Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

And where did the money come from? John Kercher pleaded virtual poverty in his book. Family incomes would not have supported costs. Seems unlikely that donations made a huge difference or the book deal raised enough.

What did these people do? Sell property? So sad if that's true.

Was Maresca purely on a contingency? Has he received anything?

Over more than seven years, expert assistance, multiple lawyers, additional costs etc etc, would have likely reached more than 300,000 euros.

If the Kerchers spent significant sums (significant for them) on obtaining a conviction, in hopes of a big payday, their "investment" (emotional and financial) in obtaining convictions against Amanda and Raf must have been huge.

How unfair is it that they were misled in this way? It's quite unethical of Maresca and his associates.

I was also struck that right after the verdict were announced, Maresca was deflated and bitter. But his much younger associate piped up immediately and said it reflects well on the judiciary because shows that Italian justice is tilted in favor of defendants rights.

It seemed like the younger lawyer knew he was peddling crap as perfume, and was relieved to get off the shitewagon. Maresca though, has no conscience apparently.

 

[Strozzi]

ECHR has just ruled that Italian police's treatment of a protester during the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa amounted to "torture".

Please see more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32211364

 

[analemma]

Yes.
I could hardly have envisioned a better test for the epistemic reliability of courts than this case.

The final, five-years-too-late positive outcome notwithstanding, I do not consider this to have been a passing result.

komponisto
These are very interesting observations and analyses.
It appears that AK and RS were simply dealt either incompetant or biased judges in three of their five cases.

 

[Kauffer]

ECHR has just ruled that Italian police's treatment of a protester during the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa amounted to "torture".

Please see more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32211364

This is a massive judgement in a huge case. Italy has been told in no uncertain terms to deal with torture and has agreed there is an institutional problem.

 

[sept79]

komponisto
These are very interesting observations and analyses.
It appears that AK and RS were simply dealt either incompetant or biased judges in three of their five cases.

Let's not forget Judge Matteini, the ISC rubber stamping imprisonment instead of house arrest or bail, and there were a few other judges (can't remember names) who ruled against AK/RS.

 

[carbonjam72]

komponisto
These are very interesting observations and analyses.
It appears that AK and RS were simply dealt either incompetant or biased judges in three of their five cases.

The judges also refused to allow evidence to be tested that would disprove the prosecution's case, refused to require fair access to state's evidence, and refused to hold the prosecution responsible for destroyed evidence in police custody that would likely prove exculpable.

That, imo, can't be explained by mere 'unconscious bias'. Its not a legitimate true real process. Its kabuki theater. So I think at some point, we have to ask, Why?

 

[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.

I'm sorry, Grinder - I missed this when you wrote it:

'Loss of victim status' - Individual applications - Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria - ECHR - 2014

"36. For example, a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention which, according to him, took place in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (Oleksy v. Poland (dec.); Koç and Tambaş v. Turkey (dec.); Bouglame v. Belgium (dec.)), except for the complaint pertaining to the length of the proceedings in question (Osmanov and Husseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.))."

P.17

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf

Potentially, depending on what the Motivation Report states and what compensation is paid, there may be issues for the ECHR besides length of trial. The section of the ECHR Admissibility guide on "victim status" begins on page 16 of the quoted citation, and examination of the entire section suggests that in some cases acquittal alone may not be sufficient redress, and victim status may still exist in the view of ECHR.

(e) Loss of victim status
31. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. Hence, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings before the Court (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 179). In this regard, the applicant must be able to justify his or her status as a victim throughout the proceedings (Burdov v. Russia, § 30; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 80).
32. The issue as to whether a person may still claim to be the victim of an alleged violation of the Convention essentially entails on the part of the Court an ex post facto examination of his or her situation (ibid., § 82).
33. A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 180; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 115; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], § 128). Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.); Albayrak v. Turkey, § 32).
34. The applicant would remain a victim if the authorities have failed to acknowledge either expressly or in substance that there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights (ibid., § 33; Jensen v. Denmark (dec.)) even if the latter received some compensation (Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 88).
35. Moreover, the redress afforded must be appropriate and sufficient. This will depend on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the Convention violation in issue (Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 116).

 

[carbonjam72]

Let's not forget Judge Matteini, the ISC rubber stamping imprisonment instead of house arrest or bail, and there were a few other judges (can't remember names) who ruled against AK/RS.

There was another one, Richiardi? or something like that, after Matteini, that reconfirmed their pre-trial custody. And also refused to require the recovery of CCTV video cameras between Raf's apt and the cottage. Raf wrote in his book that when that happened, he gave up hope that the judicial process was fair.

 

[carbonjam72]

What's become of CoulsdonUK?

 

[carbonjam72]

delete

 

[LondonJohn]

The judges also refused to allow evidence to be tested that would disprove the prosecution's case, refused to require fair access to state's evidence, and refused to hold the prosecution responsible for destroyed evidence in police custody that would likely prove exculpable.

That, imo, can't be explained by mere 'unconscious bias'. Its not a legitimate true real process. Its kabuki theater. So I think at some point, we have to ask, Why?

Oh I think there's a satisfactory way to explain this sort of thing. It's that the interests of the Italian judiciary (up until the final SC ruling) were to preserve the integrity of the Italian judiciary. Not to determine objectively whether or not the preliminary convictions of Knox and/or Sollecito were safe.

I strongly suspect therefore that a number of phenomena manifest themselves from this overall mentality. The first is that the judiciary are automatically apt to disregard any new defence requests for evidence/testimony - such requests will be regarded as unnecessary fishing from the defence, and if the defence wanted to say anything then they should have done so in the court of first instance (another reason why I think that the demonstrable mistakes made in Knox's/Sollecito's defence in the Massei trial came to have huge implications and impacts later on).

The second is that all courts after the court of first instance (and actually, as it happens, the court of first instance itself!) are looking predominantly whether the first convicting court - and therefore the PM - has any dreadful holes in its fact-finding or reasoning. If the later courts can find no reason to disprove or discredit the findings of the lower courts, then it effectively just gets waved through. And while that's how the appellate process works in many common law systems, it's not how it's supposed to work in Italy. Appeal trials are meant to be de novo affairs in Italy, where the presumption of innocence still applies.

And thirdly, there's a factor which is (unsurprisingly) common to criminal justice systems everywhere: a strong desire not to a) hold the system up to the light too much, and b) admit to failings in the system (especially by overturning verdicts). In many enlightened justice systems there are ongoing attempts to address and correct this problem, By contrast, in Italy it seems that the combination of endemic abuse of legislation / criminal codes, extreme reactionary and politicised behaviours within the judiciary (from the top down), and a seeming total lack of proper accountability of the judiciary, are doing a good job of keeping the problem bad - or even possibly making it worse.

 

[Grinder]

Potentially, depending on what the Motivation Report states and what compensation is paid, there may be issues for the ECHR besides length of trial. The section of the ECHR Admissibility guide on "victim status" begins on page 16 of the quoted citation, and examination of the entire section suggests that in some cases acquittal alone may not be sufficient redress, and victim status may still exist in the view of ECHR.

Thanks to you and all contributing on this issue. The above makes sense to me, but as earlier stated, I have no training or special knowledge in the field.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hehehe. I see that the Idiots are just cottoning on to the fact that Guede might think he's been thrown some sort of lifeline by the recent SC ruling, and that he's lodged an application for a review on that basis.

They may or may not realise that Guede has a strong vested interest in trying to open up and exploit a loophole here. It's even less clear whether they realise the current state of affairs. After all, all we currently know is that the SC acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the basis that there was no evidence of their participation in the murder. We won't know until the SC report whether or not the SC, in making this ruling, concluded that Guede had no accomplices, or that he had accomplices that were not (provably) Knox or Sollecito. And we also don't know whether the SC will modify its ruling from Guede's trial (I'm suggesting that a suitable modification would be that the murder could have been committed either by Guede alone or by Guede with others (and the evidence is consistent with either), and that Guede's guilt is confirmed in either eventuality).

And I'm pretty sure the pro-guilt folk do not - or will not - understand how and why the SC in Guede's trials came to rubber-stamp the "multiple attackers" narrative anyhow. But here's a hint to the pro-guilt commentators: it has something to do with the fact that both the prosecution and the defence in Guede's trials required the courts to find that there were multiple attackers (albeit for different reasons).

Happy thinking!

 

[Antony]

The judges also refused to allow evidence to be tested that would disprove the prosecution's case, refused to require fair access to state's evidence, and refused to hold the prosecution responsible for destroyed evidence in police custody that would likely prove exculpable.

That, imo, can't be explained by mere 'unconscious bias'. Its not a legitimate true real process. Its kabuki theater. So I think at some point, we have to ask, Why?

It's because the police and the prosecution were "not on trial".

 

[Grinder]

Hehehe. I see that the Idiots are just cottoning on to the fact that Guede might think he's been thrown some sort of lifeline by the recent SC ruling, and that he's lodged an application for a review on that basis.

They may or may not realise that Guede has a strong vested interest in trying to open up and exploit a loophole here. It's even less clear whether they realise the current state of affairs. After all, all we currently know is that the SC acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the basis that there was no evidence of their participation in the murder. We won't know until the SC report whether or not the SC, in making this ruling, concluded that Guede had no accomplices, or that he had accomplices that were not (provably) Knox or Sollecito. And we also don't know whether the SC will modify its ruling from Guede's trial (I'm suggesting that a suitable modification would be that the murder could have been committed either by Guede alone or by Guede with others (and the evidence is consistent with either), and that Guede's guilt is confirmed in either eventuality).

And I'm pretty sure the pro-guilt folk do not - or will not - understand how and why the SC in Guede's trials came to rubber-stamp the "multiple attackers" narrative anyhow. But here's a hint to the pro-guilt commentators: it has something to do with the fact that both the prosecution and the defence in Guede's trials required the courts to find that there were multiple attackers (albeit for different reasons).

Happy thinking!

I saw the recent links to articles saying Guede is appealing his sentence but the PGP have been squealing about it from just after the verdict.

Yummi wrote this on March 29:

3. If the Guede verdict is reviewed and changed, if there is no evidence of multiple attackers, then he could not be convicted at all. There is no chance he could be convicted as a lone perpetrator. If there is no evidence that multiple attackers were there - we know 100% there is of course - but assume there isn't, then try to imagine if there could be evidence that he did everything alone: zero evidence that he broke the window, zero evidence that he could perform all physical actions alone and leave those traces, zero evidence he walked back to lock the door or washed himself in the bathroom on the murder scene, zero evidence he came back to alter the scene. Absolutely zero possibility to present a consistent scenario on that evidence. Guede cannot be accused of this.​

If the reports are accurate, how would this retrial work? Would the kids participate this time as a civil side suit (assuming they sue Rudi for accusations) to make sure their interests are put forward i.e. lone wolf.

 

[analemma]

Guede Calls for Retrial

Check this out


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030441/The-man-convicted-murder-Meredith-Kercher-says-seek-retrial-Amanda-Knox-cleared.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11522333/Rudy-Guede-calls-for-retrial-after-Amanda-Knox-acquitted-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

Retrial would be interesting.

 

[Grinder]

Check this out


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3030441/The-man-convicted-murder-Meredith-Kercher-says-seek-retrial-Amanda-Knox-cleared.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11522333/Rudy-Guede-calls-for-retrial-after-Amanda-Knox-acquitted-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

Retrial would be interesting.

“Of course wanting something and it actually happening are two very different things. ”
Walter Biscotti, Guede’s Perugia-based lawyer, flatly denies any plan to request a retrial.
“Those parliamentarians are not allowed to refer anything said by an inmate and I have asked for them to be censured. We are waiting to see the high court’s reasoning.”​

I doubt Biscotti will file. Guede is just about done with his sentence and he won't be cleared totally if at all.

 

[analemma]

I saw the recent links to articles saying Guede is appealing his sentence but the PGP have been squealing about it from just after the verdict.

Yummi wrote this on March 29:

3. If the Guede verdict is reviewed and changed, if there is no evidence of multiple attackers, then he could not be convicted at all. There is no chance he could be convicted as a lone perpetrator. If there is no evidence that multiple attackers were there - we know 100% there is of course - but assume there isn't, then try to imagine if there could be evidence that he did everything alone: zero evidence that he broke the window, zero evidence that he could perform all physical actions alone and leave those traces, zero evidence he walked back to lock the door or washed himself in the bathroom on the murder scene, zero evidence he came back to alter the scene. Absolutely zero possibility to present a consistent scenario on that evidence. Guede cannot be accused of this.​

If the reports are accurate, how would this retrial work? Would the kids participate this time as a civil side suit (assuming they sue Rudi for accusations) to make sure their interests are put forward i.e. lone wolf.

I wonder if the Yummi/Mach assesment of the outcome of a retrial is as accurate and well informed as the other tidbits of "insider knowledge" that Yummi/Mach has given to us over the years.
I would think that if this case were retried after the ISC motivations come out the final result would not be a mere 16 years.
Maybe they will test the semen stain in a retrial.
Rudy the murderer/rapist would be wise to let sleepng dogs lie.

 

[analemma]

“Of course wanting something and it actually happening are two very different things. ”
Walter Biscotti, Guede’s Perugia-based lawyer, flatly denies any plan to request a retrial.
“Those parliamentarians are not allowed to refer anything said by an inmate and I have asked for them to be censured. We are waiting to see the high court’s reasoning.”​

I doubt Biscotti will file. Guede is just about done with his sentence and he won't be cleared totally if at all.

Some real interesting tidbits in this one:
Once freed he wants to find a job in Italy and move forward. 'I want to prove to everyone that I am not a monster and forget my past. '

 

[Bill Williams]

Hehehe. I see that the Idiots are just cottoning on to the fact that Guede might think he's been thrown some sort of lifeline by the recent SC ruling, and that he's lodged an application for a review on that basis.

They may or may not realise that Guede has a strong vested interest in trying to open up and exploit a loophole here. It's even less clear whether they realise the current state of affairs. After all, all we currently know is that the SC acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the basis that there was no evidence of their participation in the murder. We won't know until the SC report whether or not the SC, in making this ruling, concluded that Guede had no accomplices, or that he had accomplices that were not (provably) Knox or Sollecito. And we also don't know whether the SC will modify its ruling from Guede's trial (I'm suggesting that a suitable modification would be that the murder could have been committed either by Guede alone or by Guede with others (and the evidence is consistent with either), and that Guede's guilt is confirmed in either eventuality).

And I'm pretty sure the pro-guilt folk do not - or will not - understand how and why the SC in Guede's trials came to rubber-stamp the "multiple attackers" narrative anyhow. But here's a hint to the pro-guilt commentators: it has something to do with the fact that both the prosecution and the defence in Guede's trials required the courts to find that there were multiple attackers (albeit for different reasons).

Happy thinking!

And do not forget.....

....given that Rudy's process was a series of fast-track trials, there was no evidence presented. Fast Track trials are essentially a regular trial with the evidence phase missing.

"Multiple Attackers" was merely an assertion which both sides, in Rudy's process, accepted.

The first, very first evidentiary testing of that process was the Massei trial against RS and AK in 2009. At that trial 8 of 9 experts said that a single attacker could not be ruled out. In conceding that, Massei said he found for "multiple attackers" on other grounds (than the forensics), namely that he'd found AK and RS guilty!!!!!

Multiple attackers has never been sustained by the evidence - much less at Rudy's process where no evidence was presented.