Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism {emphasis added}:

The Doctrine of Fascism (La dottrina del fascismo, 1932), by the Actualist philosopher Giovanni Gentile, is the official formulation of Italian Fascism, published under Benito Mussolini's name in 1933.[65]

Gentile defined Fascism as an anti-intellectual doctrine epistemologically based on faith rather than reason. Fascist mysticism emphasized the importance of political myths, which were true not as empirical facts but as "metareality".[68]

The emphasized text is reminiscent of modern day "judicial facts" in Italy, which somehow don't need to correspond with empirical reality or known scientific evidence or evidence presented in a court.

 

[Planigale]

It's time to catalog the lies Machiavelli continues to promote about Amanda Knox. The telling thing is that what he alleges is mostly in neither the Massei nor the Nencini convictions motivations reports (Italics mine):

- Amanda Knox is also physically connected to the murder scene, since her DNA is on the murder weapon, and the weapon was placed in her boyfriend's apartment​

Placed? Mach fails to deal with the transport and reutrn of the knife. Massei claims Amanda carried it for protection, Nencini said it simply went between the two abodes for cooking purposes. But it is a strange use of a word: "placed". Makes it sound like AK and RS purposely put it there!

- her DNA is on the only part of the murder room - the murder weapon - that she would need to actually touch.​

This is where they cannot get their stories straight, since the guilter-lobby says that Meredith must have been restrained. How did Knox participate in this murder and now as even Machiavelli concedes, leave one pieve od DNA in the whole murder room, and conversely had NO forensics on her person or her clothes? (This is how guilters continually change their stories.)

- and the evidence of her massive lying, starting from before her interrogation, her story being a mass of inconsistencies.​

The only verifiable lie Knox told was about the marijuana use in the cottage, which Ficarra confronted her with at 11:30 pm Nov 5 in the Questura. The ONLY inconsistency is when Knox was forced to change her story ("I was at Raffaele's") during interrogation ("She buckled and told us what we already knew"), quickly changed back once free of PLE and in the presence of her own lawyer, and has not changed from that for 7 years.

- The most massive evidence is the evidence of cleanup​

There is NO evidence of a clean-up. The only reference Massei makes about one, is that one must have been done, or else he could not explain why there were no bloodied foottracks between Meredith's room and the bathroom bathmat. Massei said that not because he had evidence, but because he was at a loss to explain.

- To summarize, because all the evidence is against her and proves she is involved.​

This is simply rubbish and Machiavelli knows it. Was it Amanda's DNA found inside the victim? Did Amanda flee, as do the vast majority of real perpetrators?

It's stunning that Machivaelli thinks he can get away with saying these things. Once again, he's back to his tried and true method - allegations with no proof.

He thinks that because he can claim it, it must be true. (Sort of like Mignini!)

To be fair to Mach he has previously agreed that Knox's DNA on the handle cannot arise from the murder act, but subsequent to its cleaning, (assuming it was the murder weapon), so even Mach accepts that it is illogical to use the Knox DNA on the knife as evidence of her presence or participation in the murder. Mach is satisfied there is sufficient other evidence and Knox is morally reprehensible, (she exchanged drugs for sex, was dirty, lied etc.) so must be guilty

 

[Numbers]

Machiavelli,

I was reminded of Karl Fontenot, who confessed in two hours. When I reread Dr. Kassin's article I was struck by this passage on the process of internalization. "(1) There is a suspect who is rendered highly vulnerable to manipulation as a function of dispositional characteristics (e.g., young, naïve, mentally retarded, suggestible, or otherwise impaired) and there are more transient factors associated with the crime, custody, and interrogation (e.g., extreme stress, feelings of isolation, sleep deprivation, the influence of drugs). (2) Knowingly or unknowingly, the police confront the suspect with false but allegedly objective and incontrovertible evidence of his or her involvement—evidence in the form of a failed polygraph, an eyewitness, a fingerprint, a shoeprint, or a DNA sample. (3) Often with guidance from police, the suspect reconciles his or her lack of memory with the alleged evidence by presuming that he or she had blacked out, dissociated, repressed, or otherwise failed to recollect the event."
AND
"...Ofshe (1989) identified a number of common interrogation tactics, such as exhibiting strong and unwavering certainty about suspect’s guilt, isolating the suspect from all familiar social contacts and outside sources of information, conducting sessions that are lengthy and emotionally intense, presenting false but allegedly incontrovertible proof of the suspect’s guilt, offering the suspect a ready physical or psychological explanation for why he or she does not remember the crime, and applying implicit and explicit pressure on the suspect, in the form of promises and threats, to comply with the demand for a confession." (highlighting mine)

Amazing how Amanda was able to recreate this by manipulating Donnino into coming up with the injury story. The little vixen. The cunning little vixen.

To counter some of the police pressure, Amanda Knox needed a fair interpreter, not a "mediator" suggesting that one may be suffering from traumatic amnesia.

Baytar v Turkey 45440/04 14/10/2014

The ECHR ruled that an interpreter - and only a fair one will do - is required from the first interrogation when the subject is not fluent in the national language.

Furthermore, the ECHR judgment in Baytar shows that ECHR intends that the subject of the interrogation receive all the protection of the Convention, in line with its judgment in Salduz. There is no wording in the Baytar judgment that an interpreter is required only if the potential conviction is for the "same" charge that the subject is being interrogated on or any such guilter fantasy.

Indeed, the prosecution is entitled to change charges during trials, apparently, in Europe, if it notifies the defense and sufficient time is given for the defense to reform itself. In the US, I believe that prosecution tactic would be a mistrial and require a new indictment.

Here is a Google Translation of some key paragraphs of Baytar (original in French). {Emphasis added.}

50. In addition, as the assistance of a lawyer, the interpreter must be guaranteed from the stage of the investigation, except to show that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see, to that sense Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no 13205/07, § 25, 5 January 2010).

51. In the present case, the Court first observes that it is not disputed that the level of knowledge of the Turkish language of the applicant necessitated the services of an interpreter. Indeed, both the trial judge that the trial court decided that an interpreter was required. The Government never argued to the contrary, the Court considers that point as established.

52. The Court further notes that although the applicant has benefited from the assistance of an interpreter during his hearing by the magistrate to rule on his detention, this was not the case during his interrogation by the police in which she claimed to have found the document in question in the waiting room of the prison and therefore accepted that a document had indeed been found on her.

53. The Court has already had occasion to emphasize the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the trial, to the extent that evidence obtained during this phase can be crucial to the further procedure (see, this sense Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no 36391/02, § 63, ECHR 2008). It should be remembered that the person in custody has a number of rights such as the right to remain silent or to benefit from the assistance of counsel. However, the decision to use or waive these rights can be taken only if the holder has clearly the charges against him in order to measure the stakes of the process and assess the appropriateness of a possible waiver.

54. The Court considers that without having disposed of the possibility of translating the questions and be as precise as possible of the charges, the applicant has not been in a position to fully assess the consequences of his alleged waiver of his right to remain silent and the right to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer and thus the whole wide range of interventions that are unique to the council. Therefore, it is possible to express doubts about whether the choices that the applicant has not been able to enjoy the services of an interpreter were fully illuminated.

55. In the Court's view, this initial failure has affected other rights that while distinct from that which the violation is alleged are closely related, and compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.

56. While it is true that the applicant has benefited from the assistance of an interpreter during his hearing by the judge after his detention, the Court is of the opinion that this circumstance was not likely to rectify the event that marred the procedure during the initial stage.

57. Moreover, the Court observes that the judge appears to have sought to test the skills of the interpreter who was simply a family member of the applicant present in the hall (see, mutatis mutandis, Cuscani v. United Kingdom, No. 32771/96, § 38, 24 September 2002, and paragraph 19 above).

58. sake of completeness, the Court notes that the disputed statement was not dismissed by the trial court. Even if they have based the conviction on a plurality of elements, the fact remains that statements obtained during police custody without the assistance of an interpreter were also the basis for the guilty verdict.

59. Ultimately, given its impact on the fairness of the proceedings taken as a whole, the absence of an interpreter during police custody at the sight of the applicant constituted a violation of Article 6 § 3 e) of the Convention taken together with Article 6 § 1.

 

[anglolawyer]

I can't figure you out, Platonov. There seems to be something between your ears and yet ...

So they committed the crime together with Guede, then they forgot to agree on a story, then they crumbled under the pressure of a short and friendly interview but then, despite being separately represented and, in his case, being encouraged to ditch her, steadfastly maintained their non-involvement through four years of imprisonment.

He could have walked anytime he liked if he had concocted a story that put the blame on her. Easy. He helped her clean up because he was smitten. Ach, this is a waste of time. You are probably beyond help. Too bad.

 

[Numbers]

From: CASE OF PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA 7025/04 24/09/2009

This individual confessed to numerous crimes under interrogation without a lawyer. The longer he was interrogated, the more crimes he confessed to, starting with an initial charge of robbery, then illegal weapons, kidnapping, forging passports, murder....It seems every charge the police had, he confessed during days of interrogation without a lawyer. Once he received a lawyer (which was the first day of trial), he renounced all his confessions.

This man was 39 years of age when arrested 15 Dec 1998. He had no prior criminal record whatsoever. He had requested a specific lawyer at the beginning of the interrogation, but without explanation, the police never provided the lawyer.

The documented confessions were supplied in part to the ECHR by Russia. The part they supplied was, in each case, only the first one or two pages, which contained the identification details and a signed waiver of a lawyer by the subject. All the confession detail was omitted. Also, there was no interrogation record for the first two days of the interrogation, only the document stating the right to be silent, signed by the subject, with his written request on the page for his specific lawyer. The ECHR made inferences from the Russian Government providing certain documents or parts of documents and the failure to provide other documents.

I have copied the excerpts below to the post to allow interested readers to gain a better understanding of the Court's general thinking about interrogations without lawyers. There is a tendency by some to latch on to specifics or simply to misstate or obfuscate, and my hope is to provide a realistic view of ECHR case-law as it will be applied to Ms. Knox's application regarding her calunnia conviction.

For emphasis, here are parts of paragraphs 85 & 86 (which are repeated below in full):

In the absence of assistance by counsel, who could have provided legal advice and technical skills, the applicant could not make full and knowledgeable use of his rights afforded by the criminal-procedural law.
Moreover, his difficult situation was compounded by the fact that he was surrounded by the police and prosecution authorities, experts in the field of criminal proceedings, who are well-equipped with various, often psychologically coercive, interrogation techniques which facilitate, or even prompt, receipt of information from an accused. The Government did not dispute that the police had opted for intense interrogations of the applicant in the first few days after his arrest in an effort to generate the evidence aiding the prosecution’s case.
___
84. The Court firstly notes that criminal law – substantive as well as procedural – and criminal proceedings are a rather complex and technical matter which is often incomprehensible to laypersons, such as the applicant. Moreover, practically at every stage of criminal proceedings decisions have to be taken, the wrong decision being able to cause irreparable damage. Reliable knowledge of law and practice is usually required in order to assess the consequences of such decisions.

85. The Court observes that during the first two days after his arrest, on 15 and 16 December 1998, the applicant, having had no access to counsel, made statements incriminating himself and a number of other individuals in a large range of criminal activities, including particularly grave and serious crimes. The Court has already concluded that, having been denied legal assistance, the applicant was unable to make the correct assessment of the consequences his decision to confess would have on the outcome of the criminal case (see paragraph 80 above). In the absence of assistance by counsel, who could have provided legal advice and technical skills, the applicant could not make full and knowledgeable use of his rights afforded by the criminal-procedural law.

86. Moreover, his difficult situation was compounded by the fact that he was surrounded by the police and prosecution authorities, experts in the field of criminal proceedings, who are well-equipped with various, often psychologically coercive, interrogation techniques which facilitate, or even prompt, receipt of information from an accused. The Government did not dispute that the police had opted for intense interrogations of the applicant in the first few days after his arrest in an effort to generate the evidence aiding the prosecution’s case. The Court does not underestimate the fact that after the applicant, who had initially been arrested on a robbery charge, had been subjected to interrogations by the police, charges were brought in respect of a number of other criminal offences to which the applicant had confessed during those interrogations.
....

90. At the same time the Court observes that, without taking a stance on the admissibility of the applicant’s statements made in police custody on 15 and 16 December 1998, both the Regional Court and later the Supreme Court acting on appeal used those statements as evidence on which to convict him, despite his denial of the statements’ accuracy. In this connection the Court notes that although the applicant’s statements made on 15 and 16 December 1998 were not the sole evidence on which his conviction was based, it was nevertheless decisive for the prospects of the applicant’s defence and constituted a significant element on which his conviction was based. The Court therefore finds that the applicant was undoubtedly affected by the restrictions on his access to a lawyer in that the statements made to the police on 15 and 16 December 1998 were used for his conviction. The Government’s argument pertaining to the insignificance of the defects which occurred during the first two days in police custody should thus be dismissed.

91. In sum, the Court finds that the lack of legal assistance to the applicant at the initial stages of police questioning irretrievably affected his defence rights and undermined the appearance of a fair trial and the principle of equality of arms.

92. In view of the above, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in the present case.

 

[Desert Fox]

I wonder what Russia saw with him. . . .A way to clear a number of crimes without actually doing any work? I think it unlikely he committed any of these.

Edit: It seems pretty solid that they will find in Amanda's favor. Unless the ECHR works a lot different than the US federal courts, the only remedy is to vacate the conviction. Now, I realize that ECHR works a bit different than the US federal courts in that they tell the country to solve the problem with the US federal courts order the state to follow its orders.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It would be great to hear an opinion from you!!!!!!!!!!

My observations regarding Raffaele’s book haven’t changed. It was foolhardy at best to release a book prior to the last third level hearing let alone criticise the very institution that was and is set to deliver a verdict in case he is one of the defendants.

Other than those observations I know little of the case.

 

[anglolawyer]

My observations regarding Raffaele’s book haven’t changed. It was foolhardy at best to release a book prior to the last third level hearing let alone criticise the very institution that was and is set to deliver a verdict in case he is one of the defendants.

Other than those observations I know little of the case.

You don't suppose they reversed Hellman because they were peeved by his book do you? You must have a very low opinion of the Italian judiciary - which means you can't be among those who 'argue' (not really the right word) they must be guilty because 35 (or whatever the number is) Italian judges say so.

 

[carbonjam72]

I can't figure you out, Platonov. There seems to be something between your ears and yet ...

So they committed the crime together with Guede, then they forgot to agree on a story, then they crumbled under the pressure of a short and friendly interview but then, despite being separately represented and, in his case, being encouraged to ditch her, steadfastly maintained their non-involvement through four years of imprisonment.

He could have walked anytime he liked if he had concocted a story that put the blame on her. Easy. He helped her clean up because he was smitten. Ach, this is a waste of time. You are probably beyond help. Too bad.

Well I thought it was helpful to string together the unlikely, irrational, and self-contradictory positions that a dedicated pro-guilt commenter relies upon, and to which he/she then adds the undecipherable snark.

As bizarre as the explanations guilters reach for to explain away an obvious miscarriage of justice by crooked prosecutors and police, their mindset and motivations in posting are at least as interesting.

Glibness, snark, cynicism, evasiveness, cowardliness, bullying and dishonesty, pseudo-science and charlantinism, and a perverse enjoyment in the misfortunes and angst of others, seems to be the stock in trade. And oh yes, and distraction most of all.

 

[carbonjam72]

Chris,
Thats why the dishonest type police dont record any of the interrogations.

Its kind of like dishonest type forensic people showing the jurors and untrained judges rfu charts that are magnified making 20 RFU peaks look huge.

A lot of dishonesty in this case on the Prosecutions team.

Whats interesting about this case, in relate to the interrogation/ disputed story of Patrick, is Amanda sent the email the night/morning earlier than the interrogation and didnt use this "coerced" story, instead it was the same story she returned to once she was rested and safe from the persecution in the non-recorded interrogation. Not many interrogations have this "pre-interrogation" email sent. She made that email on the 3rd, I recall, into the morning of the 4th. But the Guilters aren't changing their stance, and the Defense will never accept any of the numerous Prosecutor theories.

I think in the end the two sides will never agree, and Rudy Guede will win in the end, because he fooled them all, manipulated them all. He makes the Italian system look more pathetic than I thought possible. If you stand back and look at all the judges and jurors and lawyers and how Rudy Guede made fools of them all its sickening in a Bernie Maddoff way.

Funny how Mignini takes the side of Rudy Guede who killed Meredith Kercher, and also takes the side of Antonio Vinci, whom Preston & Spezi (and others) have identified as the likely lone serial killer behind the Monster of Florence crimes.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rites relating to....

In the book, Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy,
by Christopher Duggan (C) 2013, the following is written:

On the morning of 31 October [1922] ... fascists destroyed the Federazione Socialista in the Piazza Fontana dei Trevi, throwing books out of the first-floor window, and piling them up to make a bonfire.
______

Possibly such book burnings were less common in Fascist Italy than in Nazi Germany. Certainly the fascists imposed press censorship in Italy and restricted political freedom.

Seriously, on Halloween!! This didn't have anything to do with a satanic sect?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You don't suppose they reversed Hellman because they were peeved by his book do you? You must have a very low opinion of the Italian judiciary - which means you can't be among those who 'argue' (not really the right word) they must be guilty because 35 (or whatever the number is) Italian judges say so.

I am sure you would agree that it was pretty stupid to write and publish a book about your own case before a verdict.

 

[carbonjam72]

I am sure you would agree that it was pretty stupid to write and publish a book about your own case before a verdict.

Sometimes you have to stand up to the bullies.

 

[tsig]

Sometimes you have to stand up to the bullies.

Undercutting your own lawyers case isn't standing up to the bullies it's pinning a large "KICK ME" sign on your backside.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am sure you would agree that it was pretty stupid to write and publish a book about your own case before a verdict.

I would have to be faced with exactly the same circumstances as the two of them before I could agree. They may have needed the money. Not the least of the injustices visited upon them was the need to fund their own defences and a case like this one burns a very deep hole.

 

[Bill Williams]

It would be great to hear an opinion from you!!!!!!!!!!

I am sure you would agree that it was pretty stupid to write and publish a book about your own case before a verdict.

Sometimes you have to stand up to the bullies.

Undercutting your own lawyers case isn't standing up to the bullies it's pinning a large "KICK ME" sign on your backside.

What is refreshing here is that both CoulsdonUK and tsig are de facto admitting that the Italian judiciary is corrupt. (Anglolawyer beat me to this observation, but then the time zones are on his side. Bloody Brits organized it that way!)

One cannot fault, really, Giuliano Mignini for seeking redress if he believes he was defamed.....

However, the implication above is that criminal decisions in the courts ARE effected by commentary, rather than the evidence. (Innocentisti complained about the effect of the media on non sequestered popular judges, and we were told that the media/books did not effect the!!!! Now tsig and CoulsdonUK admit, maybe they were!)

Strangely, this is one of the conspiracy theories of the innocentisti side - that after the Hellmann verdict Rocco Girlanda threatened investigations into the PLE for the malicious prosecution of two innocents. And that it was THIS (not the books) which caused even the Supreme Court to start to circle the wagons to protect the power of the PMs.

It seems in a backhanded sort of way, even tsig and CoulsdonUK agree.

Oh yes, and CouldsdonUK was dangerously close to expressing an opinion!

 

[Machiavelli]

To be fair to Mach he has previously agreed that Knox's DNA on the handle cannot arise from the murder act, but subsequent to its cleaning, (assuming it was the murder weapon), so even Mach accepts that it is illogical to use the Knox DNA on the knife as evidence of her presence or participation in the murder. Mach is satisfied there is sufficient other evidence and Knox is morally reprehensible, (she exchanged drugs for sex, was dirty, lied etc.) so must be guilty

Actually:
1. I only said that Knox's DNA (in particular, only one of Knox's DNA instances, trace A - but not so trace I) can be the consequence of its cleaning; not that it must be. It might be directly from wielding the knife, and not have been well cleaned like the blade.

2. I have absolutely no moral judgement about Knox's private behaviors. I wouldn't see them as morally reprehensible themselves (albeit I reject arguments that her character features would point away from Guede or from the drug fuelled sexual aggression scenario; and also, one thing is to consider character features alone, like narcissism or other aspects of personality, which may be harmless and shared by millions of individuals, another thing is consider them together with other elements, like put those harmless features in the context of a peculiar scenario in which they may become clues).

3. My certainty of her guilt beyond doubt stems from a set of pieces of evidence of various kinds, which you reject on grounds that I consider irrational and/or pointless.

4. I have a judgment which may have a Mora aspect on some Knox's actions, which are not her private behaviors. This goes with Sollecito's actions too. I don't have a problem with her drug use or sexual habits; but I do have a problem with her manipulative letter of Nov.4 or her manipulative hand written notes, with her non credible account of facts, with the "blood on hands", with her alleged waiting and loosing time after discovering "strange things" instead if searching for Meredith, her not getting close to Metedith's room because she already did "her part" and so on, I have extreme problems with her fingering an innocent: her being a manipulative liar, unreliable and inconsistent would have a moral aspect even in the event she was innocent (especially in that event); the same with Sollecito: his diary where I find his "reconstructing and trying to remember" disgusting, his disgusting hand pricking lie, and so on...

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually:
1. I only said that Knox's DNA (in particular, only one of Knox's DNA instances, trace A - but not so trace I) can be the consequence of its cleaning; not that it must be. It might be directly from wielding the knife, and not have been well cleaned like the blade.

See highlighted text following your point #3.

2. I have absolutely no moral judgement about Knox's private behaviors. I wouldn't see them as morally reprehensible themselves (albeit I reject arguments that her character features would point away from Guede or from the drug fuelled sexual aggression scenario; and also, one thing is to consider character features alone, like narcissism or other aspects of personality, which may be harmless and shared by millions of individuals, another thing is consider them together with other elements, like put those harmless features in the context of a peculiar scenario in which they may become clues).

Pro-guilt lobby forays into psychopathological diagnoses of Knox have absolutely no support in any of the trial records or anything else. The pro-guilt lobby simply chucks in those allegations of some sort of psychological malady (curiously, of Knox only) to give their faulty conclusions a better sound.

3. My certainty of her guilt beyond doubt stems from a set of pieces of evidence of various kinds, which you reject on grounds that I consider irrational and/or pointless.

You certainty of her guilt is betrayed by very few references to Raffaele and Guede. You are obsessed with her. Your view of her guilt are an endless set of possibilities, which when challenged as such, you claim someone has to prove you wrong; thus reversing the burden of proof.

4. I have a judgment which may have a Mora aspect on some Knox's actions, which are not her private behaviors. This goes with Sollecito's actions too. I don't have a problem with her drug use or sexual habits; but I do have a problem with her manipulative letter of Nov.4 or her manipulative hand written notes, with her non credible account of facts, with the "blood on hands", with her alleged waiting and loosing time after discovering "strange things" instead if searching for Meredith, her not getting close to Metedith's room because she already did "her part" and so on, I have extreme problems with her fingering an innocent: her being a manipulative liar, unreliable and inconsistent would have a moral aspect even in the event she was innocent (especially in that event); the same with Sollecito: his diary where I find his "reconstructing and trying to remember" disgusting, his disgusting hand pricking lie, and so on...

This is a long series of coming to a guilt conclusion by reading-into events the most extreme and unsubstantiatedly-cynical interpretation of things. It's the definition of confirmation bias....

.... where you interpret evidence as proving guilt, because you have first assumed guilt. Seeing the letter of Nov 4 that way is a classic. The only way to view it as evidence of guilt, is to first assume guilt and then interpret the letter that way.

 

[carbonjam72]

What is refreshing here is that both CoulsdonUK and tsig are de facto admitting that the Italian judiciary is corrupt. (Anglolawyer beat me to this observation, but then the time zones are on his side. Bloody Brits organized it that way!)

One cannot fault, really, Giuliano Mignini for seeking redress if he believes he was defamed.....

However, the implication above is that criminal decisions in the courts ARE effected by commentary, rather than the evidence. (Innocentisti complained about the effect of the media on non sequestered popular judges, and we were told that the media/books did not effect the!!!! Now tsig and CoulsdonUK admit, maybe they were!)

Strangely, this is one of the conspiracy theories of the innocentisti side - that after the Hellmann verdict Rocco Girlanda threatened investigations into the PLE for the malicious prosecution of two innocents. And that it was THIS (not the books) which caused even the Supreme Court to start to circle the wagons to protect the power of the PMs.

It seems in a backhanded sort of way, even tsig and CoulsdonUK agree.

Oh yes, and CouldsdonUK was dangerously close to expressing an opinion!

Great post Bill. I don't think Tsig and CoulsdonUK have really thought it through that far. My sense is their arguments are motivated by a need to embrace any argument that allows them to fantasize about guilt or punishment for Amanda and Raf, because that's just how their heads are put together, and there's no point in trying to make sense out of their irrational bias against two people they've never met. It's just sick and malicious, IUAM.

Similar to Mach's fantasies of Amanda's and Raf's 'manipulation' and 'behaviors', rather than blaming or even questioning the tactics and acts of the police and prosecutor Mignini.

Here's a link to the CBS article where Girlanda's letter is mentioned. He didn't simply threaten an investigation of the judiciary, he formally demanded it - see below...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/was-amanda-knox-a-political-pawn-in-italian-politics/

CHICAGO - During the trials of Amanda Knox in Italy, labels came fast and furious at the American student – mostly furious. Knox was stamped a she-devil and her persona demonic. But one label has been overlooked – political. Amazingly, that single label could mean Amanda Knox will never again see the inside of an Italian prison. It is a slice of the sensational murder case more "Face The Nation" than "CSI."


15 PHOTOS
Amanda Knox personal photos

In 2009, Knox and her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito were convicted of murdering British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia. The two immediately appealed their conviction.

In 2011, appellate court judge Claudio Hellmann acquitted the defendants. Knox and Sollecito were freed after each had spent 1,427 days in prison - almost four years. Following the verdict, judge Hellmann didn’t pull punches. He declared: “the evidence was nonsense.” Suddenly, several prosecutors and judges became the targets of criticism claiming they had mishandled the case from the beginning.

The vice-president of Italy’s judicial oversight committee, Michele Vietti, immediately warned against politicizing the case. Many paid heed. However, Rocco Girlanda did not. At the time, Girlanda was a member of the Italian Parliament from Perugia. His political party was the PdL (Popolo della Libertà) which was also the party of then Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Girlanda and ten other members of Parliament signed a letter asking Italy’s president to investigate the Knox-Sollecito prosecutors. In addition, Raffaelle Sollecito’s lawyer, Guilia Boungiorno, was also in Parliament, head of its Judiciary Committee, and a member of Berlusconi’s political party.

For his part, Berlusconi and his party were at war with Italy’s prosecutors and judges. The Prime Minister was trying to reign in their investigative powers. Prosecutors, for their part, were trying to put Berlusconi in jail.

Some may see a conspiracy looming here. Take heart, there is none. There is, however, a good question: did the Knox-Sollecito case become politicized?

In April 2013, the Italian Supreme Court threw out judge Claudio Hellmann’s 2011 acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. Now retired, Hellmann told La Stampa newspaper that he “foresaw” the reversal. Hellman said “the party of the prosecutor is very strong in the judiciary” and that political party had “influenced” the Italian Supreme Court, according to La Stampa.
Though Hellmann did not name the political party, it wasn’t the party of Berlusconi, Girlanda, and Boungiorno. Was it prosecutors pushing back against Berlusconi and his crew?

This wasn’t the first time Claudio Hellmann raised the possibility that political considerations were helping drive the pursuit of Knox and Sollecito. In October 2011, he told La Nazione newspaper that there was “a political background” to the case. It was directed squarely at Amanda Knox. Hellmann said, “Many wanted Amanda in prison because she was an American.”
Now that Amanda Knox has, again, been found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, extradition to Italy has entered the conversation. That discussion, so far has focused on whether a U.S. citizen’s Fifth Amendment right against double-jeopardy would protect the Seattle university student from extradition.

Fair enough. But missing is a reading of the bilateral extradition treaty between the United States and Italy. Specifically, Article 5 of the treaty, which reads:

“Extradition shall not be granted when the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense/or if the person whose surrender is sought proves that the request for surrender has been made in order to try or punish him or her for a political offense.”

Was Amanda Knox’s “political offense” the fact she was an American? And was her second “political offense” the possibility she became a pawn that two battling Italian political parties used to further their own agendas? These seem to be reasonable questions given Claudio Hellmann’s comments. They deserve answers.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I would have to be faced with exactly the same circumstances as the two of them before I could agree. They may have needed the money. Not the least of the injustices visited upon them was the need to fund their own defences and a case like this one burns a very deep hole.

What is refreshing here is that both CoulsdonUK and tsig are de facto admitting that the Italian judiciary is corrupt. (Anglolawyer beat me to this observation, but then the time zones are on his side. Bloody Brits organized it that way!)

One cannot fault, really, Giuliano Mignini for seeking redress if he believes he was defamed.....

However, the implication above is that criminal decisions in the courts ARE effected by commentary, rather than the evidence. (Innocentisti complained about the effect of the media on non sequestered popular judges, and we were told that the media/books did not effect the!!!! Now tsig and CoulsdonUK admit, maybe they were!)

Strangely, this is one of the conspiracy theories of the innocentisti side - that after the Hellmann verdict Rocco Girlanda threatened investigations into the PLE for the malicious prosecution of two innocents. And that it was THIS (not the books) which caused even the Supreme Court to start to circle the wagons to protect the power of the PMs.

It seems in a backhanded sort of way, even tsig and CoulsdonUK agree.

Oh yes, and CouldsdonUK was dangerously close to expressing an opinion!

Er, no.

As I said when Raffaele published, it was stupid to do so before the third level verdict.

If he’d tried that in the UK he would have broken sub judice rule and been in contempt of court for publishing matters still under consideration by a court, this was Raffaele situation at the time of publishing.