Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[toto]

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.

Yes, good point. I have to admit to having had a little bit of the guilter attitude at the beginning: a fascination with what, if true, would, under the circumstances been plausibly described as the crime of the decade (with the original Mignini reasoning), combined with a possible deference to authority. Luckily I would also admit to a strong sense of fair play so was very content to change my mind. The sense of seeking the truth was a stronger drive than a sort of wish, not articulated but perhaps felt, of getting interested in this case in the same way one might get hooked on those true crime documentaries on such figures as the Moors Murderers, Shipman, West and the rest.

 

[Samson]

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.

I find the suggestion that the Italian system could be construed as a contender in a hierarchy of reasonable judicial systems totally bizarre.

I remember during the Hellmann appeal the players discussing holiday plans in order to find a date the proceedings could resume, and somehow Amanda losing her rag, saying this is my life at stake and you are all discussing holiday plans. Justice is a full time job sensibly conducted during a regular 40 hour week, not one day a week over years.
The Italian system is a disaster.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a suggestion from across the pond

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

SNIP
5 no proper control of reporting pending trial (again, the English have this right - almost nothing can be reported before the trial)

Alternatively one can constrain what the prosecutor can say, as is done in the United States of America. I would add:
8 The PM is trained in law and should not be directing a police investigation.

 

[carbonjam72]

.
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
.

Well thanks for taking a crack at it.

The idea is based on Hellman's statement in the CBS article, that once Girlanda made the acquittal a political matter, he "knew the acquittals would be reversed".

Once we accept Hellman's view as accurate, then it follows that a cessation in the underlying political conflict between Burlesconi and the judiciary would naturally pave the way for a reaffirmation of the acquittals, which were unquestionably wholly merited.

The further backstory of a conflict between Mignini & Giuttari attempting to profit from their satanic hoax (by imparting a satanic sect affiliation to fill in the missing motive tying together the wrongfully convicted defendants Vanni and Lotti with Pacciani in the Monster of Florence cases), shows the factors that were constraining the judiciary from moving forwards (fear of undoing the convictions of Vanni and Lotti, the only convictions on record in the MOF crimes), and their intention of pushing back against Mignini in preventing him from ensnaring innocent citizens in his hunt for a non-existant satanic sect in his Narducci trail and this case Kercher case.

In terms of proof, short of recorded conversations, yeah, not likely to surface.

But I do think there's a fairly persuasive circumstantial case to be made, by virtue of the confluence of events. There seems to be a balanced choreography to these cases, the verdicts (Narducci Florence 20 and Hellman reversals in March 2013), and their proximity to one another (Burlesconi appeal- in 2014 - and final acquittal just in the last 2 weeks for his underage sex case). Very odd that they would all cycle through the courts, and come out in paired decisions that seem to tell a story.

Or, maybe I've been reading too many of Mach's posts, which is also a distinct possibility. I have to say about this, my view of a residual "responsible people Italy keeping this all on course" and Mach's view of a deep seated masonic conspiracy are two sides of a coin, much as I hate to admit.

 

[anglolawyer]

Alternatively one can constrain what the prosecutor can say, as is done in the United States of America. I would add:
8 The PM is trained in law and should not be directing a police investigation.

They are more constrained here and I like our system better than yours (having for a time been very pro-American where these things are concerned) at least in this respect.

I don't see why a training in law should be a bar to conducting an enquiry like this. In fact I am quite upset! I have nurtured the idea that I would be pretty good at it, actually.

 

[Samson]

I don't like that.

The moral hazard is the effect on the innocent descendants and relatives.

Amanda and Raffaele should say nothing in support or condemnation.

 

[platonov]

Again, you should now keep in mind that Ananda Knox in fact is NOT..I repeat NOT CONVICTED of sexual assault/murder. I expect that from now on, you will refrain from usin this language.

What.
They have She has escaped any further punishment for the murder of Meredith Kercher and you guys still aren’t happy.

Suing the pants off everyone Let’s see how keen Knox is to take on a UK publication, for example, in a civil trial.

But how about a compromise. If you can produce a ‘LEAVE AMANDA ALONE’ YT video at least as impressive as the ‘Britney’ original then I will give you a solemn undertaking;
That I will never refer to her as a ‘Skanky sex killer from Seattle’.
& If anyone else ever does I shall be very cross.

Deal?

 

[MichaelB]

Storia di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito, due ragazzi travolti dalla giustizia

http://www.gqitalia.it/underground/...llecito-due-ragazzi-travolti-dalla-giustizia/

Rudy wants to be forgotten

http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/mez-rudy-guede-unico-colpevole-_2103267-201502a.shtml

Hopefully we'll never have to hear from Lumumba again.

http://www.fanpage.it/lumumba-amanda-e-colpevole-se-la-incontrassi-le-chiederei-i-soldi/

Amanda e Raffaele, troppi errori: superficialità o malafede?

http://www.panorama.it/news/cronaca/amanda-raffaele-errori-superficialita-malafede/

 

[MichaelB]

And from Sallyoo over at the cesspit:

http://www.prounblock.me/index.php?...1bWJyaWEuaXQvZ3J1cHBvZWRpdG9yaWFsZXVtYnJpYS8=

Mignini: "I have never seen two sentences like this from the Cassazione"
"The case is over, but we wait for the motivations to find out what reasoning the judges used".
"The case is finished, we wait for the motivations of this decision which it is difficult to put into context from the judicial point of view. (...difficilmente inquadrabile dal punto di visto giuridico.)""

Mignini reminds us that of the 45 judges (lay and togaed, all processes) who have made decisions on the case, 34 of them found the defendants guilty. Mignini: "For the public it is (always) difficult to understand the overturning of judicial decisions, but in this case we have two sentences issued by two different sections of the Cassazione which are in open conflict. I have never come across anything like this in my career."

"This is unique, a conflict within the same process. (c'è un fatto unico, un conflitto nello stesso processo). How is it possible that in the same Court of Cassation one section can be so far away from another? One (section) sent the case back to Florence after annulling the appeal held in Perugia which they (the section) considered inadequate; the second (section) annulled this Florence appeal sentence which had addressed all the of the concerns expressed by the previous section. We shall see in the motivations report what route these judges took."

 

[Kauffer]

What.
They have She has escaped any further punishment for the murder of Meredith Kercher and you guys still aren’t happy. Suing the pants off everyone Let’s see how keen Knox is to take on a UK publication, for example, in a civil trial. But how about a compromise. If you can produce a ‘LEAVE AMANDA ALONE’ YT video at least as impressive as the ‘Britney’ original then I will give you a solemn undertaking; That I will never refer to her as a ‘Skanky sex killer from Seattle’. & If anyone else ever does I shall be very cross. Deal?

How does it feel to have invested so much in this hate campaign for years - to have been so utterly convinced that it would be successful and then for it all to evaporate on Friday in the blink of an eye? What will you do now? Look for some other target? Or try to find new and innovative ways of continuing to attack Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? What is there left for you - other than to confront the truth that your time has been so wasted?

 

[Samson]

And from Sallyoo over at the cesspit:

http://www.prounblock.me/index.php?...1bWJyaWEuaXQvZ3J1cHBvZWRpdG9yaWFsZXVtYnJpYS8=

Mignini: "I have never seen two sentences like this from the Cassazione"
"The case is over, but we wait for the motivations to find out what reasoning the judges used".
"The case is finished, we wait for the motivations of this decision which it is difficult to put into context from the judicial point of view. (...difficilmente inquadrabile dal punto di visto giuridico.)""

Mignini reminds us that of the 45 judges (lay and togaed, all processes) who have made decisions on the case, 34 of them found the defendants guilty. Mignini: "For the public it is (always) difficult to understand the overturning of judicial decisions, but in this case we have two sentences issued by two different sections of the Cassazione which are in open conflict. I have never come across anything like this in my career."

"This is unique, a conflict within the same process. (c'è un fatto unico, un conflitto nello stesso processo). How is it possible that in the same Court of Cassation one section can be so far away from another? One (section) sent the case back to Florence after annulling the appeal held in Perugia which they (the section) considered inadequate; the second (section) annulled this Florence appeal sentence which had addressed all the of the concerns expressed by the previous section. We shall see in the motivations report what route these judges took."

I am working on my proof according to the formal laws of modal logic that Mignini is certain that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, and knew that after he first interviewed Guede. This is work in progress.

 

[Kauffer]

And from Sallyoo over at the cesspit:

http://www.prounblock.me/index.php?...1bWJyaWEuaXQvZ3J1cHBvZWRpdG9yaWFsZXVtYnJpYS8=

Mignini: "I have never seen two sentences like this from the Cassazione"
"The case is over, but we wait for the motivations to find out what reasoning the judges used".
"The case is finished, we wait for the motivations of this decision which it is difficult to put into context from the judicial point of view. (...difficilmente inquadrabile dal punto di visto giuridico.)""

Mignini reminds us that of the 45 judges (lay and togaed, all processes) who have made decisions on the case, 34 of them found the defendants guilty. Mignini: "For the public it is (always) difficult to understand the overturning of judicial decisions, but in this case we have two sentences issued by two different sections of the Cassazione which are in open conflict. I have never come across anything like this in my career."

"This is unique, a conflict within the same process. (c'è un fatto unico, un conflitto nello stesso processo). How is it possible that in the same Court of Cassation one section can be so far away from another? One (section) sent the case back to Florence after annulling the appeal held in Perugia which they (the section) considered inadequate; the second (section) annulled this Florence appeal sentence which had addressed all the of the concerns expressed by the previous section. We shall see in the motivations report what route these judges took."

Well, he is right about the conflicts and probably right that there are no or few precedents for the turnaround. But Italy is not a country that relies much on precedent.

The motivation report will be eagerly read in scholarly circles too in order to understand what might have changed in Italy - perhaps permanently.

I am hoping for explicit human rights' references. If any adverse mention is made of matters relating to the interrogations, for example, they will effectively be conceding that the calunnia case is junk too.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't like that.

No, I don't like it either. I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss (and critique) their views and arguments about this case, and to criticise their hate/vindictiveness/nastiness etc where it occurs.

But I'm very opposed to this sort of approach of a form of "rogues' gallery", particularly where it's clearly involved an element of delving into those people's personal details.

 

[lonepinealex]

I am working on my proof according to the formal laws of modal logic that Mignini is certain that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, and knew that after he first interviewed Guede. This is work in progress.

I think Jim Clemente made a good point on Crime Time yesterday - he said that if they really thought Amanda was guilty the police wouldn't have stopped the interrogation at the point she implicated Lumumba, they'd have kept going. Or been working on her from the start.

 

[lonepinealex]

No, I don't like it either. I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss (and critique) their views and arguments about this case, and to criticise their hate/vindictiveness/nastiness etc where it occurs.

But I'm very opposed to this sort of approach of a form of "rogues' gallery", particularly where it's clearly involved an element of delving into those people's personal details.

I'm not sure what it's even meant to achieve. It's a poor show.

 

[katy_did]

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.

I'm not sure I agree here. In legal systems in which there's essentially only one trial, there's an assumption that this jury verdict is correct and it's very difficult to get it overturned. Is that really any better than a multi-stage system in which the possibility of contrasting verdicts at least exposes possible problems with the conviction?

It seems to me that the Italian system just exposes the fact that there's at least a certain level of arbitrariness in whether any given jury will convict - and I don't see any reason to assume that's limited to that system. Isn't it likely that if defendants in UK or US trials had automatic appeals, that at least some of those people currently convicted by the first (and only) court would actually be acquitted by the second? Is maintaining the illusion that this one jury verdict is almost unassailable (without any need for the jury to explain their reasoning at all, unlike in the Italian system) really any better? I'm not sure it is.

I think what you're saying is that the perception of justice in Italy suffers due to the possibility of different verdicts in a single case, but I'm not at all convinced the truth is somehow better served by a single stage system.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Totally agree here. The Machine posts on other cases as well, not just this one. I very much doubt he's connected to the family (he may well be in touch with them now, but I don't think he had any prior connection).

 

[Samson]

No, I don't like it either. I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss (and critique) their views and arguments about this case, and to criticise their hate/vindictiveness/nastiness etc where it occurs.

But I'm very opposed to this sort of approach of a form of "rogues' gallery", particularly where it's clearly involved an element of delving into those people's personal details.

Ah yes LondonJohn, at first blush I thought you had erred in usage, but no. I do admire your pervasive accuracy.

 

[Kauffer]

No, I don't like it either. I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss (and critique) their views and arguments about this case, and to criticise their hate/vindictiveness/nastiness etc where it occurs.

But I'm very opposed to this sort of approach of a form of "rogues' gallery", particularly where it's clearly involved an element of delving into those people's personal details.

If you had proof - certainty - of Harry Rag's identity, would you reveal it?

 

[katy_did]

I don't like that.

Wow. No, me neither.

I'm not sure what it's even meant to achieve. It's a poor show.

Agreed.