Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

An apposite Q.

You act like your point of view is the obvious conclusion that everyone should make, and requires no explanation. That's not convincing anyone, you need to explain your position if you expect anyone to give your POV any credence.

For example, I certainly would not say that RS's statement to the police (which we have never seen or heard, BTW), is irrelevant to the case, but if you want anyone to understand what it proves, you might want to explain that. The problem with this case is that the pro-guilt position does not follow a logical narrative, so just using rolling eye emoticons while expressing shock that anyone would post a certain opinion does not convince anyone.

What I would ask is, what do you think is the relevance of RS's statement to police? I'll even help you with some options:

1) It is evidence that Amanda Knox went out without him the night of the murder. We know she went out because of _____________________
2) It is evidence that Raffaele is a liar because we know Amanda Knox did not go out that night, and he said she did. This proves that _________________
3) It is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda committed the murder, because he was lying when he said she went out by herself. We know they went out together because __________________
4) It is evidence he caved in to police pressure, started telling the truth, which is _______________________ . Even though turning on Amanda would have saved him from 7 years of criminal prosecution in this case, he then decided to go back to protecting her because ___________________

I assume none of these is your point of view, but what is? RS's statement to the police is not irrelevant, but it doesn't fit any plausible narrative that also fits the evidence in the case, except for what he has told us, that he got confused and explained the wrong date. In most cases, I would be skeptical of a suspect that said such a thing, except that, in this case, it matches all the other known facts.

Please explain what you think his statement indicates.

Thanks!

Dougm
Why the sudden interest. Never mind – let’s explore this issue.

So 4/7 years down the line you are still talking about calendars.
Really?
How would that explain why RS blamed AK for his earlier lies?

And you claim ‘we’ don’t have RS’s Nov 5/6th statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. We certainly know the general thrust of the episode.

But riddle me this (I hope my English phrases are OK) ......
Given that certain of Amanda’s fans have access to photos of Miss Kerchers naked and bloody corpse (from the case file) why hasn’t this statement been released.

In your own time.

 

[Bill Williams]

You act like your point of view is the obvious conclusion that everyone should make, and requires no explanation. That's not convincing anyone, you need to explain your position if you expect anyone to give your POV any credence.

For example, I certainly would not say that RS's statement to the police (which we have never seen or heard, BTW), is irrelevant to the case, but if you want anyone to understand what it proves, you might want to explain that. The problem with this case is that the pro-guilt position does not follow a logical narrative, so just using rolling eye emoticons while expressing shock that anyone would post a certain opinion does not convince anyone.

What I would ask is, what do you think is the relevance of RS's statement to police? I'll even help you with some options:

1) It is evidence that Amanda Knox went out without him the night of the murder. We know she went out because of _____________________
2) It is evidence that Raffaele is a liar because we know Amanda Knox did not go out that night, and he said she did. This proves that _________________
3) It is evidence that Raffaele and Amanda committed the murder, because he was lying when he said she went out by herself. We know they went out together because __________________
4) It is evidence he caved in to police pressure, started telling the truth, which is _______________________ . Even though turning on Amanda would have saved him from 7 years of criminal prosecution in this case, he then decided to go back to protecting her because ___________________

I assume none of these is your point of view, but what is? RS's statement to the police is not irrelevant, but it doesn't fit any plausible narrative that also fits the evidence in the case, except for what he has told us, that he got confused and explained the wrong date. In most cases, I would be skeptical of a suspect that said such a thing, except that, in this case, it matches all the other known facts.

Please explain what you think his statement indicates.

Thanks!

Dougm
Why the sudden interest. Never mind – let’s explore this issue.

So 4/7 years down the line you are still talking about calendars.
Really?
How would that explain why RS blamed AK for his earlier lies?

And you claim ‘we’ don’t have RS’s Nov 5/6th statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. We certainly know the general thrust of the episode.

But riddle me this (I hope my English phrases are OK) ......
Given that certain of Amanda’s fans have access to photos of Miss Kerchers naked and bloody corpse (from the case file) why hasn’t this statement been released.

In your own time.

This is a trollish post of yours, platonov.

 

[Machiavelli]

Er, Mach ...

Why isn't being struck about the head (and threatened with 30 years imprisonment) coercion?

1. Because she didn't claim that she accused Lumumba as a direct consequence of the fact that she was hit; instead what she claimed is that she actually did remember those things, and she did so because she suffered of a false memory syndrome.
2. Because she was not hit during her 05:45 spontaneous statement, while she repeated a false testimony
3. Because she was not hit while she wrote her nov. 6 and 7. statements, by which she commits calunnia again.
4. Because she did not file any complaint about being hit.
5. Because no court ever found in the merits that she was hit.
6. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she did not claim that she was hit; instead she refused to answer questions about the calunnia topic.
7. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she gave a different reason for falsely accusing Lumumba, she claimed that she released a false testimony against Lumumba because she "thought it could be true".

 

[Diocletus]

1. Because she didn't claim that she accused Lumumba as a direct consequence of the fact that she was hit; instead what she claimed is that she actually did remember those things, and she did so because she suffered of a false memory syndrome.
2. Because she was not hit during her 05:45 spontaneous statement, while she repeated a false testimony
3. Because she was not hit while she wrote her nov. 6 and 7. statements, by which she commits calunnia again.
4. Because she did not file any complaint about being hit.
5. Because no court ever found in the merits that she was hit.
6. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she did not claim that she was hit; instead she refused to answer questions about the calunnia topic.
7. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she gave a different reason for falsely accusing Lumumba, she claimed that she released a false testimony against Lumumba because she "thought it could be true".

It doesn't matter whether she said it 1000 times while the Italians were violating her right of access to a lawyer. None if it can be used.

How does the Italian Supreme Court not know that? Idiots.

 

[carbonjam72]

Planigale,

If denying Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito lawyers during their interrogation would have resulted in the lawyers collaborating and this would have disturbed the investigation, why would that not be an issue after the remand hearing, which was the first time they had met with their lawyers. In fact, there was no collaboration between the lawyers that would have disrupted the investigation. There was no Mafia gang or band of terrorists. The only other suspect was Mr. Lumumba, who the police could and did easily arrest.

However, the presence of lawyers would have disrupted the coercive interrogation techniques that the police used. That is why the police intentionally deprived all three suspects, including Mr. Lumumba after his arrest, of lawyers during interrogation. After all, Patrick Lumumba was the last of the "conspirators" that the police had invented in the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. And the police certainly would not want a lawyer present while they were threatening Mr. Lumumba, beating him, and otherwise practicing abuse.

I believe Mignini thought he had another 'Narducci trail' murder on his hands. That imaginary satanic sect of his is a kind of mafia society. That's Mignini's justification. Unless, it is simply routine procedure for police in Italy to violate these protections.

We don't know why the police did anything. That's why the laws are in place so that its not necessary to show what they thought they were doing, only that they, the police, must be able to prove what they actually did.

What they did here, deny lawyers, provide a biased interpreter, coerce false statements, threaten intimidate and abuse, etc, etc, are way beyond the pale.

Our propagandizing friend doesn't see it. Perhaps the ECHR will help him to do so.

 

[Numbers]

This is a trollish post of yours, platonov.

Can you identify any that were not?

 

[Numbers]

I believe Mignini thought he had another 'Narducci trail' murder on his hands. That satanic sect of his is a kind of mafia society. That's Mignini's justification. Unless, it is simply routine procedure for police in Italy to violate these protections.

We don't know why the police did anything. That why the laws are in place so that its not necessary to show what they thought they were doing, only that they the police must be able to prove what they actually did.

What they did here, deny lawyers, provide a biased interpreter, coperce false statements, threaten intimidate and abuse, etc, etc, are way beyond the pale.

Our propagandizing friend doesn't see it. Perhaps the ECHR will help him to do so.

The "satanic sect" theory, though, supposes the existence of a larger group of conspirators than the three initially invented by the police and/or Mignini.

There was no excision of any body parts from the victim in this case, so there would be no link with the Monster of Florence case from that aspect.

Most likely the techniques used were SOP (standard operating procedures) for the police and prosecution.

Or maybe they are used only when young American females can be suspected.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, I have re-read this I appear a bit sarcastic, I apologise. I am not a lawyer. You know far more about Italian law than I do. I genuinely have a problem that "specific and exceptional' seems to me to require particular requirements. If it is usual for counsel of co-defendants to confer this would not be exceptional. As neither Knox nor Sollecito had chosen counsel it cannot be that these unchosen counsel were specifically thought to destroy evidence. I genuinely do not understand.

Some jurisprudence about art. 104 § 4 (denial of counsel) can be found in the discussion dossier at the Chamber of Deputees archives:


http://documenti.camera.it/leg16/dossier/testi/gi0840_0.htm


A relevant quote:

Quadro normativo e contenuto

La proposta di legge C. 5481 – che consta di due articoli - interviene sull’art. 104 del codice di procedura penale, dedicato ai colloqui del difensore con l'imputato in custodia cautelare, per abrogare i commi 3 e 4, che consentono di differire l’esercizio del diritto dell’indagato di conferire con il proprio difensore.

Più specificamente, l'art. 104 c.p.p. riconosce al soggetto detenuto il diritto all'immediato colloquio con il difensore, senza necessità di alcuna autorizzazione. Logico corollario è il diritto del difensore di accesso al luogo di custodia riconosciuto dall'art. 36 disp. att.

Si dispone inoltre che tale diritto è immediatamente esercitabile. Per il sottoposto a custodia cautelare, il diritto di conferire con il difensore opera «fin dall'inizio dell'esecuzione della misura» (comma 1), mentre per l'arrestato o il fermato «subito dopo l'arresto o il fermo» (comma 2).

Proprio al fine di rendere effettivo l'esercizio di tale diritto, gli ufficiali e agenti di polizia giudiziaria che eseguono il fermo o l'arresto o che eseguono l'ordinanza di custodia cautelare devono avvertire la persona che vi è sottoposta della facoltà di nominare un difensore di fiducia (artt. 293, 1° co. e 386, 2° co.), informando immediatamente l'avvocato eventualmente nominato ovvero quello designato d'ufficio.

Se la possibilità del colloquio immediato deve, dunque, ritenersi la regola, l’art. 104, comma 3, ha tuttavia previsto in casi specifici, e per la sola fase delle indagini preliminari, la possibilità di differire l'esercizio del diritto per un tempo non superiore a cinque giorni.

Tale termine massimo di dilazione è stato ridotto da sette a cinque giorni dalla legge n. 332 del 1995.

Alla dilazione - che deve costituire un'eccezione - si può ricorrere soltanto in presenza dei seguenti presupposti.

§ Innanzitutto, in base al comma 3, devono sussistere «specifiche ed eccezionali ragioni di cautela».

In merito la giurisprudenza ha sottolineato che i presupposti indicati nell'art. 104 non possono identificarsi con quelli previsti dall'art. 274 del codice di rito, che delinea le esigenze cautelari; altrimenti si giungerebbe alla conseguenza che ogni volta che sussistono le condizioni per l'applicazione delle misure coercitive si dovrebbe differire il colloquio. Evidentemente la norma, definendo specifiche ed eccezionali le ragioni di cautela, richiede un quid pluris rispetto alle esigenze cautelari di cui all'art. 274 (Cass., Sez. I, 27.4.1992, Mistretta). Si è pertanto sottolineato che il differimento richiede «necessità fuori dal comune, attinenti allo svolgimento delle indagini che rischierebbero di subire uno sviamento o comunque un pregiudizio» per effetto del colloquio (Cass., Sez. II, 21.3.1990, Ghidini), come «l'esigenza di evitare la possibilità dell'impostazione di preordinate e comuni tesi difensive di comodo» (Cass., Sez. VI, 10.6.2003, Vinci; Cass., Sez. VI, 27.6.2001, D'Ambrogio; Cass., Sez. VI, 20.4.2001, P.M. in proc. Pignalosa).

§ Ulteriore presupposto è che la privazione della libertà personale si realizzi durante le indagini preliminari; in altri termini, nell'ipotesi di custodia cautelare disposta in altra fase del processo non è consentito disporre alcuna dilazione dell'esercizio del diritto al colloquio.

Per quanto riguarda l'autorità giudiziaria autorizzata a disporre il differimento, il comma 3 prevede che sia il giudice per le indagini preliminari, su richiesta del pubblico ministero, mentre il comma 4 attribuisce al p.m. tale potere, nel caso di fermo o di arresto e fino al momento in cui l'arrestato o il fermato sia messo a disposizione del giudice (ovvero entro 48 ore dall’arresto, in base all’art. 390 c.p.p.); da ciò si ricava che il p.m. non può disporre una dilazione che superi il termine delle quarantotto ore dall'arresto o dal fermo.

Quanto alle modalità, il comma 3 richiede che la dilazione del colloquio con il difensore sia disposta con decreto motivato. Il richiamo al comma precedente, contenuto nel comma 4, induce a ritenere che anche il provvedimento del p.m. debba presentare una motivazione (in questo senso Cass., Sez. I, 26.3.1992, Morreale).

References are to: Cass., Sez. II, 21.3.1990 (Ghidini) , saying exceptional requirements must be understood as special requirements about the ongoing of investigations, when "investigation are at risk of suffering a misleading or a prejudice as an effect of the counsel".
And to: Cass., Sez. VI, 10.6.2003 (Vinci); Cass., Sez. VI, 27.6.2001, (D'Ambrogio); Cass., Sez. VI, 20.4.2001 (P.M. in proc. Pignalosa), stating that the exceptional precaution consists in the need "to avoid the possibility of setting pre-planned and shared specious defensive versions".

The legal dossier contains a commentary about the law. It points out (below) that the specific topic of delay of the right to counsel has not been an object of a judgement by the ECHR. But there is an orientation of the European Court that acknowledges that a suspect's right to access an attorney may be limited or delayed for "compelling" cautionary reasons, which are acknowledged to be of three kind: a) security, b) public order, and c) to protect the effectiveness of criminal investigations.

Rispetto degli altri princìpi costituzionali

Nella relazione illustrativa della proposta di legge si afferma che l’abrogazione dei commi 3 e 4 dell’art. 104 c.p.p. è finalizzata a garantire sempre e da subito, anche in occasione dell’applicazione della custodia cautelare, il rispetto dell’inviolabilità della difesa in ogni stato e grado del procedimento, sancito dall’art. 24 della Costituzione.

La Corte costituzionale non ha mai avuto modo di pronunciarsi sul differimento dei colloqui con il difensore nella fase delle indagini preliminari, in quanto la Corte di cassazione ha ritenuto «manifestamente infondata l'eccezione di illegittimità costituzionale dell'art. 104 cod. proc. pen. - per contrasto con gli artt. 3, 24 e 111 della Costituzione - nella parte in cui prevede che il Gip possa, su richiesta del P.M., dilazionare i colloqui tra l'imputato ristretto in custodia cautelare ed il suo difensore, atteso il limitato sacrificio del diritto dell'imputato medesimo in ragione del superiore interesse della giustizia. (La Corte ha peraltro ritenuto che tale previsione di ragionevole posticipazione dell'atto difensivo non collida neppure con la previsione in tema di giusto processo, né sia incompatibile con l'art. 6 della Convenzione europea sui diritti dell'uomo)» (Cass., Sez. IV, sent. n. 15113 del 01-03-2006).

Compatibilità con la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo (in collaborazione con l’Avvocatura, Osservatorio sulle sentenze della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo)


Il profilo specifico del differimento del colloquio del detenuto con il suo difensore non risulta oggetto di pronunzie della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo.

La materia più ampia, dei limiti alla facoltà di colloquio dei detenuti con il difensore, è potenzialmente valutabile sotto l’aspetto sia dell’art. 3 della Convenzione (divieto di tortura e di trattamenti inumani e degradanti) sia dell’art. 6 (diritto a un equo processo, in particolare, sotto l’aspetto del diritto a poter preparare un’adeguata difesa) ed è stata oggetto di scrutinio da parte della CEDU.

L’orientamento della Corte è nel senso che entrambe le prerogative dei cittadini sono tutelate dalla Convenzione ma che ragioni imperative (compelling o impérieuses) di tutela di altri interessi, come la sicurezza e l’ordine pubblico e l’efficacia delle indagini penali, possono consentire un’interferenza e un sacrificio di tali diritti. Individuare quale sia il punto di corretto bilanciamento degli interessi in gioco è rimesso essenzialmente alla discrezionalità del legislatore nazionale, sull’esercizio della quale la Corte stessa si riserva di formulare il proprio giudizio in sede di ricorso.

Questi principi, con riferimento all’art. 3 CEDU, sono contenuti essenzialmente nelle sentenze Enea c. Italia del 2009 e Mole c. Italia del 2010, nelle quali era venuta in rilievo la compatibilità con la disposizione in esame del regime carcerario previsto dall’art. 41-bis dell’ordinamento penitenziario (sotto questo aspetto, la Corte non ha ravvisato violazioni).

Con più puntuale riferimento all’art. 6 CEDU, diverse pronunzie hanno affrontato il tema della legittimità della limitazione dei contatti con il difensore. Nella sentenza Lanz c. Austria del 2002, la Corte ha constatato la violazione dell’art. 6, comma 3 (diritto a poter preparare un’adeguata difesa), nel fatto che la limitazione della facoltà di colloquio era consistita nell’intercettazione dei colloqui tra detenuto e difensore. Nella sentenza Salduz c. Turchia del 2008, la Corte ha escluso che l’art. 6 conferisca al detenuto, in via assoluta, il diritto di conferire con il difensore fin dal momento del fermo o dell’arresto. Essa ha – sì – riconosciuto l’importanza del diritto a poter preparare la propria difesa sin da tale momento, specie in ragione della necessità di evitare che in una fase precoce del procedimento penale l’incolpato renda dichiarazioni a proprio carico, senza l’assistenza di un avvocato. Nondimeno la Corte ha sostenuto che il diritto al colloquio con il difensore può soffrire limitazioni per motivate ragioni. Di recente, tale orientamento è stato confermato nel caso Simons c. Belgio del 2012 (decisione d’irricevibilità).

 

[Machiavelli]

Your statement is contrary to the Italian Constitution. Prosecutors have a Constitutional obligation to prosecute when they become aware of a crime.

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

Art. 112
The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings.

Numbers, I' sorry but your ignorance about elementary principles of the penal code appears embarassing; and this may explain your failure to understand the point on the requirement of complaint in this charge.

Art. 112 applies in the way you imagine it - that is mandatory (or "automatic") prosecution on notitia criminis - only to those offences that have this specific feature. Which are a minority in the penal code.

Most criminal charges cannot be prosecuted on notitia criminis. They require a complaint. Many charges can be prosecuted on notitia criminis only if there are some specific aggravating circumstantes.

Beating can never be prosecuted on notitia criminis; it requires a querela (the only exception is, it may only require a denuncia, instead of a querela, or in flagrante delicto, if the victim is a child; charges of harassment - more serious than beating - can be filed on notitia criminis only if the victim is a child or a person incapable).

Calunnia, on the contrary, must be always prosecuted on notitia criminis.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, I' sorry but your ignorance about elementary principles of the penal code appears embarassing; and this may explain your failure to understand the point on the requirement of complaint in this charge.

Art. 112 applies in the way you imagine it - that is mandatory (or "automatic") prosecution on notitia criminis - only to those offences that have this specific feature. Which are a minority in the penal code.

Most criminal charges cannot be prosecuted on notitia criminis. They require a complaint. Many charges can be prosecuted on notitia criminis only if there are some specific aggravating circumstantes.

Beating can never be prosecuted on notitia criminis; it requires a querela (the only exception is, it may only require a denuncia instead of a querela if the victim is a child).

Calunnia, on the contrary, must be always prosecuted on notitia criminis.

The ECHR will be looking at the actual events, including Memoriales 1 and 2 that Knox wrote, that the prosecution had; the prosecution should then have approached Knox to have her file any legalism regarding her allegation. She did not have a lawyer when she wrote the Memoriales.

My understanding is that Mignini and Comodi did begin an investigation of her allegations of abuse by the police after her testimony in 2009 claiming that she was abused during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Perhaps they were not as informed about the law as you. Of course, that investigation, I have been informed, has somehow stalled.

Perhaps you could do some research and find out if Mignini and Comodi did start an investigation of the police for their alleged abuse, and what is the current status. I had heard that the case had been transferred to Florence some time ago and is now quiescent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can you identify any that were not?

Last time I said something nice here about a guilter, Anglolawyer reminded me of who signs my paycheques!

 

[anglolawyer]

1. Because she didn't claim that she accused Lumumba as a direct consequence of the fact that she was hit; instead what she claimed is that she actually did remember those things, and she did so because she suffered of a false memory syndrome.
2. Because she was not hit during her 05:45 spontaneous statement, while she repeated a false testimony
3. Because she was not hit while she wrote her nov. 6 and 7. statements, by which she commits calunnia again.
4. Because she did not file any complaint about being hit.
5. Because no court ever found in the merits that she was hit.
6. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she did not claim that she was hit; instead she refused to answer questions about the calunnia topic.
7. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she gave a different reason for falsely accusing Lumumba, she claimed that she released a false testimony against Lumumba because she "thought it could be true".

That's not a list showing coercion was not employed. Whatever, i accept (and was not contending otherwise) it's never been her account that she said what she did out of fear which, when you think about it, is interesting in itself. It's not like she would have known induced false memory was a thing. But I know that won't wash with you guys. Since you invest her with all kinds of amazing powers to make this crazy thing work, what difference does one more make?

 

[TomB]

Reading this thread fascinates me. Occasionally I feel the need to comment, but I usually refrain. Things like a lab that claims to never have had contamination issues make me laugh (as one who works at a lab).

The charge of beating is an offence that is responsibility of the victim to prosecute. Without complaint, no investigation can start. The calunnia instead is a charge that is prosecuted automatically by the state, even without complaint.

That's...I'm not sure I have any polite words for that.

1. Because she didn't claim that she accused Lumumba as a direct consequence of the fact that she was hit; instead what she claimed is that she actually did remember those things, and she did so because she suffered of a false memory syndrome.

False memory that is the result of...coercion. Actually kind of a classic example, I think.

3. Because she was not hit while she wrote her nov. 6 and 7. statements, by which she commits calunnia again.

Having read the statements, the highlighted is false. You actually have to deliberately ignore everything else in the note to reach this conclusion. Context is important.

7. Because in her Dec. 17. interrogation she gave a different reason for falsely accusing Lumumba, she claimed that she released a false testimony against Lumumba because she "thought it could be true".

That's not a different reason. It's consistent with false memories resulting from intense interrogation.

Beating can never be prosecuted on notitia criminis; it requires a querela (the only exception is, it may only require a denuncia, instead of a querela, or in flagrante delicto, if the victim is a child; charges of harassment - more serious than beating - can be filed on notitia criminis only if the victim is a child or a person incapable).

Calunnia, on the contrary, must be always prosecuted on notitia criminis.

I interpret this as really screwed up priorities.

 

[Dougm]

Dougm
Why the sudden interest. Never mind – let’s explore this issue.

You see a conspiracy in everything don't you? Why did I post in response to your post? Bored with other things I was doing, I guess, so I opted to read ISF for a few mins.

So 4/7 years down the line you are still talking about calendars.
Really?
How would that explain why RS blamed AK for his earlier lies?

Seems like it might be a better idea for you to explain how and when that actually happened. Because it didn't.

And you claim ‘we’ don’t have RS’s Nov 5/6th statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. We certainly know the general thrust of the episode.

For sake of argument, everyone agrees (imagine that!) that RS said that AK went out that night, and came back around 1 a.m. Mostly because he told us he did. I just find it interesting that we have less record of his actual statement than we do for AK's, yet we treat it like we know the exact words.

But riddle me this (I hope my English phrases are OK) ......
Given that certain of Amanda’s fans have access to photos of Miss Kerchers naked and bloody corpse (from the case file) why hasn’t this statement been released.

In your own time.

So, you are assuming, because some people (a very few, in my opinion) have seen the crime scene photos, even some that have not been made public, that those same people have access to the entire case file, and have permission (and would further choose) to release whatever they want to the public? REALLY??

Dude, it's really not that involved. It's not a conspiracy, or a PR supertanker, or whatever other idea has been stirred up for pro-guilt folks to understand the level of support that Amanda and Raffaele have. We have just read the facts of the case, and it's clear to us they are not guilty.

Oh, and your English phrases are fine. Just add, "Batman" to the end of the "riddle me this" reference, and you'll be able to pose as a yank anytime you like.

 

[Dougm]

I interpret this as really screwed up priorities.

I think that sums up this case rather nicely. In one sentence too!

 

[MichaelB]

New English translation of witness Jovana Popovic.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Testimony-of-Jovana-Popovic.pdf

 

[Chris_Halkides]

As Breaker Morant said, "Why bother?"

3. Because she was not hit while she wrote her nov. 6 and 7. statements, by which she commits calunnia again.

Machiavelli,

Your statement 3. isn't worth the bother of laughing at.

 

[Diocletus]

Numbers, I' sorry but your ignorance about elementary principles of the penal code appears embarassing; and this may explain your failure to understand the point on the requirement of complaint in this charge.

Art. 112 applies in the way you imagine it - that is mandatory (or "automatic") prosecution on notitia criminis - only to those offences that have this specific feature. Which are a minority in the penal code.

Most criminal charges cannot be prosecuted on notitia criminis. They require a complaint. Many charges can be prosecuted on notitia criminis only if there are some specific aggravating circumstantes.

Beating can never be prosecuted on notitia criminis; it requires a querela (the only exception is, it may only require a denuncia, instead of a querela, or in flagrante delicto, if the victim is a child; charges of harassment - more serious than beating - can be filed on notitia criminis only if the victim is a child or a person incapable).

Calunnia, on the contrary, must be always prosecuted on notitia criminis.

We're not talking about a regular old beating. We're talking about police (an agency if the state) hitting a suspect in their custody. That's different.

 

[Bill Williams]

Reading this thread fascinates me. Occasionally I feel the need to comment, but I usually refrain. Things like a lab that claims to never have had contamination issues make me laugh (as one who works at a lab).

If you work in a lab, I beg you - I'm on my knees - not to read the 2010 Massei report, which explains the 2009 conviction. Yes, that's right, I'm begging you not to read it.

The main reason is because Judge Massei quite thoroughly goes through the experts on issues of contamination - as well as issues of the possibility/probability of a single attacker.

Whereas Massei quite freely admits that 8 of the none experts in front of him concede that a single attacker is a definite possibility......

It's the contamination discussion which beggers belief. Massei, the first convicting judge who denied the request to have an independent review of Stefanoni's DNA work....

.... but still heard from experts who still maintained the possibility of contamination....

..... simply sided with Stefanoni on her own say-so.

The Supreme Court (Chieffi report 2013) went further. If one starts doubting police labs, then that calls into question, according to the Supreme Court judge, all DNA forensics since 1986.

But your first mistake will be to actually read the Massei report - NOT the version of guilt given by Mr. Machiavelli here, which is basically a defence of Mr. Mignini. Massei does not accept many core aspects of the crime-according-to-Mignini, yet convicts anyway. It's time to cancel the trip to Italy, lest one get picked up, slapped around, and then sued by those who slapped you.

 

[Numbers]

Reading this thread fascinates me. Occasionally I feel the need to comment, but I usually refrain. Things like a lab that claims to never have had contamination issues make me laugh (as one who works at a lab).



That's...I'm not sure I have any polite words for that.


False memory that is the result of...coercion. Actually kind of a classic example, I think.



Having read the statements, the highlighted is false. You actually have to deliberately ignore everything else in the note to reach this conclusion. Context is important.



That's not a different reason. It's consistent with false memories resulting from intense interrogation.


I interpret this as really screwed up priorities.

Thank you for your highly reasonable, excellent and concise comments.