Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
Cynically the Marasca report will say lots of stuff, basically boiled down to......

..... this is a case which should never have been prosecuted against the two, and we need it to go away.
Click to expand...

They already said they were not going to convict based on such flimsy evidence and I expect they will outline exactly how flimsy this so called evidence is.
 
The Chieffi 2 step, or, just dancing around for fun.

Numbers said:
Wasn't Curatolo's testimony self-contradictory regarding the day he claimed to have seen Knox and Sollecito? Also, there was no proper identification procedure to demonstrate he was able to identify them, and he only came up with this identification long after the defendant's photos were in the media. It was also a concern, IIRC, whether or not there would have enough light and short enough distance for him to clearly see them where he claimed they were in the piazza.

There are thus many concerns regarding Curatolo's testimony and it seems unlikely that medical condition or addiction status alone was the deciding factor.

If the CSC were to overrule itself on a point of law, btw, what organization would have authority to legally question that?
Click to expand...

Well, DioC and Bill have also weighed in, and while I agree with the points you're raising here, these are different from Chieffi imposing some sort of legal evaluation framework on Hellman's decision to disregard Curatolo.

The issue isn't really a question of the merits of Hellman's decision, but whether Hellman had a legally recognizable basis (according to Chieffi) for disregarding Curatolo.

As I've said before, I don't think Chieffi was even serious when he wrote this opinion. I think Chieffi and cassation in 2013 overturned Hellman, because Burlesconi's people were using it as an excuse to mount a politically motivated investigation of the judiciary, and the only way to derail that was to reverse Hellman and get the case back into court.

So I think Chieffi resurrecting Curatolo (figuratively and literally), was just part of the kabuki theater going on.

Still though, Chieffi seemed to be laying out some sort of legal standard for evaluation of witness credibility. No matter how wrong, nuts or self-contradictory it may have been, its still at least a legally based argument of some kind.

My guess is Marasca will just give Hellman the deference to disregard Curatolo, as the last court to hear the witness in person, and therefore must be given the last word on Curatolo's credibility, pointing out all the reasons Hellman gave in support of his disregarding Curatolo.

That type of analysis wouldn't really be an answer to Chieffi on this point, just sidestepping an obviously foolish gaffe by Chieffi.

Either way, I guess we'll know pretty soon.
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
Hilarious! These people just can't quit.

The most interesting question outstanding and the obvious one actually, is how they will treat the notion of a three on one killing, since they gave a "didn't commit the act" response to the charge in the dispositivo as opposed to "the crime does not exist".
Click to expand...

They may not clarify that and just leave it hanging? After all, I doubt (hopefully) that the Italian police will suddenly start beating the bushes and snair two more innocent victims to fit Mignini's sexual fantasy since everyone pretty much knows by now that Guede was the lone killer.

I'm interested in seeing if they'll finally bless Hellmann's earlier exoneration of Amanda & Raffaele?

I doubt if they'll reverse Amanda's slander conviction, but that would be nice if they did.
 
Bill Williams said:
Cynically the Marasca report will say lots of stuff, basically boiled down to......

..... this is a case which should never have been prosecuted against the two, and we need it to go away.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't see why your post begins with "cynically".

I think that the highest and most idealistic version of the Marasca panel motivation report would include a statement to this effect:

There was never any reliable objective evidence of guilt of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in this case.

The arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba relied on Knox's statements from the police interrogation and her "interview" later on Nov. 6 by PM Mignini. It also used an apparently truncated version of the phone text message she had sent to Lumumba. Use of the Knox statements as evidence for the murder/rape case was supposedly limited by the CSC, yet it continued to play a prominent role in the trial in part because of the criminal and civil calunnia trials joined with the murder/rape trial. Furthermore, the Chieffi panel motivation report used the Knox interrogation statements as one of the justifications for annulment of the acquittal of Hellmann.

Based upon the European Convention on Human Rights, Italy's highest law, the trial was of excessive length, and in fact the proceedings should not have been initiated. The prosecution and courts continually and systematically violated the rights of the defendants granted under the Italian Constitution, the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Convention during the various phases of the proceedings, beginning with the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. There was never any reason, justifiable in a democratic society, for these individuals to be arrested or tried. They are in actuality totally innocent of the alleged crimes of murder and rape.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the conviction of Knox was wrongful, but our authority under Italian law does not allow us to reverse the conviction. We must await the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to issue its judgment on the matter, after which, in accordance with the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court judgment Number 113/2011, a revision trial may be requested consistent with the provisions of CPP Article 632.

The CSC also notes that CPP Article 630 para. 1d provides that a request for revision trial may be made if it is proven that the judgment of conviction has been delivered as a consequence of false documents or statements provided during the trial or any other criminal act deemed to be an offence by law.
 
I stipulate that I have no knowledge of the Italian system beyond what I've learned during this case and in no way am an expert or even close.

I doubt that Marasca will state that they should never have been arrested or tried. The most I hope for is evisceration of the DNA, footprint and behavioral evidence.

This whole idea that what one section of the ISC rules must be accepted years later by another section is just another aspect of the Italian system that makes it piss poor system.

Cheffi didn't just send back the case because of three items that needed to be tested, so the fact that none of those were found as evidence against the kids doesn't mean that Nencini needed to acquit.

I always thought the Italian justice system was an oxymoron and still do.
 
Grinder said:
I stipulate that I have no knowledge of the Italian system beyond what I've learned during this case and in no way am an expert or even close.

I doubt that Marasca will state that they should never have been arrested or tried. The most I hope for is evisceration of the DNA, footprint and behavioral evidence.

This whole idea that what one section of the ISC rules must be accepted years later by another section is just another aspect of the Italian system that makes it piss poor system.

Cheffi didn't just send back the case because of three items that needed to be tested, so the fact that none of those were found as evidence against the kids doesn't mean that Nencini needed to acquit.

I always thought the Italian justice system was an oxymoron and still do.
Click to expand...

Ah.... never underestimate the power of dietrology!
 
Numbers said:
But the Chieffi panel did not decide except in terms of annulment of Hellmann; they sent the case back to be retried for consideration of certain issues. They did ask certain questions indicating a preference to guilt, but did not state explicitly that the defendants were guilty; if they had, there would be no reason for referral.
Click to expand...

I believe this is wrong.

The ISC has no authority on its own to find defendants guilty when the appeals court is forwarding to it an acquittal. The best it can do is to remand to the appeals level for another trial in the hope that this new 2nd grade trial will convict, and the ISC can then sign-off on that one.

However, as seen, the ISC has complete authority to reverse a 2nd grade court's conviction. It can reverse while again remand to the 2nd Grade court, or like happened on March 27 (and which it does very rarely), it can simply annual convictions and end the process right there.
 
Bill Williams said:
Ah.... never underestimate the power of dietrology!
Click to expand...
Grinder said:
Sure whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

With regard to this whole saga, it was Douglas Preston who first wrote about this term. IIRC despite having good Italian contacts, as well as family who were Italian, he'd never of the term until it came up in relation to his own work on The Monster of Florence case - particularly when Mignini himself hauled Preston in for questioning.

In his book, Preston reveals that in the MoF case the Italian authorities actually had consulted with an American FBI BSU, which had written a profile of who the killer might be. Preston found that description quite compelling, but equally compelling was the bizzare reason why chief inspector Michele Guittari and the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, chucked it aside in favour of their satanic-rite theory involving high levels of Italian society.

When Preston tried to understand why (on earth!) Italian prosecutions proceed this way - needlessly ruining so may lives, this is what Preston writes (copied from another source) where he's introduced to the term:

Dietrologia,” said Count Niccolo. “That is the only Italian word you need to know to understand the Monster of Florence investigation.”

We were having our usual lunch at II Bordino. I was eating baccala, salt cod, while the Count enjoyed stuffed arista. “Dietrologia?” I asked.

“Dietro—behind. Logia—the study of.” The count spoke grandly, as if still in the lecture hall, his plummy English accent echoing in the cavelike interior of the restaurant.

“Dietrologia is the idea that the obvious thing cannot be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, dietro. It isn’t quite what you Americans call conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory implies theory, something uncertain, a possibility. The dietrologist deals only in fact. This is how it really is. Aside from football, dietrologia is the national sport in Italy. Everyone is an expert at what's really going on, even . . . how do you Americans say it? . . . even if they don’t know jack -*****-{e}.”

“Why?” I asked.

"Because it gives them a feeling of importance! This importance may only be confined to a small circle of idiotic friends, but at least they are in the know. Potere, power, is that I know what you do not know. Dietrologia is tied to the Italian mentality of power. You must appear to be in the know about all things.”

“How does this apply to the Monster investigation?”

“My dear Douglas, it is the very heart of the matter! At all costs, they have to find something behind the apparent reality. There cannot not be something. Why? Because it is not possible that the thing you see is the truth. Nothing is simple, nothing is as it seems. Does it look like a suicide? Yes? Well then it must be murder. Somebody went out for coffee? Aha! He went out for coffee . . . But what was he really doing?”
He laughed.​
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of Barbie Nadeau's constant refrain, "Knox is not telling us something she knows." An American version of dietrology. I mean, Barbie's just trying to fit in......

And now a nod to Machiavelli - who views Amanda Knox with a mixture of naivety as well as world-class criminal-cunning.....

In my conversations with Italian friends and journalists, I was surprised to discover that quite a few suspected that at least some of the accusations {against Spezi and Preston, his accomplice!} were true. ... They viewed my outrage as naive and a bit gauche. To be outraged is to be earnest, to be sincere - and to be a dupe. Some Italians were quick to strike the pose of the world-weary cynic who takes nothing at face value and who is far too clever to be taken in by Spezi's and my protestations of innocent.

"Ah!" said Count Niccolo in one of our frequent conversations. "Of course Spezi and you were up to no good at that villa! Dietrologia insists that it be so. Only a naif would believe that you two journalists went to the villa 'just to have a look.' The police wouldn't have arrested Spezi for no reason! You see, Douglas, an Italian must always appear to be furbo. You don't have an English equivalent for that marvelous word. It means a person who is wily and cunning, who knows which way the wind is blowing, who can fool you but never be fooled himself. Everyone in Italy wants to believe the worst of others so they don't end up looking gullible. Above all, they want to be seen as furbo."​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Well, I don't see why your post begins with "cynically".

I think that the highest and most idealistic version of the Marasca panel motivation report would include a statement to this effect:

There was never any reliable objective evidence of guilt of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in this case.

The arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba relied on Knox's statements from the police interrogation and her "interview" later on Nov. 6 by PM Mignini. It also used an apparently truncated version of the phone text message she had sent to Lumumba. Use of the Knox statements as evidence for the murder/rape case was supposedly limited by the CSC, yet it continued to play a prominent role in the trial in part because of the criminal and civil calunnia trials joined with the murder/rape trial. Furthermore, the Chieffi panel motivation report used the Knox interrogation statements as one of the justifications for annulment of the acquittal of Hellmann.

Based upon the European Convention on Human Rights, Italy's highest law, the trial was of excessive length, and in fact the proceedings should not have been initiated. The prosecution and courts continually and systematically violated the rights of the defendants granted under the Italian Constitution, the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Convention during the various phases of the proceedings, beginning with the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. There was never any reason, justifiable in a democratic society, for these individuals to be arrested or tried. They are in actuality totally innocent of the alleged crimes of murder and rape.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the conviction of Knox was wrongful, but our authority under Italian law does not allow us to reverse the conviction. We must await the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to issue its judgment on the matter, after which, in accordance with the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court judgment Number 113/2011, a revision trial may be requested consistent with the provisions of CPP Article 632.

The CSC also notes that CPP Article 630 para. 1d provides that a request for revision trial may be made if it is proven that the judgment of conviction has been delivered as a consequence of false documents or statements provided during the trial or any other criminal act deemed to be an offence by law.
Click to expand...

I don't think the court will give Amanda and Raffaele anything like this. I think they will be very careful, but we should look out for what it says about rights violations if anything. And of course, we will see what matters remain with regard to a possible second and third application to the ECHR - it would seem that length of trial is indeed all that will be left as the acquittals nullify claims that otherwise would be pertinent. I wonder whether the defence teams will go to the ECHR on that point. Perhaps they will. The drafting of such an application would not be onerous.
 
Seems widely used before Preston about all sorts of cases.

Monday, September 24, 2007
Word of the week: dietrologia
Our word of the week, dietrologia (DYET-troh-loh-GEE-ah) is a fairly recent entry in Italian vocabulary, only a few decades old. It literally means "behindology," but (no pun intended) is not a synonym for "proctology."

The word, which is often used with skepticism and even derision, describes the mental habits of the practicioner of this non-science, the dietrologo. It is he (it usually is a he) who regularly sees something behind events as they are presented. In our own native land, we often call this "paranoia."

Yes, it is no coincidence that the celebrated Ockham's razor was put forth by an Englishman and not an Italian. But before you get all superior about your supposed rationality, remember the famous saying of another well-known Brit, which has become the description (paraphrased) of my blog. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Ole Ockham may be fine when accounting for scientific phenomena, but people and their behavior are something else. Especially in Italy.

The idea of community in Renaissance Italy. - The Free Library
www.thefreelibrary.com › ... › Renaissance Quarterly › March 22, 2002
Mar 22, 2002 - (10) Dietrologia might be defined as the study of how public political actions serve as fronts for some private interest, deal, or conspiracy. Conspiracy with all its ..
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
I believe this is wrong.

The ISC has no authority on its own to find defendants guilty when the appeals court is forwarding to it an acquittal. The best it can do is to remand to the appeals level for another trial in the hope that this new 2nd grade trial will convict, and the ISC can then sign-off on that one.

However, as seen, the ISC has complete authority to reverse a 2nd grade court's conviction. It can reverse while again remand to the 2nd Grade court, or like happened on March 27 (and which it does very rarely), it can simply annual convictions and end the process right there.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell from reading the CPP, you are completely correct that the CSC cannot convict if the lower court judgment it is reviewing was an acquittal; it can legally only annul and send the case back for retrial.

My statement makes sense, however, but it would be illegal for the CSC to rule that way. Here is my statement:

They did ask certain questions indicating a preference to guilt, but did not state explicitly that the defendants were guilty; if they had, there would be no reason for referral.

What I am trying to say in this sentence is that IF the CSC said explicitly someone is guilty, in annulling an acquittal, since the CSC judgment cannot be appealed, that would be the end of the case. I think the CSC can only write that the annulled judgment was defective and give its reasons, and if it wishes state that the question of guilt or non-guilt must be re-evaluated by the lower court. The Chieffi CSC panel came very close to violating this in their MR, and may actually I crossed the line. IIRC, the Chieffi MR listed a series of motives that could be assigned to the defendants if they were guilty; I am unsure if the CSC statement forced a judgment of guilt from the lower court. I have no doubt that it strongly encouraged it.

I believe that an explicit statement finding guilt by the CSC in annulling an acquittal would be against Italian law and ECHR case-law, and would be subject to action (revision trial) because of the illegality. It would suggest that the lower court did not have freedom to decide on the evidence and the statement of law, which law would be interpreted based on the CSC's judgment.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me about the Chieffi MR and the Italian and ECHR law can correct any misstatements in the above.
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
I don't think the court will give Amanda and Raffaele anything like this. I think they will be very careful, but we should look out for what it says about rights violations if anything. And of course, we will see what matters remain with regard to a possible second and third application to the ECHR - it would seem that length of trial is indeed all that will be left as the acquittals nullify claims that otherwise would be pertinent. I wonder whether the defence teams will go to the ECHR on that point. Perhaps they will. The drafting of such an application would not be onerous.
Click to expand...

My concern is that, rather than presenting a statement such as I have given, the Marasca CSC panel will instead concentrate on the evidence only and largely neglect the violation of laws in the course of the proceeding, from the Nov. 5/6 interrogation through the Nencini motivation report.

I agree that the ECHR considers that an acquittal removes the status of "victim" from a person whose rights were violated during an unfair trial, except especially for violations of Convention Article 3 and the right to a trial of reasonable length.

However, ECHR has indicated (somewhat vaguely to my viewpoint) that there may remain some need for violations of the Convention to be explicitly noted even in an acquittal. In my view, I feel that the reason for the excessive length of the trial was primarily due to the numerous violations of the Convention, and thus the violations deserve mention. But ECHR adopting that view may not have supporting case-law, and could set new precedent.
 
Last edited:
Judge Marasca gave a newspaper interview; a translated excerpt is given below.

From http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/corriere-della-sera-30-mar-2015/

« Justice was served: it’s our job»

.... Marasca more than once has reiterated that “I like my job at Cassazione”, also because – he confided to some of his colleagues – it’s that place where “we try to apply the law sometimes forgotten in local offices”. And as an experienced judge, Marasca has even been able to manage the sudden popularity in an Italy that was divided between those who exulted at the acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele and those who instead contested the decision. To those who asked him if justice had been served he replied that a judge must base his decision on the elements of the trial and that, therefore, “justice had been served only because we did our job”. Of course, the most simple solution would have been to annul the appeal and remand to a new trial, but the “insufficient evidence” was judged “impossible to be filled” even later. And therefore – the president explained to the colleagues – if those are the elements, “what need is there to have a new trial?”
Click to expand...
 
Bill Williams said:
Exactly.

With regard to this whole saga, it was Douglas Preston who first wrote about this term. IIRC despite having good Italian contacts, as well as family who were Italian, he'd never of the term until it came up in relation to his own work on The Monster of Florence case - particularly when Mignini himself hauled Preston in for questioning.

In his book, Preston reveals that in the MoF case the Italian authorities actually had consulted with an American FBI BSU, which had written a profile of who the killer might be. Preston found that description quite compelling, but equally compelling was the bizzare reason why chief inspector Michele Guittari and the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, chucked it aside in favour of their satanic-rite theory involving high levels of Italian society.When Preston tried to understand why (on earth!) Italian prosecutions proceed this way - needlessly ruining so may lives, this is what Preston writes (copied from another source) where he's introduced to the term:

​

I'm reminded of Barbie Nadeau's constant refrain, "Knox is not telling us something she knows." An American version of dietrology. I mean, Barbie's just trying to fit in......

And now a nod to Machiavelli - who views Amanda Knox with a mixture of naivety as well as world-class criminal-cunning.....

​
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of the Preston/Spezi book, Monster of Florence. And Spezi's previous work is largely based, IIUC, on the previous work of the author Magdelene Naab, who collected voluminous archives on the Monster cases, when the police appeared to be uninterested or floundering in their investigations.

But I think you may be over stating Preston's view here.

Yes, this paragraph introduces the notion of dietrologia in the MOF book (although obviously Preston and the count did not invent the concept out of whole cloth, so if its real, of course there will be prior references to it).

But Preston also shares the view of a police official, IIRC, who asks Preston at the end of the chapter, if he had ever wondered whether the MOF investigations were about the accumulation of power?

The two previous investigators (Peregino and Vigna?) both received high level promotions for achieving the conviction of Pacciano as the Monster of Florence serial killer.

But the problem was there was no possibility Pacciani was guilty. Pacciani's appeal was falling apart in Feb of 1996, and the prosecutor had taken Pacciani's side and arguing for acquittal.

Giuttari had taken over as chief of the 'Monster squad' in October of 1995, and just 4 months later the case was falling apart.

This is when Giuttari dredged up the 'algebraic witnesses', including the homeless alcoholic prostitute Ghiribelli, who first introduced the satanic sect into her witness testimony.

Giuttari tried to get the algebraics into the appeal trial of Pacciani the day before the expected acquittal was to be announced. The judge declined to hear them, and that became the basis for newspaper headlines the next day, decrying the acquittal, and the presence of supposed eye witnesses, and gave cassation the excuse it needed to nullify Pacciani's acquittal on appeal.

It was only by fabricating the 4 algebraic witnesses, and compelling a confession from one of them (Lotte, the village idiot), that Giuttari could claim to have a confession and have, "cracked the case".

So it wasn't "dietrologia" per se, that caused the police under Giuttari to reach for multiple perpetrators in the MOF crimes, but rather, it was because their single perp Pacciani had been shown to be a wrongful accusation and was going down in the courts. Similarly, only by coercing a statement from Amanda, could the case against Patrick (another innocent) be maintained. But again, that's not strictly speaking dietrologia. It's the practical necessity of framing an innocent person to generate some form of evidence, eye-witness testimony, when no other evidence exists.
So I agree with a lot of what you've written here Bill, but I think the major incentive for Mignini and Giuttari to insinuate themselves into the MOF case through the Narducci trail, and later the Kercher case, was to achieve promotion by contributing to the successful prosecution of that most famous case, and from which previous investigators had demonstratively reaped success and career advancement.

Giuttari framed Vanni and Lotti to save the unraveling conviction of Pacciani. But pursuing the Narducci trail as per an inquiry from Mignini, you can call it self-delusion, or ruthless cynicism, or both. But dietrologia alone doesn't completely explain it, in my view, and according to Preston/SPezi in MOF.

Mach must be blowing his stack somewhere reading this. I think he's been cautioned to stay off these boards, but that is pure dietrologia on my part.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
  • a Self review.
  • b Giving motivations before they've been sealed.
  • c An official giving newspaper interviews as though a celebrity.

So unethical.
Click to expand...

He's said very little. That which he has said we already know.

How did you feel about Nencini's statements to the press before his report was published?

And on the subject of unethicality, if that is your beef, you should consider the multiple, indisputable violations of the defendants' rights with regard to procedure, discovery and process. We have Nencini once again - this time ignoring the Gemelli court's ruling, using Amanda's coerced statements (a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR) against her with regard to the murder charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom