Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RoseMontague]

I don't have any problem with addressing the points raised. I think there is a cogent and watertight case to be made for acquittal (and probable total innocence), and I see no issue with addressing any challenges or requests for clarification.

And besides that, if any questions were raised that were difficult to address, I'd be very interested in such an occurrence in and of itself. I have no problem in having my position tested - in fact, I welcome it - regardless of what one might suspect the motivation of the inquisitor to be.

Go for it then, LJ. I left this discussion previously because I was sick of dealing with the games the ones on the side of guilt like to play. It's time I focused on other cases of injustice.

 

[anglolawyer]

Problem with studying a case on paper, is that it is not the same as being at a trial, where what seemed easy to solve on paper, can take on a very different complexion. That is one reason the higher appeal courts leave the evidence & facts found in the First Instant alone.

And, of course, defendants are entitled to habeus corpus.
If there is a question mark, then more witnesses/evidence issues are called, as though it were an extension of the trial.

Am still revisiting the docs. I will let you know what I think, bearing in mind your comments.

Which jurisdiction do you have in mind when saying that? Habeus corpus is for most purposes a dead letter in England and Wales (where you claim to come from). It is most certainly not an avenue of criminal appeal for which its use would very likely be regarded as an abuse of process. As far as I know, Italy has never heard of it, what with it being a form of common law writ.

Kaosium already explained to you that this trial did not take place within a common law system. Thus, Hellman's court was not concerned merely with the safety or adequacy of the Massei conviction. The appeal was effectively de novo. If you want an example of an appeal court exceeding its bounds then a much better one is afforded by the Chieffi appeal which did indeed descend into factual matters which are, ostensibly anyway, not the province of the ISC.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Curatolo was heard in the Hellmann court

I can see that if it were, say, her boyfriend's then discretion might be to protect his privacy.

One wishes someone had made such a suggestion to Ms. Nadeau before she provided us with some of the details that she did.

On the subject of witnesses, the Hellmann court heard Curatolo, but the SCC did not. So if one court should have deferred to another, then the SCC should not have tried to rehabilitate Curatolo's testimony. MOO.

 

[Strozzi]

I can see that if it were, say, her boyfriend's then discretion might be to protect his privacy.

That is a false argument. It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that the putative semen was deposited in a wet blood stain. That time-stamps it to the time of the murder. It was not deposited on the pillowcase on a different day. It could not have been the victim's boyfriend as he was far away on the night fresh semen and fresh blood were mixed on the pillow case.

The stain produced a fluorescence when passed under a fluoroscope and had observable physical characteristics consistent with semen fluid. It should have been confirmed as semen if that is what it is, which it appears to be. It was found on a pillow placed under the hips of a naked woman who was stripped and sexually abused prior or post death by her murderer.

If it was Raffaele's, the prosecution and defense (including Amanda's defense) had a right to know this.

If it was Guede's deposit, the prosecution and defense had a right to know this.

If it was to a different (secretly-identified? or unidentified) male, the prosecution and defense had a right to know this.

What has occurred is that the prosecution and their (supposedly impartial) police forensic staff are suppressing evidence that may be exculpatory to Raffaele and, by extension, Amanda. They were on trial and facing penalty of 25+ years in prison for a crime of which they are innocent. Both Raffaele and Amanda have a right under the Italian Constitution to the evidence. This evidence has been suppressed by the prosecution and police forensic staff. The Kercher family through their attorney also sought to deny Raffaele and Amanda access to this important exculpatory evidence.

 

[Kauffer]

Which jurisdiction do you have in mind when saying that? Habeus corpus is for most purposes a dead letter in England and Wales (where you claim to come from). It is most certainly not an avenue of criminal appeal for which its use would very likely be regarded as an abuse of process. As far as I know, Italy has never heard of it, what with it being a form of common law writ.
Kaosium already explained to you that this trial did not take place within a common law system. Thus, Hellman's court was not concerned merely with the safety or adequacy of the Massei conviction. The appeal was effectively de novo. If you want an example of an appeal court exceeding its bounds then a much better one is afforded by the Chieffi appeal which did indeed descend into factual matters which are, ostensibly anyway, not the province of the ISC.

They have a form of it, provided in Article 13 of the constitution.

http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/statico/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf

 

[Kauffer]

I can see that if it were, say, her boyfriend's then discretion might be to protect his privacy.

I find this a most extraordinary comment. Are you suggesting that the prosecution might test a sample and withhold the result of the test from the defence and from the court because you think it is reasonable to suppose that in a criminal trial, the privacy rights of non indicted persons trump the discovery rights of defendants and, moreover, that the prosecution is legally empowered to make such a judgement and act on it?

 

[anglolawyer]

They have a form of it, provided in Article 13 of the constitution.

http://www.quirinale.it/qrnw/statico/costituzione/pdf/costituzione_inglese.pdf

Thanks for the link. That Italy's constitution enshrines the right not to be deprived of one's liberty without due process of law is unsurprising. There is more to habeus corpus than that, though, certainly in the US (but not in the UK) where it furnishes a parallel path of appeal along side the more familiar one I guess because the yanks looked at the already tremendous possibilities afforded by their federal system and decided they weren't complicated enough

 

[carbonjam72]

One wishes someone had made such a suggestion to Ms. Nadeau before she provided us with some of the details that she did.

On the subject of witnesses, the Hellmann court heard Curatolo, but the SCC did not. So if one court should have deferred to another, then the SCC should not have tried to rehabilitate Curatolo's testimony. MOO.

Numbers can do better, but I'm pretty sure this was mentioned in one of the ECHR cases provided. The highest, court to hear a witness gets the last word on the credibility of a witness, IIRC.

 

[Dan O.]

That is a false argument. It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that the putative semen was deposited in a wet blood stain. That time-stamps it to the time of the murder. It was not deposited on the pillowcase on a different day. It could not have been the victim's boyfriend as he was far away on the night fresh semen and fresh blood were mixed on the pillow case.

I think you are overstating the fact. I don't think the transferred semen and blood stains overlapped. At most they were on separate parts of the same shoeprint but even that is not certain.

If it was to a different (secretly-identified? or unidentified) male, the prosecution and defense had a right to know this.

If it were Mignini's or one of his boys the prosecution would have covered it up and the defense would never know it was tested.

 

[Grinder]

Once again, you're wrongly assuming that the appeals-level process in Italian criminal justice is similar to that in England & Wales (or US) criminal justice. It is not the same at all.

The appeal-level trial in Italy in cases such as this is essentially a retrial. It reconsiders all the evidence and testimony placed into the record in the first-level trial, and can introduce new evidence and testimony as required. There is an entirely new set of arguments from the prosecution and defence, and the court reaches a definitive verdict (i.e. it's not a case of either upholding the first court's verdict or dismissing the first court's verdict.) The appeal-level court will naturally take the opinion of the first court into consideration, but the appeal-level trial is, in a very real sense, a trial of the facts (and ALL the facts) as well as the law.

As many have said, this system actually, in practice, renders the role of the first court pretty unimportant in the wider scheme of things. In fact, one might almost consider the role (and the verdict) of the first court as equivalent to a habeas corpus hearing (or perhaps a Grand Jury investigation in the US). The actual verdict that counts, in terms of findings of fact, is the appeal-level verdict. It's this verdict (and its reasoning) which then goes up to the Supreme Court for final analysis.

Perhaps Vixen comparing Nencini to Massei would demonstrate to her that the appeal court does far more than just check procedure boxes. The ISC had them test a sample and other evidence was clearly discussed. A brand new motive was in the motivations.

 

[anglolawyer]

Perhaps Vixen comparing Nencini to Massei would demonstrate to her that the appeal court does far more than just check procedure boxes. The ISC had them test a sample and other evidence was clearly discussed. A brand new motive was in the motivations.

Funny, but I can't immediately call to mind any howls of protest from the PG side when Nencini was delving afresh into the evidence and manufacturing entirely new lines of reasoning based on 'facts' such as the one about Rudi/Rudy being a pro-burglar.

Hey! you don't suppose this whole thing has been a massive joke at their expense do you?

 

[Grinder]

Vixen, You have read a number of books on this case by your own statements. Would you list them for us?

You apparently are no clear as to whether the kids were/are clearly innocent, not guilty or guilty in terms of the law or otherwise.

Given the evidence presented and that which you trust could you please build a case including a timeline for guilt?

The stain testing convo is tedious and at this time is of no value except another nail in coffin of the ICSI's work on this case IMO.

Do you believe Curatolo and why? Do you believe Quintavalle or any of the key "witnesses"?

Do you agree that since no DNA of Amanda was found in Mez' room and only one tiny bit of Raf's was on the clasp that someone else could have abetted Rudi and not left any in the room?

 

[Bill Williams]

Problem with studying a case on paper, is that it is not the same as being at a trial, where what seemed easy to solve on paper, can take on a very different complexion. That is one reason the higher appeal courts leave the evidence & facts found in the First Instant alone.

And, of course, defendants are entitled to habeus corpus.

If there is a question mark, then more witnesses/evidence issues are called, as though it were an extension of the trial.

Am still revisiting the docs. I will let you know what I think, bearing in mind your comments.

Did you know that on Mexico "the trial" is done on paper - mainly a judge sitting alone in an office sifting through written briefs of evidence. There are avenues to get the parties into a (court)room for various issues which can be addressed face-to-face....

But, as mentioned - with due respect, Vixen: you have compared the posters in this thread to villagers with pitchforks who surround strangers with new ideas and lead them to the stocks:

The trouble is:

Here you go again. Simply cycling back to memes which you tried to introduce, and were roundly corrected. Why reintroduce them as if they'd not be addressed?

The whole business of it being preferable to be at the trial, rather than read the case files - sounds suspiciously like the reasoning the hater-websites used to use when faced with criticism. They'd say: "We have reporters in the courtroom hearing all this," as if hearing garbage meant that suddenly it wasn't garbage. Before closing her hate-site, and during the 2009 trial, Peggy Ganong claimed same-day reports from the courtroom - the prosecution case - which she accepted uncritically....

.... and as if it was the unbridled truth even before the defence's turn, or the verdict. This is one reason why Mignini-memes became hardpacked into guilter-lore; memes which were eventually disbelieved by even Mignini, a convicting judge. True to form, the hater sites then launched a PR-campaign against Candace Dempsey and Frank Sfarzo, who were offering counter-commentary - and the hatred towards those two from guilter-circles continues to this day.

Also, another poster here corrected you (yet again) on the place of the "higher courts", your claim being everything above the 1st instance trial is a law/procedure-check only, which does not hear evidence.

Sigh. It's at this point that the villagers with pitchforks simply walk away from you, rather than attack you. There's no point, really, listening when someone simply repeats discredited, and demonstrably discredited claims.

As for Habeas Corpus:

In Italy the principle of habeas corpus is enshrined in its Constitution, which states:

Article 13 of the Constitution:

"Personal liberty is inviolable. No one may be detained, inspected, or searched nor otherwise subjected to any restriction of personal liberty except by order of the Judiciary stating a reason and only in such cases and in such manner as provided by the law. In exceptional circumstances and under such conditions of necessity and urgency as shall conclusively be defined by the law, the police may take provisional measures that shall be referred within 48 hours to the Judiciary for validation and which, in default of such validation in the following 48 hours, shall be revoked and considered null and void. Any act of physical and moral violence against a person subjected to restriction of personal liberty shall be punished. The law shall establish the maximum duration of preventive detention."​

For someone who states a neutral position on this case, it may not be wise to take the Habeas Corpus angle to run with. There's also the issue of being denied a competent translator - Knox got a mediator and a diplomat - as well as a lawyer: both of which were crucial in early-hard-packing of the mess into a robust piece of clay which took 7 1/2 years to bust up. It's hard to remain neutral when holding this side by side with the facts of the AK/RS trials.

"I will let you know what I think, bearing in mind your comments." I am organizing side bets that your position will not change, and you'll simply repeat the tired claims about Hellmann being incompetent/corrupt (as a preparation for saying the same thing about the ISC), or about the role of higher courts from 1st Grade being law-oriented only.

 

[anglolawyer]

You call that knailing it? He referenced two items and only one was correct. The real gun with a silencer was used for the real murder. The gun was hidden in the fireplace flue Then a custom phonograph that automatically indexes a selected track was started as a timing device. After the murderer had gone downstairs to establish an alibi, the track ended causing the tone arm to reset and as it swings back it first makes electrical contact with a clip connected to wires running under the carpet to a squib in an umbrella causing the simulated gunshot. The tone arm then knocks a felt marker off onto a dictionary which is precarisly balanced causing the dictionary to fall to the floor creating the thump simulating a body fall. As the other household guests rush upstairs and swing open the door to the murder room the air pressure cause the door on the other side of the room to slam shut simulating the murderer making his escape.

You will never make it into Mensa if you obsess so much about trifling details

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps Vixen comparing Nencini to Massei would demonstrate to her that the appeal court does far more than just check procedure boxes. The ISC had them test a sample and other evidence was clearly discussed. A brand new motive was in the motivations.

IMV the new motive is not correct in principle, and likely a reason for the annulment.

 

[Vixen]

Did you know that on Mexico "the trial" is done on paper - mainly a judge sitting alone in an office sifting through written briefs of evidence. There are avenues to get the parties into a (court)room for various issues which can be addressed face-to-face....

But, as mentioned - with due respect, Vixen: you have compared the posters in this thread to villagers with pitchforks who surround strangers with new ideas and lead them to the stocks:

The trouble is:

Here you go again. Simply cycling back to memes which you tried to introduce, and were roundly corrected. Why reintroduce them as if they'd not be addressed?

The whole business of it being preferable to be at the trial, rather than read the case files - sounds suspiciously like the reasoning the hater-websites used to use when faced with criticism. They'd say: "We have reporters in the courtroom hearing all this," as if hearing garbage meant that suddenly it wasn't garbage. Before closing her hate-site, and during the 2009 trial, Peggy Ganong claimed same-day reports from the courtroom - the prosecution case - which she accepted uncritically....

.... and as if it was the unbridled truth even before the defence's turn, or the verdict. This is one reason why Mignini-memes became hardpacked into guilter-lore; memes which were eventually disbelieved by even Mignini, a convicting judge. True to form, the hater sites then launched a PR-campaign against Candace Dempsey and Frank Sfarzo, who were offering counter-commentary - and the hatred towards those two from guilter-circles continues to this day.

Also, another poster here corrected you (yet again) on the place of the "higher courts", your claim being everything above the 1st instance trial is a law/procedure-check only, which does not hear evidence.

Sigh. It's at this point that the villagers with pitchforks simply walk away from you, rather than attack you. There's no point, really, listening when someone simply repeats discredited, and demonstrably discredited claims.

As for Habeas Corpus:

In Italy the principle of habeas corpus is enshrined in its Constitution, which states:

​

For someone who states a neutral position on this case, it may not be wise to take the Habeas Corpus angle to run with. There's also the issue of being denied a competent translator - Knox got a mediator and a diplomat - as well as a lawyer: both of which were crucial in early-hard-packing of the mess into a robust piece of clay which took 7 1/2 years to bust up. It's hard to remain neutral when holding this side by side with the facts of the AK/RS trials.

"I will let you know what I think, bearing in mind your comments." I am organizing side bets that your position will not change, and you'll simply repeat the tired claims about Hellmann being incompetent/corrupt (as a preparation for saying the same thing about the ISC), or about the role of higher courts from 1st Grade being law-oriented only.

I am honestly not interested in "taking sides." Clear now?

 

[anglolawyer]

IMV the new motive is not correct in principle, and likely a reason for the annulment.

What principle? Please formulate it.

 

[Grinder]

What principle? Please formulate it.

She is maintaining the view that the trial of the second instance is an appeal in the form of a US trial. It is however clear that the ISC ruling isn't about the Nencini court exceeding it mandate, but rather based on the muddled thinking of the aforementioned court and the Massei court before.

I'm more confused by her statement that she doesn't want to take sides which seems in contradiction to her introduction stating her interest in these types of cases. Is she saying she just likes to read about them without forming an opinion of guilt, innocence or not guilty under the law?

 

[analemma]

I am honestly not interested in "taking sides." Clear now?

It is as clear as a bell to everyone that you have already taken a side.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am honestly not interested in "taking sides." Clear now?

I've never not been clear. That was not my point.

It was the return to discredited evidence, renderings of court-procedure that was the point. It is worth pointing out that to maintain this "objective, non-side" position of the posts, one has to simply return to tired, mistaken evidence. But indeed, you have taken sides - upthread you criticized Anna Donnino for being a mediator, not a translator.