away as some posters believe they will, the idea that the whole process is political is something that needs to be presented as far as Amanda's defense against any extradition. If there ends up being a letter writing campaign, might be something useful to put in any letter.

 

[Numbers]

With all due respect, LJ, that bit about "unlawfully reverted to the past," may not be entirely true. (Remember the Golden Rule? "Them with the gold makes the rules!")

Italy is currently in a stalled transition between Inquisitorial courts to Adversarial courts - and no role-change is more significant in that than the role of prosecutor.

It is perhaps more correct to say that it is currently unknown, if Italy is acting "unlawfully". I mean, courts around the world "make law" all the time through their rulings. It's what happens in other countries with no written constitution, where the de facto "constitution" becomes the chain of precedents which some lawyer has to unearth from dusty law journals somewhere. However, taking another tact - one subject of conversation in these threads is Machiavelli. Upthread I listed brief comments from nearly a dozen posters here, who have evaluated Machiavelli's contribution here. They are not complimentary, they range from implying he's deluded, to being an outright liar.

The issue for me is this: Machiavelli has made implied claims of criminality regarding Wladimiro De Nunzio, the president of the Court of Appeal of Perugia.....

​

In that post, Machiavelli also talks of Hellmann, Comodi and Galati.

If you (meaning you, LJ) are taking a global view of the current situation in Italy which has ensnared (unjustly) Sollecito and Knox, then Machiavelli (maybe) is giving us a glimpse from way, way, way down the rabbit hole where he obviously takes a side in the judicial internecine war which nearly everyone agrees is behind this - guilters and good-guys alike!

So, either Machiavelli is randomly pounding at a keyboard somewhere and just so happens to accidentally produce these things....

.... or he's got some measure of access. This could be as simple as that he himself has a seat way, way up in the bleachers at guilter home games. (Most posters here do not have seats at those games.)

But, I for one, want to know why he is so critical of Galati in this - that Galati somehow misplayed the game which is on behind the scenes, which allowed De Nunzio to play that "machiavellian" move to have Hellmann/Zanetti appointed? This misplay, so Machiavelli implies, let down the side. Machiavelli, friend to Galati, is saying Galati is somehow responsible for Knox and Sollecito being (currently) free.

Will Machiavelli ever comment more on that?

Bill,
I agree with much of your post.

However, some clarifications. Italy does have a written constitution, with some good features and considerable detail (see earlier posts on Article 111 dealing with trials and defendant's rights, including adversarial trials, for example). Italy is also a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (formal name: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). Italy has made solemn commitments not to violate the human rights protections in its constitution and laws or in the EConHR and the case-law of the E Court HR. Italian police, judges, or other officials are bound to obey these commitments; if they violate them, Italy may be held accountable in the ECtHR. Fair adversarial trials are, for example, required by the EConHR (its Article 6), unless the defendant opts out (essentially, knowingly, with advice of a lawyer, pleads guilty or no contest).

Also, technically Italy itself, having a civil law rather than a common law judicial system, does not have case law. Supposedly all Italian law has been codified in Italy's Code of Criminal Procedure. although Italy does have a Constitutional Court to resolve any conflict in law. In contrast, the Council of Europe EConHR is relatively general in its wording and must be interpreted through the ECtHR case law (similar in the way the US Constitution must be interpreted for details, outside accepted common law and statute, by the US Supreme Court).

 

[acbytesla]

Bill,
I agree with much of your post.

However, some clarifications. Italy does have a written constitution, with some good features and considerable detail (see earlier posts on Article 111 dealing with trials and defendant's rights, including adversarial trials, for example). Italy is also a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (formal name: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). Italy has made solemn commitments not to violate the human rights protections in its constitution and laws or in the EConHR and the case-law of the E Court HR. Italian police, judges, or other officials are bound to obey these commitments; if they violate them, Italy may be held accountable in the ECtHR. Fair adversarial trials are, for example, required by the EConHR (its Article 6), unless the defendant opts out (essentially, knowingly, with advice of a lawyer, pleads guilty or no contest).

Also, technically Italy itself, having a civil law rather than a common law judicial system, does not have case law. Supposedly all Italian law has been codified in Italy's Code of Criminal Procedure. although Italy does have a Constitutional Court to resolve any conflict in law. In contrast, the Council of Europe EConHR is relatively general in its wording and must be interpreted through the ECtHR case law (similar in the way the US Constitution must be interpreted for details, outside accepted common law and statute, by the US Supreme Court).

I know this sounds corny, but I remember an episode on "The West Wing" tv series where Christopher Lloyd was playing a real life person; Professor Lawrence Lessig. Lessig was brought in to help Belarus, one of the former Russian republics to help write a new constitution. The idea put forward in the episode was while the written Constitution was important, far more important was to develop a sense of the rule of law.

Italy's judges etc have no real sense of law instead reverting back to a culture of authoritarianism which is destructive to Amanda and Raffaele and Italy.

 

[Kauffer]

Bill,
I agree with much of your post.

However, some clarifications. Italy does have a written constitution, with some good features and considerable detail (see earlier posts on Article 111 dealing with trials and defendant's rights, including adversarial trials, for example). Italy is also a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (formal name: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). Italy has made solemn commitments not to violate the human rights protections in its constitution and laws or in the EConHR and the case-law of the E Court HR. Italian police, judges, or other officials are bound to obey these commitments; if they violate them, Italy may be held accountable in the ECtHR. Fair adversarial trials are, for example, required by the EConHR (its Article 6), unless the defendant opts out (essentially, knowingly, with advice of a lawyer, pleads guilty or no contest).

Also, technically Italy itself, having a civil law rather than a common law judicial system, does not have case law. Supposedly all Italian law has been codified in Italy's Code of Criminal Procedure. although Italy does have a Constitutional Court to resolve any conflict in law. In contrast, the Council of Europe EConHR is relatively general in its wording and must be interpreted through the ECtHR case law (similar in the way the US Constitution must be interpreted for details, outside accepted common law and statute, by the US Supreme Court).

The next key signpost in this case should be whether or not the ECHR chooses to hear Ms Knox's application on the Calumny conviction, a decision, which will likely be made before Cassation confirms or denies Nencini. I think it must; it does not like this law and the issues arising from the application are non trivial, fundamental ones. This may have a definitive effect on the outcome of the case in Italy. Notwithstanding this I cannot think of a real upside for Italy to request Ms Knox's extradition regardless of any other consideration.

 

[Kaosium]

Ha ha - only when it involves a white "damsel in distress" of reasonable looks, "railroaded" by some medieval "eye-talians" and there is a handy evil black guy to finger. Otherwise you really couldn't care less about "miscarriages of justice", especially those closer to home and involving your racial minorities. Get self-righteous about those if you have to - some of which (unlike the white, middle-class, druggie freak out in Perugia) are incontrovertible. Here's some reading material: "Injustice: Life and Death in the Courtrooms of America" by Clive Stafford Smith. If you can't read, or can't be arsed, get someone to read it to you. This is an elementary text, you will be able to move on to any "miscarriages" overseas when you have mastered the basics.

In the meantime , as an intelligence test, arrange the following six words into a well known phrase: house put order your in own.

You don't get much more incontrovertible evidence of a miscarriage of justice than a case in which everything the supposed perpetrators were arrested for turns out to be nonsense and they later catch a burglar who left his DNA all over the scene and then fled the country.

At any rate, by definition, every 'incontrovertible' miscarriage of justice also includes those who were convinced the innocents were guilty including the jurors and the prosecution and there's those in the peanut gallery who will reflexively support them, or are drawn to supporting them by how they cast the accused innocents.

However not every miscarriage of justice has about a dozen DNA experts, including independent court experts and one of the originators of the field decry the evidence the prosecution presented in court. That makes this one eternal and the ones above currently making their assessment on the basis of political, emotional or otherwise bigoted reasons even more pathetic than most. The internet has allowed for a massive increase in the availability of information, but unfortunately that includes misinformation and disinformation like the sites you read on this case.

There was better 'evidence' presented against Lindy Chamberlain, at least they could show she was at the scene and muster evidence suggesting a dingo attack was nearly unheard of. They had even 'better' blood evidence against her employing the same tactic as ILE: hose down everything with presumptive blood tests and pretend it was all definitely blood related to the death.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not an either-or, a both-and

I kinda think this case is a perfect little microcosm of all of the terrible stuff that goes into a wrongful conviction: corrupt cops, rogue prosecutor, incompetent and politicized courts, ass-covering, blame the outsider, rush-to-judgment/sensationalist media, junk science/CSI effect, destruction and suppression of exculpatory evidence, ignoring fundamental fair trial rights, arse-brained internet trolls. So, all in all, it's a perfect case study to help us understand all of the ways that things might go s wrong in our own systems.

A wonderfully succinct summary of this case. I discussed 8 O'Clock Ferry to the Windward Side by Clive Stafford Smith some years ago. Why shouldn't we publicize all variations of wrongful detentions or convictions? How else will they get fixed?

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

More uninformed gibberish

I think we all admit that there are problems with the legal system in the United States although it seems to be for completely different, although still political, reasons. It does not mean however that one cannot comment of problems with other legal systems.

The issue with this case is actually very different than many cases in the US in that the Italian courts / police broke many of their own rules. In the US, a higher court would likely just simply dismiss all charges based on that. Many US court cases have bad decisions but they do not break US law in making them.

What utter nonsense. You can be sure that the US embassy in Italy, who we know have closely monitored the trial, would have complained in no uncertain terms of any irregularities. They have not. They are in possession of the facts and they know damn well that this particular nutty US subject is as guilty as sin. In fact you could say that their silence on the matter is absolutely bloody deafening. It's case closed as far as they are concerned.