Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli
Do you have an opinion on the intriguing case of the murder of Sarah Scazzi, are the convictions of Sabrina and Cosima Misseri, who are in custody pending their first appeal, safe? It is harder for us to get reliable information on this case.

Well, they are guilty.

 

[MDDVS]

Absolutely not. In fact they were charged.
But Mignini is not a Government officer. Bertolaso was a government officer with a practical power equal to that of a minister. Mignini could not fire Stefanoni and has no power on her, but Bertolaso could throw out the experts from their well paid posts at Government Committee if he wanted.

Would they have been charged if there was no earthquake?

 

[Machiavelli]

Would they have been charged if there was no earthquake?

No.
In Italy, unless somebody dies, nobody is accountable.

 

[carbonjam72]

Do you want a link where you may understand something of what the L'Aquila earthquake trial was about?

http://inchieste.repubblica.it/it/repubblica/rep-it/2012/01/18/news/il_terremoto_negato-28369392/

Btw, of the 7 defendants, six are aquitted in appeal but one was convicted.
This is an article about the verdict of today. Notice that the title focuses on the "Serious Risks Committee", a political organ, not just scientific.
It should also be noted that the verdict acquits the defendants from criminal charges, but determines they still have civil responsibilities and have to pay damages:

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/11/10/news/l_aquila_processo-100213076/


http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/11/10/terremoto-laquila-tutti-assolti-i-componenti-commissione-grandi-rischi/1203072/

From the 2nd or 3rd article above:

The accusation: he reassured citizens by changing their normal habits
What was the crux of the prosecution? At the end of the meeting of 31 March 2009, the experts of the Major risks reassured citizens, underestimating - according to prosecutors - and triggering the seismic risk in people changing their normal habits, such as leaving the house after strong shock. As he wrote the court of first instance Marco Billi "reassurance is not a segment of the conduct that the prosecutor alleges the defendants, but it is actually the effect of the conduct complained of." The allegations emerged during the meeting of the Commission on the themes "the predictability of earthquakes, seismic precursors, the evolution of the swarm in the course of normal phenomenon, the discharge energy induced by the earthquake swarm that favorable situation, which make up the body main of indictment "have a" unequaled reassuring. "So the experts of Major risks were allegations "absolutely approximate, generic and ineffective," wrote yet the court of first instance. So it's not a job to science: "The task of the defendants, as members of that committee, was not sure what to expect (prophesy) the earthquake and indicate the month, day, time and magnitude, but was instead more realistically, to proceed in accordance with the regulation, the 'prediction and prevention of the risk.' "


Pg: "Obviously media operation attributed only to the Civil Protection"
The sentence for the only De Berardinis could worsen the position of the former head of the Civil Protection, Guido Bertolaso, according to the Attorney General Romulus Como. Bertolaso is investigated in a vein parallel to process the large risks. Just Como in the coming weeks is required to ask for the acquittal or the indictment Bertolaso twice after the prosecutor had asked for the acquittal. "I have to first understand how we got to this ruling, I will read the device and then the reasons but I have to feel connected to this verdict Bertolaso - explains Como - because the college has focused on the responsibility deputy head of the civil protection De Berardinis, evidently the misinformation has been ascribed to the civil defense and not scientists. So the media operation intended to reassure the Aquila was not attributed to the scientists gathered, but to the department. "Como states, however, that has yet to assess everything and that his thoughts are "hot".

One of the "evidence", the call Bertolaso
Among the evidence to support the prosecutor's office was over even a phone call by the then head of the Civil Protection Guido Bertolaso to the Regional Daniela Abruzzese states: "I will call De Berardinis, my deputy, to which I said to a meeting there to 'Eagle tomorrow about this story of this earthquake swarm continues, so shut up immediately any imbecile appease allegations, concerns, and so on. "He went on: "I make them come to L'Aquila by either you or in the prefecture, up to you, I do not give a damn, so that it is more a media operation, you understand? So they, who are the leading experts in earthquakes will say it is a normal situation, are phenomena that occur, rather that there are 100 aftershocks of 4 rather than the Richter scale shook silence because 100 are used to release energy and there will never be the shock, the one that hurts. "So the conclusion: "Talk to De Berardinis and decide where to make the meeting tomorrow, which is why we are scared and worried, but because we want to reassure the people."

 

[Numbers]

According to the following from Wikipedia, I believe Mach may have a valid point in this instance. The scientists apparently downplayed the risks, which should have been apparent - even to the non-technical citizens of the area.

The killers were of course the collapsing buildings; according to another part of the Wikipedia article, building standards and practices are believed to have been quite deficient compared to current standards.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake

A trial, which lasted from September 2011 until October 2012, found six scientists and a former government official guilty of involuntary manslaughter.[90] According to the prosecution, they had spread "inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory" statements after preliminary tremors could be felt on the days before 6 April 2009. While scientists were found guilty for failing to give adequate warning,[91] the full text of the decision said that that "science [was] not being tried for failing to predict the April 6, 2009 earthquake" ("Non è sottoposta a giudizio la scienza per non-essere riuscita a prevedere il terremoto del 6 aprile 2009").[92] The seven members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks who were convicted were: Franco Barberi, head of Serious Risks Commission; Enzo Boschi, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology; Giulio Lorenzo Selvaggi, director of National Earthquake Centre; Gian Michele Calvi, director of European Centre for Earthquake Engineering; Claudio Eva, physicist; Mauro Dolce, director of the Civil Protection Agency's earthquake risk office; Bernardo De Bernardinis, former vice-president of Civil Protection Agency's technical department.[7]

Boschi had called a major earthquake "unlikely", while not entirely excluding the possibility. De Bernardinis had informed the public that there was "no danger".[8] The prosecutors cited a scientific opinion that the low-level tremors ahead of 6 April quake were typical of the seismic activity preceding major convulsions, but the defendants had classified them as a "normal geological phenomenon".[9] They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring" and Judge Marco Billi gave them a six-year jail sentence on 22 October 2012,[7] reasoning that they had provided "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken".[92][93] They were also banned from ever holding public office again and had to pay court costs and damages.

Enzo Boschi, one of the convicted, said, "I thought I would have been acquitted. I still don't understand what I was convicted of."[7] His co-defendant Claudio Eva said that "it was a very Italian and medieval decision."[94] Their lawyers announced they would appeal the verdict, and it will not be finally decided until it is heard by the appellate court.

ETA: The scientists were only following orders, IIUC, in stating the uncertainty of an earthquake as a sequel to the series of tremors, to reduce panic among the citizens. The government instead should have provided less dangerous temporary housing or evacuated residents from the area, IMO.

ETA2: Just wait for Mt. Vesuvius to start acting up. The Italian government planning for that is....?

 

[Bill Williams]

Who cares? Everybody has a right to be wrong, if they like so. Do you think I should write to the rest of humanity about everything I think they do wrong?

From what I know about you, you'd probably give it the old college try!

 

[carbonjam72]

No.
In Italy, unless somebody dies, nobody is accountable.

My all time favorite MAch post. (By the way, its an old saying; "in comedy, nobody really gets hurt".)

 

[Samson]

Well, they are guilty.

Thank you, there is an old thread here I think. This is another case dividing on the same party lines as here then.
I would point out some analogies
1. The young woman in jail is alleged to have killed another young woman.
2. There are multiperpetrators alleged.
3. There is another suspect who has confessed to the crime but been treated well and released. He had motive and opportunity.

Indeed we are watching the Shrien Dewani case unravel with many analogous factors, as well as the Teina Pora case.

Hmm

 

[Machiavelli]

So has the appeal court committed a miscarriage of justice in throwing out the convictions on "no case to answer"? By your version of events, there would appear to be at least a clear case to answer. Is the Italian Court of Appeal being disfunctional and unjust in its treatment of this case? If so, what do you think this might indicate about the state of chaos in the Italian criminal justice system? After all, if you're right and accurate, then very possibly a further appeal may lead to the reinstatement of the convictions.

Some dreadful and unfit-for-service justice system you've got yourselves there....

Well, "no case to answer" is not a legal formula in the Italian system, at least not on trials (in 'dropping of charges' there is a formula that might be translated with an equivalent).
No, I think the formula for acquittal was "Il fatto non sussiste" (the crime was not committed, or "did not take place"), but this was only for six of the seven defendants, not for the last one. In fact, defendant #7 was convicted for manslaughter of 16 of a total of 29 victims parties, so somebody did commit a criminal offence, some crime did take place.
However, as I said the point is that all defendants were still found responsible for civil damages so, although what they did was not a crime, it was not manslaughter (probably because they lacked conscious negligence, it's a guess) yet it did cause a damage. It was still a wrongdoing under some ethical code.
I don't see the Appeals verdict as necessarily unjust and disfunctional. Not all wrongdoings are criminal breaches. And not necessarily they have the causal links that the victims claim (for example, about the death of 13 of the families, the judge found there was anyway no evidence that this was the direct consequence of De Bernardinis' behaviour). You know that you need to have all elements of a crime to convict, cognitive aspects such as knowledge and intent as well as causal links need to be proven. Here the formula "il fatto non sussiste" indicated that it was the existence of some element of the charge that was actually missing.

 

[MDDVS]

No.
In Italy, unless somebody dies, nobody is accountable.

Thank you.

 

[toto]

According to the following from Wikipedia, I believe Mach may have a valid point in this instance. The scientists apparently downplayed the risks, which should have been apparent - even to the non-technical citizens of the area.

The killers were of course the collapsing buildings; according to another part of the Wikipedia article, building standards and practices are believed to have been quite deficient compared to current standards.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake

A trial, which lasted from September 2011 until October 2012, found six scientists and a former government official guilty of involuntary manslaughter.[90] According to the prosecution, they had spread "inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory" statements after preliminary tremors could be felt on the days before 6 April 2009. While scientists were found guilty for failing to give adequate warning,[91] the full text of the decision said that that "science [was] not being tried for failing to predict the April 6, 2009 earthquake" ("Non è sottoposta a giudizio la scienza per non-essere riuscita a prevedere il terremoto del 6 aprile 2009").[92] The seven members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks who were convicted were: Franco Barberi, head of Serious Risks Commission; Enzo Boschi, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology; Giulio Lorenzo Selvaggi, director of National Earthquake Centre; Gian Michele Calvi, director of European Centre for Earthquake Engineering; Claudio Eva, physicist; Mauro Dolce, director of the Civil Protection Agency's earthquake risk office; Bernardo De Bernardinis, former vice-president of Civil Protection Agency's technical department.[7]

Boschi had called a major earthquake "unlikely", while not entirely excluding the possibility. De Bernardinis had informed the public that there was "no danger".[8] The prosecutors cited a scientific opinion that the low-level tremors ahead of 6 April quake were typical of the seismic activity preceding major convulsions, but the defendants had classified them as a "normal geological phenomenon".[9] They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring" and Judge Marco Billi gave them a six-year jail sentence on 22 October 2012,[7] reasoning that they had provided "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken".[92][93] They were also banned from ever holding public office again and had to pay court costs and damages.

Enzo Boschi, one of the convicted, said, "I thought I would have been acquitted. I still don't understand what I was convicted of."[7] His co-defendant Claudio Eva said that "it was a very Italian and medieval decision."[94] Their lawyers announced they would appeal the verdict, and it will not be finally decided until it is heard by the appellate court.

ETA: The scientists were only following orders, IIUC, in stating the uncertainty of an earthquake as a sequel to the series of tremors, to reduce panic among the citizens. The government instead should have provided less dangerous temporary housing or evacuated residents from the area, IMO.

ETA2: Just wait for Mt. Vesuvius to start acting up. The Italian government planning for that is....?

Downplaying the risks implies knowing there were greater risks but not giving them sufficient weight, which does seem to me to be ethically wrong. Scientists should presumably give the full facts as they know them.

 

[JREF2010]

Maybe Amanda and Raffaele were sliding around on bathmats at Raffaele's apartment, too. That's what they were doing at the crime scene, according to Machiavelli. That's why the luminol footprints are scattered here and there and form no pattern linking them to the crime.

Its amazing Migninni hasn't tried shutting this site down, maybe he did so they had to move it here?

The missing footprints, Im sure one of the Judges can make up some ignorant fictional story tale,....maybe while Rudy pooped they slid around on the bathmats and argued all between 9:45 and 10:13pm.

 

[Numbers]

Downplaying the risks implies knowing there were greater risks but not giving them sufficient weight, which does seem to me to be ethically wrong. Scientists should presumably give the full facts as they know them.

Yes, imo, the scientists were possibly technically correct (I'm not sure of the exact words they used), but swarms of tremors are sometimes signs that nothing will happen and sometimes signs that an earthquake will occur.

From an abundance of caution, one should consider the worst case scenario.

But my understanding is that the problem was deeper than the response, or lack thereof, to the tremor swarm. The area, like others in Italy, had suffered earthquakes many times before (over hundreds of years) and emergency planning and increasing earthquake-resistance of buildings is not something one should be forced into a week or so before the emergency, when it is clear that eventually there will be a dangerous quake.

Wikipedia on history of quakes in the L'Aquila area:

Historical context

Italy frequently experiences earthquakes, but it is uncommon for them to be very deadly. The last major earthquake was the 5.9-magnitude 2002 Molise earthquake which killed 30 people, 26 of the victims children who perished in the collapse of an elementary school in San Giuliano di Puglia, and was the deadliest quake in 20 years.[13] Earthquakes mark the history of L'Aquila, a city built on the bed of an ancient lake, providing a soil structure that amplifies seismic waves. The city was struck by earthquakes in 1315, 1349, 1452, 1501, 1646, 1703, and 1706.[14] The earthquake of February 1703, which caused devastation across much of central Italy, largely destroyed the city and killed around 5,000 people.[15]

 

[Desert Fox]

From an abundance of caution, one should consider the worst case scenario.

You then become the kid who cried wolf. . . . .

 

[whoanellie]

But, this is a 'straw man'; it changes the premise that you object. Indeed behaviours are motivated below a conscious level, but sub-conscious mind (whatever the term, 'inconscious' or 'subconscious' you chose) is profoundly organized and logical. "Logical" does not mean "conscious". ...........
I assume that if Guede ever locked the door, then certainly his subconscious mind was motivated to this decision by some logical reason, but I do not expect him to be aware of it nor will I try to find it out deducing it from the single action taken in isolation.

This is utter nonsense.

 

[Numbers]

You then become the kid who cried wolf. . . . .

Probably. Consider tremor swarms in the US. Say they're at Yellowstone. May be an evacuation is conducted; certainly people are aware of potential danger. There are not many buildings.

What about tremor swarms in LA or San Francisco? The buildings are generally earthquake resistant (we hope); certainly there will be more caution, may be no evacuation is needed.

What about in Italy? People may be living in old non-earthquake resistant structures or newer ones perhaps not built to modern earthquake resistant standards. Should people be evacuated? Or spend nights in tents rather than masonry buildings? What's the human cost of a wrong decision?

 

[Dan O.]

Stefanoni testified to Massei that the jeans were reversed:

​

I think where you go wrong, Machiavelli, is that you take Stefanoni at her word too much. There is no discussion in Massei, "that they occurred at the time when the crime was committed not subsequently (it's not a secondary staining) and they did not come from contact with the body."

Mach was almost correct. It's on page 71/72 just after she talks about the white sticky substance.

Here you go forward because there is not much ... here, let me point out that the jeans trousers, which was always found next to the victim, the victim's feet were made several samples but all of the victim's blood, this is special because the jeans was found upside down, so this suggests that the jeans was ... or that the victim has the fairly difficult marched think for themselves and marched on the reverse or ... say that it was someone else pulled inside out, also because there are copious blood spots, especially on the upper part, ie on the part of the belt, and also traces of blood that does not seem to rubbing, say by affixing secondary, inside of the jeans, and then on the part that had become external .
PRESIDENT - On the flip side.
ANSWER - On the flip side, that's right, this would suggest that these drips, these blood stains quite substantial to have occurred, have been laid during or immediately after the event itself criminal, because otherwise it would be rubbed more than stained so clearly inside, just wanted to point out this but there are no significant results.

This would be a significant issue if it were not for Stefanoni totally blowing it by saying that the jeans were found turned inside out which quite clearly in multiple photographs they were not. Since Stef chose not to include photos of these findings we don't know if she was confused about which side of the jeans go to the outside or if somebody else inverted the jeans while repacking them or if she was remembering the sweatshirt which was still inside out and was reversed on camera during the december visit.

 

[Desert Fox]

Probably. Consider tremor swarms in the US. Say they're at Yellowstone. May be an evacuation is conducted; certainly people are aware of potential danger. There are not many buildings.

What about tremor swarms in LA or San Francisco? The buildings are generally earthquake resistant (we hope); certainly there will be more caution, may be no evacuation is needed.

What about in Italy? People may be living in old non-earthquake resistant structures or newer ones perhaps not built to modern earthquake resistant standards. Should people be evacuated? Or spend nights in tents rather than masonry buildings? What's the human cost of a wrong decision?

I have heard long discussions on what to decide. There is always risk in Italy from earthquakes (Something not so different than Washington State) but my understanding was that there were no signs that the danger was any worse than normal.

 

[Numbers]

Of course, we have already said that. For example when you submit a claim and the police don't follow with appropriate investigation. 1. But it needs to be raised, through the proper legal channels.


But you would be talking about another case, and possibly another world. The lawyers would be disbarred if they withdrew from submitting a denouncement because of fear of a hypotherical threat of a calunnia charge that may be raised in the future against a client who is now being arrested on a charge of murder. It's a "fear" that would make no sense as defensive strategy, it would be suicidal. I understand that you want to follow your threads, and anything could be theoretically submitted to the ECHR, but let's consider scenarios within the realm of common sense.
They also should e somehow related to the case. 2. Independently from any police conduct, Amanda Knox released a spontaneous statement without any interrogation taking place, before a magistrate and witnesses, and there has been no defence claim that this was a questioning. 3. Moreover she submitted hand written memoires in which she repeated the action of placing false evidence.



But the ECHR never questioned the existence of the charge of calunnia in the penal code. 4. It's not a kind of legalism that is going to be realistically disputed by the ECHR.


There isn't a realistic possibility of that in my opinion, if we are talking about the allegation of having been hit. But most important: 5. even if a hypotethical violation by the police was suspected, that would be irrelevant as for the final outcome of Knox's calunnia conviction. She would have been convicted for calunnia in any event, even if it had been proven in the trial that somebody hit her, and even if hypothetically the Cassazione orders a review of the trial she would be found guilty of calunnia again.

Item numbers and emphasis added to the above for ease of response.

1. This is true when it is clearly practical to raise such claims through legal channels according to the established domestic formalisms. However, ECtHR has indicated that in certain cases, if there is some real impediment from, for example, a flaw in a state's laws, or from adverse action by authorities, the legal formalisms are not as important as the substance. In one of Ms. Knox's early written statements she indeed indicated she had been hit. Whether or not the ECtHR considers that a complaint in substance, is for them to decide. I can only speculate on the contents of her application. I can only speculate that there may be an allegation relating to police abuse in the application; the specifics of any such claimed abuse in the application is also speculative.

2. If here you are referring to any statements she made to PM Mignini, during the all-night interrogation, I suggest that would fall under the same issues as the earlier interrogation directly by the police. These issues include that Ms. Knox made these statements without the advice of a lawyer and without the benefit of a neutral, fair interpreter. She was never informed of her right to remain silent. And she was certainly being interrogated as a suspect; the ECtHR will consider, for example, that teams of police repeatedly entered and left the interrogation room while she remained. And there is Giobbi's testimony that he intentionally brought both Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito in for interrogation that night.

3. Her written statements were made without benefit of legal advice and without her awareness of the right to remain silent. Her written statements following the interrogation show a gradual throwing off of the false charge against Mr. Lumumba planted against her will by the police during the interrogation.

4. The calunnia I am referring to here as a legalism is the accusation against Ms. Knox by the 12 or so police officers who interrogated her.

5. The alleged calunnia against Mr. Lumumba was the product of the police coercive and obsessive interrogation. Again, Ms. Knox made statements under pressure and at the suggestion of the police, without benefit of a lawyer, knowledge of her right to remain silent, and without a neutral, fair interpreter. Her conviction on the charge of calunnia under such circumstances speaks more to the flawed nature of the Italian judicial system than to any guilt on her part.

ETA: The failure to provide a lawyer at the first instance of interrogation (contrary to Salduz v Turkey, 36391/02 final 27/11/08 GC) and the failure to notify Ms. Knox of the right to remain silent or to provide a neutral, fair interpreter must be considered together with the nature of the police interrogation with respect to how the ECtHR will consider her application.

 

[Numbers]

I have heard long discussions on what to decide. There is always risk in Italy from earthquakes (Something not so different than Washington State) but my understanding was that there were no signs that the danger was any worse than normal.

From what I read in the Wikipedia article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake

there had been a large and sustained series of tremors (the article lists 26 of magnitude 4 or higher) over a relatively short period of time. People, including I believe geologists, considered this unusual. Sometimes such a series occurs before an earthquake, but often there is no earthquake associated with a series of tremors.

And earthquakes can strike without precursor tremors.

But earthquakes do not kill people; buildings, trees, light poles, etc. falling on people do. Building collapses kill people. Fires resulting from breaches in fuel (liquid or gas) storage or lines kill people. And so on.