Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Antony]

Kauffer,
I agree that the ECHR had an influence upon the case that led to the result we saw on 3/27/15, but I see the reasoning behind the ISC decision a little differently.
It seemed to me that the way things were going there would probably be an affirmation of both cases, followed by a submittal of all cases to the ECHR. After the conviction, I foresaw a long extradition fight that would eventually be lost and both of them having to spend perhaps five years in prison while the case worked its way at a snail’s pace thru the ECHR.
The eventual thunderous ECHR decision would then overturned the convictions and reveal to everyone, no matter how stupid, that everything the Italian police and courts did was aimed at protecting Italian butts.
The US State Department would just HAVE to say to Italy “Look here, we extradited an innocent American citizen at great domestic political expense to conform to our treaty. Now we have egg on our face because everyone realizes that we were too stupid to see that everything that your court system has been doing for the past 15 years is ONLY to protect some psychotic Italian police and prosecutors from facing justice.”
The State Department would demand the release of the mistreated American citizen and hope that the sorry mess would not endanger relations between the two countries.
I admit allowing this scenario to develop would require incredible stupidity on the part of the Italian powers that be, but the stubborn and CYA tone of the ISC acquittal and Nencini conviction seemed to justify this disappointing assessment of the Italian judiciary.
JMO

It's interesting to speculate as to how this would have played out if the latest ISC panel had been as stubborn as the previous one, but I doubt that the US would ever have extradited.

 

[analemma]

It's interesting to speculate as to how this would have played out if the latest ISC panel had been as stubborn as the previous one, but I doubt that the US would ever have extradited.

Fortunately, we will not ever know, but I was not as optimistic.
JMO

 

[carbonjam72]

Italy's judges do the best they can, imo

Yes SN, Barbi, and CH have posted some increadably evil and obviously out of date rants in the last week: I am amazed that their editors, if they have any, allow them to continue with these zombie dances.

delightful phrasing.

I disagree with the grim assessment of the Italian judiciary though, at least in part.

I saw the March 2013 reversal of Hellman as playing political defense, since Burlesconi's forces were teeing up a politically motivated investigation against the judiciary as whole.

To get to a place where cassation could safely dispose of the case, they needed to make peace with the Burlesconi's people, which they did, AND needed to be in a position where they were seen as restoring justice (2015), not confirming their own egregious incompetence (2013).

I know many posters like to comment about the influence of ECHR, but I think that is of secondary concern. I think Italy's judiciary follows ECHR because its part of the job, and the recognized goals of the justice system. They aren't scared of ECHR, they support ECHR to the best of their ability.

The idea that the judiciary is just thoroughly corrupt, I just don't think is correct or really fair. There may well be stupidity, incompetence, even a taint of corruption in places, but there has to be a moral anchor somewhere in the system. Otherwise, it all goes spinning out of control because there's nothing to pull everything back to the center.

Even though its speculative, I'll add that Nina Burleigh's report struck me as persuasive, that Amanda would never so much as be listed as a fugitive, nor spend one more day in jail in connection with any conviction in an Italian court. No one watching this had any confidence in the process. When an Italian prosecutor argues before their supreme court that any citizen(s) engaged in a "careful clean-up" of DNA, fingerprints, and foot prints in wet blood, leaving behind only one person's who admits to being there - its no longer a judicial outcome that any government, country or treaty could ever be obligated to recognize as legitimate.

 

[Grinder]

It's interesting to speculate as to how this would have played out if the latest ISC panel had been as stubborn as the previous one, but I doubt that the US would ever have extradited.

Does anyone know if there is precedent for extradition while the case is before the ECHR?

 

[Grinder]

Fortunately, we will not ever know, but I was not as optimistic.
JMO

Is it known for sure that the ECHR will not review the case at all? The Calumnia will be for sure, right?

 

[Samson]

Does anyone know if there is precedent for extradition while the case is before the ECHR?

On another note, was anyone surprised that Raffaele had a police convoy shadowing him as he awaited the verdict? I was, because I thought they would ignore him till they had congruency with the fate of the American.

 

[analemma]

delightful phrasing.

I disagree with the grim assessment of the Italian judiciary though, at least in part.

I saw the March 2013 reversal of Hellman as playing political defense, since Burlesconi's forces were teeing up a politically motivated investigation against the judiciary as whole.

To get to a place where cassation could safely dispose of the case, they needed to make peace with the Burlesconi's people, which they did, AND needed to be in a position where they were seen as restoring justice (2015), not confirming their own egregious incompetence (2013).

I know many posters like to comment about the influence of ECHR, but I think that is of secondary concern. I think Italy's judiciary follows ECHR because its part of the job, and the recognized goals of the justice system. They aren't scared of ECHR, they support ECHR to the best of their ability.

The idea that the judiciary is just thoroughly corrupt, I just don't think is correct or really fair. There may well be stupidity, incompetence, even a taint of corruption in places, but there has to be a moral anchor somewhere in the system. Otherwise, it all goes spinning out of control because there's nothing to pull everything back to the center.

Even though its speculative, I'll add that Nina Burleigh's report struck me as persuasive, that Amanda would never so much as be listed as a fugitive, nor spend one more day in jail in connection with any conviction in an Italian court. No one watching this had any confidence in the process. When an Italian prosecutor argues before their supreme court that any citizen(s) engaged in a "careful clean-up" of DNA, fingerprints, and foot prints in wet blood, leaving behind only one person's who admits to being there - its no longer a judicial outcome that any government, country or treaty could ever be obligated to recognize as legitimate.

Thank you, CJ72
I guess it all depends upon how you view the 2013 ISC decision and your interperation strikes me as a valid.
The 3/27 ISC decision did much, for me, to dispell the convictions that I read into the decision in 2013, so it is probably must accurate to say that I no longer see the Italian judiciary as corrupt(or all the other names I called it), but now just see it as an organization that was motivated by factors which I either did not recognize or did not understand.
Note that Frank S has a different take on 2013 than either of us but his could also be correct.
I can agree that they are not afraid of the ECHR, but I am not convinced that they would be comfortable enough to ignore an ECHR decision that put the Italian State Department in the situation that I described earlier.
I would appreciate it if you could give me the URL for the Nina Burleigh report you referenced.

 

[Kauffer]

It's interesting to speculate as to how this would have played out if the latest ISC panel had been as stubborn as the previous one, but I doubt that the US would ever have extradited.

I agree.

But, in terms of the decision, the conclusion I came to was that if, hypothetically, there had been a choice between a rehashed appellate trial and a confirmation of the guilty verdicts, then, (possibly counter intuitively), the confirmation would likely have been better - to draw the poison, so to speak and to remove jurisdiction of the cases from the Italian judiciary. The immediate short term consequences would have been painful, but in the long term would probably have led, through the ECHR, to the eventual dismissal of the cases sooner, whilst also permitting the ECHR to record the wholesale nature of trial and other violations - something that they will now not have an opportunity to adjudicate - at least, not comprehensively.

But, obviously, the acquittals were, whilst unexpected, wholly the right judgement and the best one of all.

 

[Kauffer]

Is it known for sure that the ECHR will not review the case at all? The Calumnia will be for sure, right?

Yes - the calunnia application has been before the court since November 2013. It is unaffected by the murder and other acquittals.

As for the murder case, please see my earlier post - 3276

 

[carbonjam72]

What shade of lipstick do pigs prefer?

Thank you, CJ72
I guess it all depends upon how you view the 2013 ISC decision and your interperation strikes me as a valid.
The 3/27 ISC decision did much, for me, to dispell the convictions that I read into the decision in 2013, so it is probably must accurate to say that I no longer see the Italian judiciary as corrupt(or all the other names I called it), but now just see it as an organization that was motivated by factors which I either did not recognize or did not understand.
Note that Frank S has a different take on 2013 than either of us but his could also be correct.
I can agree that they are not afraid of the ECHR, but I am not convinced that they would be comfortable enough to ignore an ECHR decision that put the Italian State Department in the situation that I described earlier.
I would appreciate it if you could give me the URL for the Nina Burleigh report you referenced.

It's from Nina's recent article from Newsweek, it came out just a few days before the March 25 cassation hearing.

Also apologies to Kompo, for not fishing out the article where Judge Hellman states he regrets not acquitting Amanda on the Calunnia charge as well as on the other charges. But that would have been either right after the Nencini conviction, or right after Nencini's motivation was released (I think the latter when Hellman compared it to a thriller or a movie script - gotta love Hellman).

Interesting both Hellman and Burleigh thought it was a virtual certainty the convictions would be confirmed by cassation this time.

Frank's view also sees the two cassation panels in 2013 and 2015 as of a single united mind, working through a consistent methodology of careful review.

But as Kompo posted here, the mindsets of the various courts have been anything but in accord;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10572082&postcount=3166

and here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10572403&postcount=3192

KOMPO: It's been quite a frustrating experience trying to get people to understand just how bad the Cassation 2013 ruling was. I heard (and continue to hear) people talking about "sending the case down for further review", as if were an administrative matter, or as if they somehow wanted to know what further evidence would reveal. No. They issued the strongest possible ruling they could theoretically have issued against Knox and Sollecito. That is, they

- overturned Hellmann's acquittal of AK and RS on the charge of murder;
- confirmed Hellmann's conviction of AK on the charge of calumny; and
- overturned Hellmann's rejection of the aggravating circumstance on the charge of calumny

It was literally the closest possible thing they could have done to ordering the Nencini court to convict the defendants. The only reason they didn't actually write that is because it wouldn't technically have been legal for them to do so.

If they were merely being scrupulous, they would have overturned the entirety of Hellmann, including all the considerations related to calumny. Instead, they specifically left that in place, and -- moreover -- ordered the new court to consider increasing the sentence. How much more of a hint do you think Nencini needed?

So while I have the highest regard for Frank and all the work he's done, I think he is constrained from what he can say and publish, and is somewhat obligated to, 'put lipstick on a pig'.
Who knows if Frank harbors other less widely verbalized beliefs. All we do know is that virtually every experienced lawyer and journalist covering the case thought a confirmation of convictions was assured. Frank is a journalist. I'm not, so my opinion - and others here who shared a belief that a full acquittal was in the winds - doesn't really count in the same way, if we're going to be straight about it.

Glad it worked out though. This has been an incredible relief, and all considered, a memorably rewarding jaunt on this internet thingy, which i suspect is here to stay.

 

[bagels]

I was one of the naive clueless people komponisto is talking about in that quote. I just assumed the 2013 Cassation ruling was some Italian procedural silliness and couldn't possibly be a total dismantling of the acquittal. I always figured that corruption/insanity in the court system started at the bottom and tended to dissipate the higher up you got.

It was only until semi-recently that I came to fully appreciate just how devastating the Chieffi court was. Nencini dismissing every defense request and convicting was of course a big clue.

I think it's reasonable to say the students came really close to a final conviction.

 

[Grinder]

Really, it is un remedied violations that they would pursue and the excessive length of their trials is one that will not be remedied by Italy, for example. Other major issues, such as 'equality of arms' based on the non disclosure of evidence, are no longer relevant because they have been acquitted. Acquittal remedies most violations. But they can make any application they like - the ECHR will consider each individual claim on the merits.

I ask, not as a challenge, if you have special knowledge in this arena? I would think, with no special knowledge, that issues of disclosure etc. wouldn't be washed clean by the final acquittal.

 

[Bill Williams]

I was one of the naive clueless people komponisto is talking about in that quote. I just assumed the 2013 Cassation ruling was some Italian procedural silliness and couldn't possibly be a total dismantling of the acquittal. I always figured that corruption/insanity in the court system started at the bottom and tended to dissipate the higher up you got.

It was only until semi-recently that I came to fully appreciate just how devastating the Chieffi court was. Nencini dismissing every defense request and convicting was of course a big clue.

I think it's reasonable to say the students came really close to a final conviction.

Me, I am going to stubbornly cling to some of my cluelessness.

The one theoretical salvation to AK and RS is that (IIUC) Cassazione cannot overturn an acquittal - all they can do is as Section 1 did on 2013, refer it back to the second level with comments. It is a frightening thought (at this stage post March 2015) to think that it was only constitutional convention in Italy that prevented a complete miscarriage in March 2013.

Still, from this point of view it is not clear 100% that Section 1 in 2013 was ordering a directed verdict from what turned out to be the Nencini court in Florence.

(The fly in this ointment is the comments Chieffi made in his motivations that reversed the burden of proof on contamination in DNA labs. That judicial-gaffe was not trivial, and Chieffi knew it. As he said, to accept C&V's critics of this one police-lab, Stefanoni's, had the potential to call into question all DNA-related convictions since 1986!)

Still - for Section 1 to order a test of Sample 36I is perhaps one of the few legitimate grounds it had for overturning outright acquittals.. But as soon as the electrons are dry on that statement, why did they not further order a test of the presumed semen stain on the pillow?

However, for Section one to direct the new Florence court to reconsider the "sex-game gone wrong" as a motive, suggests a rebuke not so much to the Hellmann court, but to the Massei, first-instance court. It was the Massei court in 2009 which started this grand tradition of ignoring completely what was presented by the prosecution, and then proceeding to invent out of whole cloth their own motive (for Massei: an inexplicable choice for evil, where AK and RS under the influence of drugs joined in with what was essentially Rudy's motive).

So what did the Nencini court do with this direction - not necessarily a directed finding about the sex-game gone wrong, but at least investigate it.... Section 1 wanted to go back to Mignini's Dec 2009 closing, with the original theory of the crime, as at first-instance trial. That theory, crazy or not crazy, was what was what - and was buried under judicial imagination ever since.

Nencini continued Massei's grand tradition of simply making stuff up. And why not.... the direction about motive from Cassazione was really aimed at the new prosecutor - Crini. What did Crini do with it? He ignored it completely; it was pooh in the toilet which led to mass slaughter for Crini. Obviously. Look at all the college campuses worldwide when some 20-year-old fresh from mommy's house doesn't know how to clean a foreign-style toilet!

So when Section 5 in March 2015 takes a look at what Section 1 ordered two years ago, it is clear that neither Crini nor Nencini paid much heed, nor took much direction from Cassazione anyway.

Rather than doing Section 1's bidding, Nencini, particularly, just went bat-pooh crazy on everyone. What then was Section 5 to do? Kick it upstairs for a United Sections hearing and come to the same result? Kick it back downstairs to Florence or Milan or Turin, and risk another appeals' level Judge like Nencini who wished only to continue this grand fiction tradition?

The mistake of thinking that Section 1 in 2013 reversed acquittals and sent it back down only to fine-tune some pieces for an eventual acquittal ignores too much - not the least of which is that if Sample 36I had been Meredith's, then the whole landscape would have been different, and many of the innocentisti here on ISF would have become guilters. Same if the presumed-semen on the pillow had been tested and turned out to be Raffaele's.

None of that turned out to be true.

So I cling to cluelessness. Section 1 of Cassazione, Nencini's court, Crini's re-prosecution (have you read his clueless summation?), and even Sfarzo's recent comments are so, so, so, so......

Italian. Who of us are not clueless against that?

 

[Numbers]

The topic of why the trials of AK and RS were started and continued in the face of no or only fake evidence is often brought up.

Thanks to someone else who has not wished to post, AFAIK, I was directed to look at an Italian law, CP 377-bis. This is a criminal, not merely a procedural, law. Anyone found guilty of CP 377-bis could be sentenced to 2 to 6 years of imprisonment; this would potentially include police that induced someone to make a false statement to a judicial authority (such as another police officer, a prosecutor, or a judge). I recently reviewed this law in thread 13 (post 2431, IIRC.)

Here is a copy of that post:
There are really three categories {of the effects of laws}:
1. Inadmissible (applies to evidence obtained, for example, by illegal means)
2. Illegal (applies to actions specifically not allowed by law)
3. Criminal (apples to some, but not all, illegal actions)

In this case, the statements produced during interrogation and while in police custody were inadmissible under Italian law (under but not limited to, for example, CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188) and Constitution, and not usable for a trial leading to conviction under the ECHR case-law (Salduz, Brusco, Dayanan, and Ibrahim). The actions of the police were illegal, but only some of their actions, such as threats and violence to produce a false statement by a person to be given to a judicial authority, would be subject to criminal charges and penalties (under but not limited to, for example, CP Article 377-bis). The continued framing (official misconduct) directed against Amanda and Raffaele were likely to have been motivated by a desire by the police and their colleagues in the judiciary to avoid criminal charges being brought against the police. If convicted of such charges, an individual could be sentenced, IIRC, to prison for a term of 2 to 6 years.

CP Article 377-bis
Google Translation

Art. 377-bis.
Induction to not make statements or to make false statements to the court [judicial authority]. (1)

Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, leads to not make statements or to make false statements to the person called to testify before the court [judicial authority] evidence in the criminal proceedings, when it has the right to remain silent, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

(1) Article inserted by art. L. 20 of March 1, 2001, n. 63

 

[Bill Williams]

Speaking of imagination, here is Machiavelli's most recent conspiracy theory.

From .ORG, before it closes.

"Sources confirm that the has been a direct intervention from political forces. The ploy was Bruno within the panel, while Marasca tried to resist for several hours.
The interference came from the American Embassy, and the power who enforced it is the Italian Partito Democratico.
The problem was not to embarrass the Democratic candidate at the next presidential elections.
There are two people, one American and one Italian, who worked to the solution, and they are people related to US intelligence. The political interference is similar under some aspects to the Shalabayeva affair, but more extended and complex."​

Sources.

Sources confirm.

Sources confirm that.

It is no wonder why Machiavelli will not post this on a skeptics site.

 

[Desert Fox]

Still brings up if Nencini did not write his verdict to be as crazy as possible so it would have to be rejected?

 

[Bill Williams]

The topic of why the trials of AK and RS were started and continued in the face of no or only fake evidence is often brought up.
Thanks to someone else who has not wished to post, IFAIK, an Italian law, I was directed to look at CP 377-bis. This is a criminal, not merely a procedural law. Anyone found guilty of CP 377-bis could be sentenced to 2 to 6 years of imprisonment; this would potentially include police that induced someone to make a false statement to a judicial authority (such as another police officer, a prosecutor, or a judge). I recently reviewed this law in thread 13 (post 2431, IIRC.)

Here is a copy of that post:
There are really three categories {of the effects of laws}:
1. Inadmissible (applies to evidence obtained, for example, by illegal means)
2. Illegal (applies to actions specifically not allowed by law)
3. Criminal (apples to some, but not all, illegal actions)

In this case, the statements produced during interrogation and while in police custody were inadmissible under Italian law (under but not limited to, for example, CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188) and Constitution, and not usable for a trial leading to conviction under the ECHR case-law (Salduz, Brusco, Dayanan, and Ibrahim). The actions of the police were illegal, but only some of their actions, such as threats and violence to produce a false statement by a person to be given to a judicial authority, would be subject to criminal charges and penalties (under but not limited to, for example, CP Article 377-bis). The continued framing (official misconduct) directed against Amanda and Raffaele were likely to have been motivated by a desire by the police and their colleagues in the judiciary to avoid criminal charges being brought against the police. If convicted of such charges, an individual could be sentenced, IIRC, to prison for a term of 2 to 6 years.

CP Article 377-bis
Google Translation

Art. 377-bis.
Induction to not make statements or to make false statements to the court [judicial authority]. (1)

Unless the act constitutes a more serious offense, anyone with violence or threats, or offers or promises of money or other benefits, leads to not make statements or to make false statements to the person called to testify before the court [judicial authority] evidence in the criminal proceedings, when it has the right to remain silent, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

(1) Article inserted by art. L. 20 of March 1, 2001, n. 63

Not just fake evidence, but as one poster here on ISF put it, judicially manufactured evidence.

Meaning, not evidence brought into the courtroom by prosecutors, but from the imaginations of judges who postulated what could be. Then when you get enough of that, it creates a centre of gravity all its own.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Speaking of imagination, here is Machiavelli's most recent conspiracy theory.

From .ORG, before it closes.

​

Sources.

Sources confirm.

Sources confirm that.

It is no wonder why Machiavelli will not post this on a skeptics site.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Machiavelli was saying before the Hellman verdict that there was no chance of acquittal. Then they were acquitted. Then he said there was no chance of acquittal before the Supreme Court verdict, and they were acquitted. So, maybe his inside knowledge, and any of his analysis for that matter, has never had an credibility. He was 100% wrong twice.

 

[Numbers]

I ask, not as a challenge, if you have special knowledge in this arena? I would think, with no special knowledge, that issues of disclosure etc. wouldn't be washed clean by the final acquittal.

This will likely depend on whether or not the CSC MR specifies in detail the violations of rights. If it does the ECHR may not choose or have a mandate to revisit those issues, If the MR does not, the ECHR may choose to point out the violations if AK and/or RS lodge an application, even though there was an acquittal.

 

[anglolawyer]

How would these sources know? Who would they be? And why are they so bad at keeping it a darn secret that every Tom, Dick and Harry knows about it? I bet it was one of Quennell's legion of spies who dug this up.