Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Machiavelli said:
You can criticize what you want in Italy.
But if one has evidence of misconducts, besides criticizing he should also bring their evidence to a magistrate.
Click to expand...
-

How would one get a hold of this magistrate, if one were so inclined?

d

-
 
Desert Fox said:
My reasons may be wrong or right.

If you look at just about every legal system in the world, there are incidents of covering up indiscretion on the part of police, prosecutors, and courts. There are some psychological and sociological reasons behind this. Rick Perry likely signed off on the execution of an innocent man for his own ambitions.

The thing is that you are trying to argue that Italy is somehow immune to this.
Click to expand...

No no, I am not argueing any specific "immunity" (or better, rather immunity from a non-specified scenario).
Instead I was answring to the point of one poster who was expressing a specific rationalizing scenario about "national pride".

I just pointed out that the theory appears prima facie profoundly illogical.

Now, obviously you can draw another, different scenario if you like, and argue why you think the Italian Supreme Court deserves to be an object of that particular suspicion. Then you may also check by reasoning if you theory is consistent.

You didn't put forward other theories, as far as I can understand, except a theory that notes a possible danger of evidence review in "thousands" of trials. Now you may argue why you believe the Italian Supreme Court would base its decision on avoiding a danger of evidence review and a will to keep a bad quality forensic thecniques even while they think the evidence they collect is false. You may build an argument about the Supreme Court covering up other institutions and execute innocents on grounds of psychology or politics, but bear in mind you are talking about the Supreme Court.
 
Desert Fox said:
It is really clear from the second item I posted that the Italian legal system is stifling to free speech.
Click to expand...

The Italian law stifles free speech less than many European countries. But this does not prevent one from criticizing whatever he likes.

Criticizing is not the same thing of publicly make criminal allegations for which you don't have evidence, though.

If you have evidence about some criminal conduct you are supposed to present it to a judicial authority (the Carabinieri actually is good).
 
Machiavelli said:
No no, I am not argueing any specific "immunity" (or better, rather immunity from a non-specified scenario).
Instead I was answring to the point of one poster who was expressing a specific rationalizing scenario about "national pride".

I just pointed out that the theory appears prima facie profoundly illogical.

Now, obviously you can draw another, different scenario if you like, and argue why you think the Italian Supreme Court deserves to be an object of that particular suspicion. Then you may also check by reasoning if you theory is consistent.

You didn't put forward other theories, as far as I can understand, except a theory that notes a possible danger of evidence review in "thousands" of trials. Now you may argue why you believe the Italian Supreme Court would base its decision on avoiding a danger of evidence review and a will to keep a bad quality forensic thecniques even while they think the evidence they collect is false. You may build an argument about the Supreme Court covering up other institutions and execute innocents on grounds of psychology or politics, but bear in mind you are talking about the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

If you read the Chieffi report, it is pretty clear -
Prof. Novelli had agreed that there are protocols and recommendations, but
added that first of all the operator had to contribute his common sense (ud.
6.9.2011, p. Transcription 59.), otherwise it put in question all the DNA
analysis done from 1986 onwards.

I know you try to do a twisted reading of everything but I think a plain reading makes it clear
 
Machiavelli said:
You can criticize what you want in Italy.
But if one has evidence of misconducts, besides criticizing he should also bring their evidence to a magistrate.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli, your statement above causes me to remember Amanda's written statement that she was hit twice in the late night interrogation. She wrote her syatement that same late night/dawn and gave it to Mignini. I believe that Mignini, as prosecutoring official on the scene, should have immediately ordered that none of the police officers who had been involved in interrogating Amanda were to have any physical access to her. The same might go for their colleagues.

I think he had the obligation to act, to compartment her for her safety, rather than leave her in reach of possible assailants might have had access to her. He left a prisoner exposed. He failed in his obligation as the ranking judicial official on scene. So did the police chief and any supervisors under him who were in the station at dawn who learned that she had stated that she was struck - what really was an assault in an interrogation room by a female police officer.

No matter what he thought of the merits of her accusation, he should have compartmented her for her own safety. He failed!

And I am not even referring to his honesty (dishonesty, in my opinion) in investigating Amanda's allegation.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-

How would one get a hold of this magistrate, if one were so inclined?


-
Click to expand...

If I had evidence that Stefanoni committed serious crimes I would submit a 'denouncement' to either the Carabinieri, the Police or the Procura in Rome.
That may be done directly by the witness or through a lawyer.
The denouncement contains the testimony and may include evidence (documents etc.). It can be an oral testimony or it can be written.
What's important is that it needs to be truthful, that means in good faith, or the witness faces a calunnia charge.

I don't know if this can be done from the US territory at the Italian embassy. But they may provide useful addresses.

There is also a special channel for "anonimous denouncements" at the Anti-Corruption Authority.
 
Nencini admitted he was clueless about DNA. It's on page 22-23 questioning the RIS experts.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Berti-Barni-Testimony.pdf

nencini-knows-nothing-about-dna.jpg
 
Machiavelli said:
The Italian law stifles free speech less than many European countries. But this does not prevent one from criticizing whatever he likes.

Criticizing is not the same thing of publicly make criminal allegations for which you don't have evidence, though.

If you have evidence about some criminal conduct you are supposed to present it to a judicial authority (the Carabinieri actually is good).
Click to expand...

Yes, well, no one can tell what's against the law in Italy because Italy has a problem observing the rule if law. Just ask luttwak.
 
Strozzi said:
Machiavelli, your statement above causes me to remember Amanda's written statement that she was hit twice in the late night interrogation. She wrote her syatement that same late night/dawn and gave it to Mignini. I believe that Mignini, as prosecutoring official on the scene, should have immediately ordered that none of the police officers who had been involved in interrogating Amanda were to have any physical access to her. The same might go for their colleagues.
Click to expand...

She gave it to officer Rita Ficarra. Your belief is utterly incorrect. Not only Mignini had no obligation to act. In fact he had a prohibition to take any initiative of investigating that claim.
The charge of beating requires that the victim submits a querela, a legal action by which the victim requests and authorizes the magistrate to investigate. Otherwise authorities cannot proceed.

It is really impossible for investigators/magistrates to start any legal action without a querela on a charge that requires that.
 
Machiavelli said:
That's a theory. Unproven. But if the case was that the outcome "thousands of trials" would be lost, that would look like a matter of public security, rather than of national pride, don't you think? And possibly, a matter of jurisprudence and justice.

But, if you believe the Supreme Court wold be ready to "cover up" alleged false evidence findings, your belief would equate to assuming that the Italian Supreme Court normally doesn't pursue justice at all, that it is rather a kind of Mafia power who would act systematically with the utmost contempt of truth and justice, actually with the purpose of pursueing injustice.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
Machiavelli said:
She gave it to officer Rita Ficarra. Your belief is utterly incorrect. Not only Mignini had no obligation to act. In fact he had a prohibition to take any initiative of investigating that claim.
The charge of beating requires that the victim submits a querela, a legal action by which the victim requests and authorizes the magistrate to investigate. Otherwise authorities cannot proceed.

It is really impossible for investigators/magistrates to start any legal action without a querela on a charge that requires that.
Click to expand...

Really? Italy has no mechanism for investigating prisoner beating unless the prisoner files a complaint against the cops? I say you're full of crap.
 
-

Machiavelli said:
If I had evidence that Stefanoni committed serious crimes I would submit a 'denouncement' to either the Carabinieri, the Police or the Procura in Rome.
That may be done directly by the witness or through a lawyer.
The denouncement contains the testimony and may include evidence (documents etc.). It can be an oral testimony or it can be written.
What's important is that it needs to be truthful, that means in good faith, or the witness faces a calunnia charge.

I don't know if this can be done from the US territory at the Italian embassy. But they may provide useful addresses.

There is also a special channel for "anonimous denouncements" at the Anti-Corruption Authority.
Click to expand...
-

Interesting. Thank you Mach,

d

-
ETA: Will an Italian Consulate work:

FROM: http://www.embassypages.com/missions/embassy7356/

Italian Consulate in Seattle, The United States

23718 Bothell-Everett Hwy, Suite H
Bothell
Washington 98021
United States
Telephone (+1) (206) 851 8023
Telefax (+1) (425) 489 0271
E-mail viceconsole@hotmail.com
Website
Office Hours
Head of Mission Mr Franco Tesorieri, Consul

-
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
If I had evidence that Stefanoni committed serious crimes I would submit a 'denouncement' to either the Carabinieri, the Police or the Procura in Rome.
That may be done directly by the witness or through a lawyer.
The denouncement contains the testimony and may include evidence (documents etc.). It can be an oral testimony or it can be written.
What's important is that it needs to be truthful, that means in good faith, or the witness faces a calunnia charge.
I don't know if this can be done from the US territory at the Italian embassy. But they may provide useful addresses.

There is also a special channel for "anonimous denouncements" at the Anti-Corruption Authority.
Click to expand...

There's the rub right there. Who gets to decide if it is truthful?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Machiavelli,

Nencini admitted to not knowing anything about DNA forensics, and for once I agree with him (I will have to mark this day in my calendar). On the other hand I do recall the story being floated here and elsewhere (circa 2010, courtesy of Fulcanelli) that there were several female contributors to the clasp (this was ascribed to shared laundry facilities IIRC). Nencini's report reads as if he cobbled together every pro-guilt argument he could find, regardless of whether or not it had been debunked. His nonsense about a woman's shoe print being found in blood in Meredith's room, and his getting the cell phone tower business wrong are other examples.
Click to expand...


Another was that the Postales showed up before Raffaele called the Carabinieri. Dismissed by Massei in a parenthetical aside, which Hellmann agreed with adding additional reasoning, but resurrected by Nencini who arbitrarily chose to move the arrival of the Postales to 12:42 based on the falsity that the only evidence of the Carabinieri was their car--which he had driving by-- and ignoring that when that car enters the camera view a Carabinieri officer, who can be identified by the distinctive pants stripe they wear, is already out of the car and the other one is parking it.

What he should have been doing was wondering why within the first minutes of the (supposed) arrival of the Postales (which was taken up by Amanda and Raffaele inviting the Postales in and showing them the blood in the bathroom, Filomena's room and Meredith's locked door as all accounts agree) Amanda all of a sudden calls her mother, Raffaele his sister and then the Carabinieri twice (with Amanda's voice overheard in the background) from that little flat without either of the Postales noticing. If indeed the Postales arrived at 12:42 then half the time between the completion of Filomena's call to Amanda where Filomena suggested Amanda call police at about 12:36 evaporates--why call police when some have just shown up delivering Filomena's phones? He goes on and on in incredulity that Amanda waited more than fifteen minutes between the completion of that call and Raffaele's (first) call to 112, yet apparently completely forgets that if the Postales actually showed up at 12:42 then it's actually little more than six minutes from the moment she hung up with Filomena (12:35:44).

What's most annoying is that if it actually happened this way then there's a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for calling the Carabinieri after the Postales arrived: the Postales were just there to deliver the phones and were taking no action in responding to a potential murder scene, they wouldn't even break down the door. They're not murder police, they're not trained for it as they mainly deal with credit card fraud, hacking and crimes that involve communication devices. Having explained the situation Raffaele might well have called his sister for advice and called the Carabinieri anyway--if the Postales had really gotten there first. Since they didn't, he told the truth and said they got there a few minutes after he called, this only becomes 'evidence' because Raffaele told the truth and had he been guilty there was an easy and reasonable lie for him to tell.

Yet Nencini is able to resurrect this despite it being rejected by both courts beforehand. He cannot allow the prosecution's original claim of the CCTV camera being about 10 minutes fast because that was disproven in court, but chooses to ignore that everything lines up fine (with video evidence!) if the CCTV camera was 10-12 minutes slow in order to pull out of his ass (and contrary to the video evidence) the idea that it was only six minutes slow, which is enough to make a 'liar' out of Raffaele, offering no evidence for this time outside that it was possible--if you ignore the pictures of the Carabinieri's striped trousers out of the car and that the car was parked there, not passing by.

The man is a moron, I got sick to my stomach reading through his crap again. He should do prison time for the report he wrote, instead he'll probably find it accepted by he ICS and promoted. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
They are the same thing until Hezbollah denounces Isis. Have they done that?
Click to expand...

They have executed a few of them. I think without denouncement.
But I see you should spend more time with Luttwak, you will like him.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Really? Italy has no mechanism for investigating prisoner beating unless the prisoner files a complaint against the cops? I say you're full of crap.
Click to expand...

For beating, without complaint, impossible.

Not even rape can be prosecuted without a victim's complaint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom