Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[codyjuneau]

.
I think it is a shame that police everywhere have put themselves in the position where people are afraid to talk to them as witnesses without a lawyer present.

That whole duplicitous interview thing is counter productive, IMO.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

.
Hi CJ

Since no one else has responded, I will, maybe that will get the ball rolling.

I don't know!

Your research and analysis were brilliant, the hypothesis sounded plausible to me, and the result was what you predicted.

But I don't think we have enough information yet to determine the actual reasons for the result.

So it is difficult to judge the accuracy of your hypothesis.

Sorry, hopefully someone else will have a more useful answer for you.

I do think it would help if we knew how the judges are/were selected for the various trials.

Cody
.

I believe Charlie will know more.

 

[Antony]

Since this case began, I've moved toward something like radical skepticism of the functionality of justice systems in general, or indeed most "systems" or "institutions" in general -- at least as regards their stated purposes (which might be different from their real purposes). They just don't reliably do what they're ostensibly designed to do.

If the Italian justice system were functional -- that is to say, capable of reliably processing information about whether criminal charges are true or not -- the Hellmann verdict would never have been overturned. (One might even argue that the Massei trial would have ended in acquittal, or better yet that the case wouldn't have been brought at all -- but I'm willing to allow occasional errors and still call a system "basically functional". But when it specifically anti-corrects the corrections of its errors, that looks to me less like the expected occasional mistake and more like unpredictable chaos.)

Heartily agree. I have expressed the view here that the reversal of Hellmann was the biggest single scandal of the whole process.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Speaking of which, Nigel Scott of Spiked Online writes:

The problem is not Italy's misogynistic culture, though it has one, but rather its self contained and politically riven justice system. How else do you explain the Supreme Court's 2013 overturning of Judge Hellmann's acquittal when last Friday's ruling will confirm that he was right all along? The answer is simple: In 2013 the panel was made up of judges who were sympathetic to the Perugia prosecuters, whereas this year's was made up of independent judges (like Hellmann) who went where the evidence took them.

Who selects the panels? That is the 64,000 dollar question ... Knox and Sollecito got lucky this time (again), but the system remains a lottery.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I believe Charlie will know more.

Sorry, but I don't know more.

I was expecting the court to confirm the guilty verdicts. My thinking was, ok, this very court overturned the acquittal and sent the case back with instructions to convict. Now they have gotten what they asked for, so they will probably accept it.

At the same time, I was not surprised when they rendered the verdict they did. Accepting Nencini's decision, and his execrable report, would not exactly resolve matters, eh? Then they would have had to arrest Raffaele and cart him off to prison, even though nobody cares about him, whereas Amanda, the target of their obsession, would remain free. They would have had to subject their whole rotten process to a peer review by a US court if they even tried to get her back. That would have sucked for them, and they would have lost.

It really made sense to for them to face reality and put a stop to the bleeding. It was truth, justice and self-interest in the stroke of a pen - at the cost of pissing off lots of people inside their system.

So, I honestly did not know what to expect on Friday. Amanda and her family didn't know, either. They don't know the bureaucratic thinking behind the verdict any more than we do. What we all know is that she and Raffaele are completely innocent, so the verdict was correct.

 

[lonepinealex]

I should add I don't see myself as an online commentator, rather I see myself as a juror (mainly lurker!) weighing up the evidence from both sides. This is why I have regularly looked at PMF and IIP sites but only really fully trust this site as a place where both sides can come together on neutral ground (which is why I find the censored sites and the lack of pro guilt commentators prepared to debate openly so revealing and in some ways worrying).

Yes this is how I feel too (the lurker / juror thing, I'm not a net contributor!) and I find this site the best one for reading about and discussing the case because it's not emotional.

I do feel for everyone involved, but I came to the case out of curiosity, not a visceral feeling one way or the other and I initially assumed they were guilty. Had I seen evidence that they were I would not have changed my mind. But so far, in four years of following the story, I've not seen a single piece of evidence (except against Guede of course).

I think the IA site is brilliant for the work that it does, but discussions there were a bit too personal for me. And the likes of PMF are just bananas.

 

[anglolawyer]

I should add I don't see myself as an online commentator, rather I see myself as a juror (mainly lurker!) weighing up the evidence from both sides. This is why I have regularly looked at PMF and IIP sites but only really fully trust this site as a place where both sides can come together on neutral ground (which is why I find the censored sites and the lack of pro guilt commentators prepared to debate openly so revealing and in some ways worrying).

Lest you be misconstrued by readers/lurkers, IIP is avowedly pro-innocence but it is not censored. Pro-guilt people can and do post there. The only restriction is that vile abuse of Knox and Sollecito is not permitted. Arguing for guilt is allowed. The pro-guilt sites OTOH are another matter and it is both revealing, worrying and not even in their own interests that they are.

 

[toto]

Lest you be misconstrued by readers/lurkers, IIP is avowedly pro-innocence but it is not censored. Pro-guilt people can and do post there. The only restriction is that vile abuse of Knox and Sollecito is not permitted. Arguing for guilt is allowed. The pro-guilt sites OTOH are another matter and it is both revealing, worrying and not even in their own interests that they are.

Yes. Absolutely. It is just that to be sure I feel confident in my support for one position or the other I want to hear discussion of all the evidence (like everyone else). IIP are on the good side, but it is possible that some documents and translations are on the PMF sites that are not on IIP.

 

[anglolawyer]

And on the Italian justice system, in my view it sucks for at least these reasons:

1 the three tier system takes too long and fails to conform with the principal of finality
2 as other jurisdictions have learned, forcing defendants to justify disclosure requests is a recipe for injustice
3 lawyers and defendants do not enjoy absolute privilege for statements made in court which has a chilling effect and encourages corruption
4 the judicial culture is full of intellectual bull **** as best exemplified by the Galati appeal and endless discussions about osmosis, correct use of circumstantial evidence etc - I have become a huge fan of English simplicity
5 no proper control of reporting pending trial (again, the English have this right - almost nothing can be reported before the trial)
6 Italian lawyers are lousy cross examiners but I guess that's not really systemic
7 crony-like relationship between PM and judges.

Written judgments are good, although not readily compatible with the jury system, and the threshold for appeal is lower, which may be worth thinking about. In England and Wales, greater effort is made to ensure the first verdict is not tainted with unfairness: taped police interviews, full disclosure, an independent bar (don't underestimate that one) all make injustice less likely.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes. Absolutely. It is just that to be sure I feel confident in my support for one position or the other I want to hear discussion of all the evidence (like everyone else). IIP are on the good side, but it is possible that some documents and translations are on the PMF sites that are not on IIP.

I totally agree. I prefer discussion with the PGPs, if anything, futile though it mostky is.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Re the Italian Justice System, a couple more items that I think should be on the list:

- The prosecuting team should not be allowed to make statements like 'case closed'. That is the courts job.

- A majority jury vote on guilt is hardly compatible with guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cody
.

 

[Strozzi]

Frank Sfarzo has always insisted the interrogation tapes will surface sometime. And lest we forget, as you wrote, Frank is like the Oracle of Delphi and so far has never been wrong.

An agent or lawyer for a (non-Italian) newspaper or magazine publisher should announce they will pay a large reward to anyone who can provide a copy of the recording of the interrogation. Got a copy? Contact our attorney's office in Switzerland and earn Euros 200,000.

Mail such an offer to the home of every police officer and IT and lab tech working for the Perugia police, the scientific police, and prosecutors' office. When they or their spouse open the letter, it will encourage frank conversations at home.

 

[Strozzi]

.
Hey, there is one I think I do know.

As I recall, it was Crini the Pooh.

Cody
.

Prosecutor Crini (aka, Crini the Pooh) pushed the theory that Meredith was killed because of an argument over Guede's failure to flush.

A year ago some guilters speculated that Amanda must have been entertaining Guede in the cottage when Meredith came home. Meredith discovered that Amanda had permitted Guede to use their shared toilet and Guede had disgustingly failed to flush, Meredith got mad at Amanda for it, a fight ensued and Meredith was killed. The problem with this theory is that Guede's souvenir was found in the Italian women's toilet, not in Amanda's and Meredith's bathroom. Of course the guilter explanation for that is that the poo was moved (kind of like a double body swap).

The guiters never explained how Guede's poo was moved. The explanation is easy. Amanda moved it. She transported it in her purse.

 

[lonepinealex]

And on the Italian justice system, in my view it sucks for at least these reasons:

1 the three tier system takes too long and fails to conform with the principal of finality
2 as other jurisdictions have learned, forcing defendants to justify disclosure requests is a recipe for injustice
3 lawyers and defendants do not enjoy absolute privilege for statements made in court which has a chilling effect and encourages corruption
4 the judicial culture is full of intellectual bull **** as best exemplified by the Galati appeal and endless discussions about osmosis, correct use of circumstantial evidence etc - I have become a huge fan of English simplicity
5 no proper control of reporting pending trial (again, the English have this right - almost nothing can be reported before the trial)
6 Italian lawyers are lousy cross examiners but I guess that's not really systemic
7 crony-like relationship between PM and judges.

Written judgments are good, although not readily compatible with the jury system, and the threshold for appeal is lower, which may be worth thinking about. In England and Wales, greater effort is made to ensure the first verdict is not tainted with unfairness: taped police interviews, full disclosure, an independent bar (don't underestimate that one) all make injustice less likely.

I agree with all of this, except that it looks to me like the low threshold for appeal means that in practice no-one puts any effort into the first level trial, assuming that it'll all be sorted out in the inevitable appeal. The Massei motivation reads all through like he's going to find them innocent, then it's almost like he decides on guilty just for the hell of it, knowing the appeal can iron out the discrepancies. I've no idea how typical that is though.

 

[Samson]

Sorry, but I don't know more.

I was expecting the court to confirm the guilty verdicts. My thinking was, ok, this very court overturned the acquittal and sent the case back with instructions to convict. Now they have gotten what they asked for, so they will probably accept it.

At the same time, I was not surprised when they rendered the verdict they did. Accepting Nencini's decision, and his execrable report, would not exactly resolve matters, eh? Then they would have had to arrest Raffaele and cart him off to prison, even though nobody cares about him, whereas Amanda, the target of their obsession, would remain free. They would have had to subject their whole rotten process to a peer review by a US court if they even tried to get her back. That would have sucked for them, and they would have lost.

It really made sense to for them to face reality and put a stop to the bleeding. It was truth, justice and self-interest in the stroke of a pen - at the cost of pissing off lots of people inside their system.

So, I honestly did not know what to expect on Friday. Amanda and her family didn't know, either. They don't know the bureaucratic thinking behind the verdict any more than we do. What we all know is that she and Raffaele are completely innocent, so the verdict was correct.

I am truly surprised.
Many months ago you predicted a good outcome, but you did say you were not sure how, in fairness, but then you turned out to be right.
You also said the state department was very well acquainted with the science proving innocence.
I therefore concluded that the state department must have applied pressure on the Italian government to preclude an international scandal, an Italian man in jail for a crime the Italian people believe is the fault of an American woman who would be permanently out of reach. In other words diplomatic arm wrestling assured an outcome.
LondonJohn said not possible, and you say Amanda and her family were engaged in a cliffhanger till the death.

Totally enthralling I must say.

 

[lonepinealex]

I'm reminded of the sage advice of a lawyer on these pages about suing others for defamation. There are only two things you really need:

1) a lot of money up front
2) the truth on your side.​

Well, this from one of Raffaele's support pages on FaceBook:

​

WE WISH TO COMMUNICATE THAT THE DEFAMATION ON SOCIAL (MEDIA) (IS) NOW PUNISHABLE CRIMINAL(LY). (WE) INFORM (EVERYONE), THEREFORE, THAT WILL URGE RAFFAELE TO ACT (AGAINST) ALL THOSE WHO DEFAME, FOR ALL CRIMES WILL BE CHALLENGED. WE WILL KEEP A RECORD OF ALL INJURIES RECEIVED AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.

Good for them!

I hope Raffaele doesn't go all Count of Monte Cristo...

 

[LondonJohn]

I certainly had an emotional wish that Amanda and Raffaele were found innocent. I know what it is like to go to jail for something you didn't do. (it was only a few days for me) I can't imagine spending 4 years or 24 or 28 years for something they did not do. How horrible.

Nooo again maybe you're misunderstanding me. Of course, once I concluded that there was a potential miscarriage of justice going on in this case, then of course I had a wish that this would all turn out with acquittals for Knox and Sollecito, and concurrent with that I felt very sad for them and their families for what was happening to them.

What I meant was that any such feelings were strictly generated by an objective, dispassionate analysis of the evidence and the conclusions generated by that analysis. I didn't have any preconceived "need" to think they were guilty or innocent - as, for example, a family member might have a need to think the person was innocent, or someone with other issues might generate a "need" to think the person was guilty.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think John Kercher had the necessary technical computer chops to post his screed everywhere on the internet that Amanda's name was mentioned and the case discussed.
However, I do agree with John Bremmer's (Anne Bremmer's brother and a renowned researcher at Emory University in Atlanta) accusation / guess that Harry Rag/The Machine was Meredith's brother who does work in the computer field in UK.

I wholly disagree. I think this individual is unconnected to the family, and that he's no more than a "crime tourist" who has become obsessed with campaigning for Knox's/Sollecito's convictions - probably for deep-seated personal reasons that we cannot begin to guess at, and which maybe even he himself doesn't realise.

 

[anglolawyer]

I agree with all of this, except that it looks to me like the low threshold for appeal means that in practice no-one puts any effort into the first level trial, assuming that it'll all be sorted out in the inevitable appeal. The Massei motivation reads all through like he's going to find them innocent, then it's almost like he decides on guilty just for the hell of it, knowing the appeal can iron out the discrepancies. I've no idea how typical that is though.

Agreed. And they even have less well educated people adjudicating almost as if it is inevitable there will have to be a review by a brainier bunch. Ridiculous.

Didn't we hear Rudy's tuppeny ha'penny break in in Milan went all the way to the ISC? How ludicrous.

 

[LondonJohn]

Agreed. And they even have less well educated people adjudicating almost as if it is inevitable there will have to be a review by a brainier bunch. Ridiculous.

Didn't we hear Rudy's tuppeny ha'penny break in in Milan went all the way to the ISC? How ludicrous.

The very system of automatic appeal and review up to SC level automatically seems to imply that there's very little faith being placed in the competency of the first-level criminal courts. And that's a crazy state of affairs.

Italy clearly needs to do a root-and-branch review of the system. It needs to restructure first-level courts, and make the judgements of those courts binding and final, unless there are specific grounds for appeal. And most certainly it needs to be the case that acquittal at any level, including the first-level courts, should be the end of the matter unless there are very specific (and very narrowly-defined) reasons to grant a prosecution/state appeal against acquittal.