Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

.
If Italian judges feel justified convicting scientists for not predicting earthquakes, then it seems justifiable that judges should be penalized for not being fair arbiters.

Cody
.

It sounds more like an argument for diminished capacity, where they lack the ability to know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't think judges, or even prosecutors, can be held criminally or civilly liable for making mistakes.

Mistakes will be made.

But lying, falsifying evidence, destroying exculpatory evidence, torturing out confessions, and ginning up tramp witnesses, those aren't mistakes - they are criminal acts and should be recognized and prosecuted as such.

Detective Lou Scarcella, despite his many cases now unravelling in New York, leading to exonerations after decades in prison and multi-million dollar pay-outs - is still not yet himself a subject of criminal proceedings.

Why not? Because it takes a whole system to sign-off on those bogus false convictions, especially requiring pliant judges, and going after Scarcella opens a can of worms.

This problem of corrupt and incompetent prosecutions, and rigged trials, seems to be widespread, around the world.

 

[Bill Williams]

Really?

Faced with Q’s about inconsistencies in his story (& lies about phonecall times) he threw Britney under the bus in double quick time. [And later whined when the cops took his shoes for testing]


So why did he say she was out between 9 and 1? Start exploring.

Please read Raffaele's appeal document to Cassazione.

It says that it is the prosecution and convicting judges who say this. His question is: if this is grounds for convicting, what then does any of this have to do with him?

This is the problem with guilter strawman arguments. Please at least deal with something you yourself have not completely invented to prove your point.

 

[Numbers]

It sounds more like an argument for diminished capacity, where they lack the ability to know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't think judges, or even prosecutors, can be held criminally or civilly liable for making mistakes.

Mistakes will be made.

But lying, falsifying evidence, destroying exculpatory evidence, torturing out confessions, and ginning up tramp witnesses, those aren't mistakes - they are criminal acts and should be recognized and prosecuted as such.

Detective Lou Scarcella, despite his many cases now unravelling in New York, leading to exonerations after decades in prison and multi-million dollar pay-outs - is still not yet himself a subject of criminal proceedings.

Why not? Because it takes a whole system to sign-off on those bogus false convictions, especially requiring pliant judges, and going after Scarcella opens a can of worms.

This problem of corrupt and incompetent prosecutions, and rigged trials, seems to be widespread, around the world.

{Highlighting added to quotes.}

In the US, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, followed by treaties and federal laws and all judges and other state and federal officials take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution and thus the laws when each assumes office.

The US Constitution, Article VI {relevant part, bold added} :

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
_____
If a judge in the US does not follow the law and Constitution (and state judges are additionally bound by state law and constitution), they can be removed from office by impeachment. That is true for prosecutors and other executive officers.

"Mistakes" that consist of either violation or failure to follow the law or constitution can result in removal from office through impeachment and conviction.

Corrupt police and prosecutors in the US have indeed engaged in official misconduct. This has included inducing false confessions, perjured testimony, and erroneous identifications, and hiding and fabricating evidence. Judges have generally not ignored or misapplied law, but they too often have not recognized the unreliability of evidence or not given credence to sincere retractions.

In Italy, the judges do not make mistakes. In practice, they make decisions without regard to Italian law, the Italian constitution, or the European Convention of Human Rights and its case-law (which is Italy is obligated to follow by solemn treaty obligation). Apparently, in practice, they do this without any challenge or counter.

 

[Samson]

Really?

Faced with Q’s about inconsistencies in his story (& lies about phonecall times) he threw Britney under the bus in double quick time. [And later whined when the cops took his shoes for testing]


So why did he say she was out between 9 and 1? Start exploring.

Britney or Amanda?
As I understand it, he says Amanda was out between 9 and 1 because she was on the day he was describing (then he asked for a callendar to check the day).

 

[Diocletus]

It sounds more like an argument for diminished capacity, where they lack the ability to know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't think judges, or even prosecutors, can be held criminally or civilly liable for making mistakes.

Mistakes will be made.

But lying, falsifying evidence, destroying exculpatory evidence, torturing out confessions, and ginning up tramp witnesses, those aren't mistakes - they are criminal acts and should be recognized and prosecuted as such.

Detective Lou Scarcella, despite his many cases now unravelling in New York, leading to exonerations after decades in prison and multi-million dollar pay-outs - is still not yet himself a subject of criminal proceedings.

Why not? Because it takes a whole system to sign-off on those bogus false convictions, especially requiring pliant judges, and going after Scarcella opens a can of worms.

This problem of corrupt and incompetent prosecutions, and rigged trials, seems to be widespread, around the world.

Maybe you didn't get the memo: wrongful conviction "conspiracies" never happen. Well, except there are thousands of proven ones all over the globe. But anyway, if you believe in a conspiracy in this particular case then you must be a CT nutter. And, by "conspiracy" I mean a passive conspiracy among some cops, prosecutors and judges; I'm not talking about an active conspiracy among three people who barely knew each other to rape and murder someone because of a turd in the toilet. Such an active conspiracy is highly likely even though no one has ever heard of one before, unlike wrongful conviction conspiracies, which we must consider unlikely/impossible even though they have been shown over and over again to actually exist.

Irony done for the day.

 

[anglolawyer]

If we must eschew conspiracy theories at all costs then the only one that works is the lone wolf + incompetent cops + stupid judges theory. All the others are for nut jobs (of whom I am one since I do believe in a police conspiracy aided and abetted by hardly unprecedented judicial stupidity).

 

[Diocletus]

If we must eschew conspiracy theories at all costs then the only one that works is the lone wolf + incompetent cops + stupid judges theory. All the others are for nut jobs (of whom I am one since I do believe in a police conspiracy aided and abetted by hardly unprecedented judicial stupidity).

Judicial stupidity and, I would add, bias. Bias in favor of the prosecution, and frankly, based on the comments of various prosecutors and judges, anti-American bias (or at least, an extreme case of little brother syndrome).

Why do Italian courts feel the need to try to "show" the world how to do law and science? Why can't they show us how to do justice, i.e., their job?

 

[anglolawyer]

Judicial stupidity and, I would add, bias. Bias in favor of the prosecution, and frankly, based on the comments of various prosecutors and judges, anti-American bias (or at least, an extreme case of little brother syndrome).

Why do Italian courts feel the need to try to "show" the world how to do law and science? Why can't they show us how to do justice, i.e., their job?

Agreed. Bias is in there somewhere as well as cowardly face-saving.

 

[sept79]

.
.
Why do Italian courts feel the need to try to "show" the world how to do law and science? Why can't they show us how to do justice, i.e., their job?

What a novel idea . . .

 

[platonov]

The sea was choppy so we turned back.

Britney or Amanda?
As I understand it, he says Amanda was out between 9 and 1 because she was on the day he was describing (then he asked for a callendar to check the day).

What?
I thought “He was one tough nut to crack”
– Deprived of a calendar he said she was out on the night of the murder.

And if it was just a calendar issue why did he say AK induced him to lie previously.
They must have waterboarded the hell out of him!

You don’t seem very interested in exploring this anomaly.

 

[Bill Williams]

What?
I thought “He was one tough nut to crack”
– Deprived of a calendar he said she was out on the night of the murder.

And if it was just a calendar issue why did he say AK induced him to lie previously.
They must have waterboarded the hell out of him!

You don’t seem very interested in exploring this anomaly.

This "anomaly" has been explored endlessly, and you simply have it wrong. Please read Raffaele's appeal's document to Cassazione. It is all in there.

 

[Bill Williams]

Judicial stupidity and, I would add, bias. Bias in favor of the prosecution, and frankly, based on the comments of various prosecutors and judges, anti-American bias (or at least, an extreme case of little brother syndrome).

Why do Italian courts feel the need to try to "show" the world how to do law and science? Why can't they show us how to do justice, i.e., their job?

Because if they do not, then all DNA cases in Italy since 1986 are perhaps suspect, too. It's there in the Chieffi motivations report from 2013.

 

[platonov]

This "anomaly" has been explored endlessly, and you simply have it wrong. Please read Raffaele's appeal's document to Cassazione. It is all in there.

Oh Bill.

It seems you are confusing the 2014 Press conference where he said she wasn’t his alibi with the earlier 2007 ‘under bus throwing’ incident.

Yea, I know it’s complicated.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh Bill.

It seems you are confusing the 2014 Press conference where he said she wasn’t his alibi with the earlier 2007 ‘under bus throwing’ incident.

Yea, I know it’s complicated.

Sigh. These factoids make the rounds, don't they. Please show a video of this to back up your claim. He said (or Bongiorno did) the same as in the appeals document.

The thing is, that the prosecution and particularly Nencini made a big deal about the ping of the texts to/from Lumumba to Knox prior to Jovana Popovic coming to Raffaele's door and Amanda answered it.

Nencini tried to use his misundertandings about which tower received Amanda's return text, to discredit her honesty. He wanted to say, "Yes, she did go out didn't tell anyone," but never made a connection between this and the murder, really; because even Nencini was not stupid enough to dispute that Popovic saw Knox at Raffaele's after those pings.

You should read Nencini on this point.

Once again, you need to read the appeals document's response to this, instead of spreading guilter factoids about the press conference. What Nencini is blind to is that if he's going to make this as an item in a case against Amanda, what's that then got to do with Raffaele?

The thing which marks guilters is the way the reuse & recycle these factoids. Can you produce ANYTHING that even hints at what you believe happened at the press conference?

No. I thought not. But I get the feeling you'll bring it up anyways, with all the residual snarkiness just for effect. It is not complicated at all. It is all there for all to read.

If it were not for rumour and factoids, the pro-guilt lobby would have no case at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Maresca thinks he is teaching the world--what, exactly?

Judicial stupidity and, I would add, bias. Bias in favor of the prosecution, and frankly, based on the comments of various prosecutors and judges, anti-American bias (or at least, an extreme case of little brother syndrome).

Why do Italian courts feel the need to try to "show" the world how to do law and science? Why can't they show us how to do justice, i.e., their job?

Diocletus,

I agree. Maresca's statement to the effect that Italy was "teaching the whole world and the United States how to collect, analyze and evaluate scientific technical aspects of the case," needs to be held up to the ridicule it richly deserves.

 

[Desert Fox]

Diocletus,

I agree. Maresca's statement to the effect that Italy was "teaching the whole world and the United States how to collect, analyze and evaluate scientific technical aspects of the case," needs to be held up to the ridicule it richly deserves.

I is the equivalent of conservative politicians arguing that they need to stand up against the scientists.

 

[sept79]

It is the equivalent of conservative politicians arguing that they need to stand up against the scientists.

?????????

 

[Desert Fox]

?????????

The best example is that many conservative politicians want creationism taught in school. When scientists state that it is garbage (like to use a stronger word), those politicians will argue that they have to stand up against the scientists.

 

[platonov]

Sigh. These factoids make the rounds, don't they. Please show a video of this to back up your claim. He said (or Bongiorno did) the same as in the appeals document.

The thing is, that the prosecution and particularly Nencini made a big deal about the ping of the texts to/from Lumumba to Knox prior to Jovana Popovic coming to Raffaele's door and Amanda answered it.

Nencini tried to use his misundertandings about which tower received Amanda's return text, to discredit her honesty. He wanted to say, "Yes, she did go out didn't tell anyone," but never made a connection between this and the murder, really; because even Nencini was not stupid enough to dispute that Popovic saw Knox at Raffaele's after those pings.

You should read Nencini on this point.

Once again, you need to read the appeals document's response to this, instead of spreading guilter factoids about the press conference. What Nencini is blind to is that if he's going to make this as an item in a case against Amanda, what's that then got to do with Raffaele?

The thing which marks guilters is the way the reuse & recycle these factoids. Can you produce ANYTHING that even hints at what you believe happened at the press conference?

No. I thought not. But I get the feeling you'll bring it up anyways, with all the residual snarkiness just for effect. It is not complicated at all. It is all there for all to read.

If it were not for rumour and factoids, the pro-guilt lobby would have no case at all.

Bill Bill Bill.

You are bringing up the appeal (and press conf) and confusing it with the apparent anomaly of why a ‘tough nut’ like RS threw her under the bus on Nov5/6th.

I don’t need a video – your post is just up the page

Samson (or someone) is about to explain it hopefully.

 

[Kauffer]

An Article 6 violation means the setting aside of conviction and sentence

The decision in Dorigo v Italy (ECHR November 2000) set events in motion in Italy resulting in the position that any Article 6 violation found by the ECHR will result in the nullification of sentence and conviction. This applies to the present callunia case of Ms Knox and in any subsequent cases brought by Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. Here is the short form of what happened:

The principle of "restitutio integrum" was reiterated in Council of Ministers Recommendation No.R(2000)2. This means that states found in violation of the convention are required as far as is possible, to put applicants back in the position they would have enjoyed had their rights not been violated.

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=334147&Site=CM

Subsequently, numerous resolutions were adopted by the CofM in connection with the Dorigo case. In particular, in ResDH(2004)13, the committe "strongly urged (that) the Italian authorities.... erase the consequences of the violation for the applicant in the case be adopted quickly."

http://caselaw.echr.globe24h.com/0/...-of-dorigo-against-italy-81277-33286-96.shtml

In 2006, the Bologna Appellate Court on application for review by Dorigo, questioned the constitutional legitimacy of domestic law (art 630 CCP), since it did not permit for the re-opening of proceedings following an ECHR decision. This court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court but at the same time suspended Dorigo's sentence and let him go.

The public prosecutor in Udine also referred the case back to the Court of Assises arguing that the continued detention of Dorigo was unlawful. When the application was rejected, he appealed it to the Court of Cassation, which set aside the rejection, also ordering Dorigo's immediate and unconditional release in decision 2800, stating:

"the judge...must declare the unenforeceability of the sentence if the ECtHR established that the conviction had been issued in violation of the right to a fair trial established by Art 6 ECHR"

At the Constitutional Court, Decision 129/2008 rejected consideration of the issue as raised by the Bologna Appellate Court, contending that as raised, it was a matter for the legislature to correct. However, following different argument at the appellate level, the issue of constitutionality was successfully raised to the Constitutional Court in connection with Article 117 of the constitution and Article 46 of the convention, which states that the contracting parties agree:

"to abide by the final judgement of the court in any case to which they are parties"

http://www3.unisi.it/dipec/palomar/italy015_2011.html#1

The response of the Constitutional Court was to declare Art 630 CCP unconstututional in decision 113/2011.

http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2011&numero=113

Thus, imprisoning or continuing to imprison an applicant after a finding by the ECHR of a violation of Article 6, is unlawful in Italy and the act itself a breach of Article 5 of the convention.

See also, Italian Constitution:

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

And the European Convention Human Rights:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf