Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Thanks. As I just said in a post above, the need for the defense of the kids to even have to deal with the number of attackers is weird. I don't see how it can be proven that there was only one attacker. Proven. Yes one would expect some evidence but Locard didn't say the perp would leave behind evidence that the Italians could find.

Even weirder - the first time that evidence was led at an evidentiary trial, eight of nine experts looked at the evidence and did not rule out a single attacker.

Yet here we are, six years past THAT trial, arguing what is and what isn't a judicial fact in Italy.

Another judicial fact: the kids are innocent. No matter how many times Mignini says, "Not so fast!"

 

[Ken Dine]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5665594ec8d91f62.png[/qimg]

Numbers 28:11 King James Version
EDEUG EONL RELLIK

There are more than twenty permutations. What is left to discuss? This looks pretty definitive to me.

ETA: The reversed spelling of the code is because Hebrew reads right to left. However the KJV is powerful and it disrupted the code so that the words are displayed in the standard left to right order of English.

You would have had even better results if you had spelled your backwards "LONE" correctly.

 

[Numbers]

My understanding is that while they had representation, they did not have the rights of defence at trial and were further restricted by its abbreviated nature. They were not permitted to call witnesses in order to resist the establishment of judicial truths harmful to their own clients' defences elsewhere.

But since you've properly asked this question, this is a good opportunity for the forum to flesh out this matter. Nevertheless it remains true that a key plank of Amanda and Raffaele's defence was eradicated as a result of what was established at another guy's trial - multiple participants.

The fast-track trial, also called the summary trial, is provided for in CPP Articles 438 through 443. There is no provision for the participation of any parties besides the defendant who has requested the fast-track trial, the prosecutor, and the civil parties. Thus, there is no legal requirement for the participation of the counsel of an alleged co-perpetrator who is a defendant on trial in a separate proceeding.

The fast-track trial is held in closed session unless all parties to the trial request that it be held in open session, according to CPP Article 441 para. 3. Thus, the only information available on the fast-track trial may be the motivation report. Thus, anyone looking for the participation by legal counsel for Knox or Sollecito in Guede's fast-track trial should read through the motivation report for any indication of such participation.

To say that someone has "representation" at a trial - meaning perhaps that someone's lawyer was allowed to be present - may not be the same as saying they had "participation by legal counsel" at a trial. There is the possibility that the term "representation" may be used or interpreted in a misleading fashion.

 

[zotz]

My understanding is that while they had representation, they did not have the rights of defence at trial and were further restricted by its abbreviated nature. They were not permitted to call witnesses in order to resist the establishment of judicial truths harmful to their own clients' defences elsewhere.
But since you've properly asked this question, this is a good opportunity for the forum to flesh out this matter. Nevertheless it remains true that a key plank of Amanda and Raffaele's defence was eradicated as a result of what was established at another guy's trial - multiple participants.

Is this judicial truth concept accepted in any other developed country?
I find it shocking, even fascist.

 

[LondonJohn]

In the US, it is often real hard to get an appeal heard. It almost has to be something super blatant. Is it better in the UK?

But the term "appeal" means very different things in the UK/US style of system and the Italian system. In the UK and US, a defendant has a single, definitive trial, after which there is a definitive conviction or acquittal, and the imposition of a sentence if there's a conviction. The trial is a serious and exhaustive affair, and in the vast majority of cases the court reaches the correct verdict.

In Italy, by contrast, for serious offences the two-trial-plus-SC-affirmation system is a joke. It basically makes the court of first instance little more than an evidence/testimony-gathering operation. The real deliberation and verdict is arrived at by the appeal-level court. And even then, Italy doesn't trust its appeal level courts enough to let their verdict be the definitive one - the Supreme Court has to have a look too. And only after the SC has signed off can the defendant be definitively convicted or acquitted, and any sentence imposed.

A very good indication of how bad a process this is in practice - and how/why the word "appeal" should be considered very differently from the UK/US model - is the very high proportion of cases in Italy following this trial process where the appeal-level court modifies or even overturns the verdict of the first court. That, in and of itself, renders the verdict of any court of first instance as largely worthless.

There's no reason whatsoever why a country such as Italy cannot institute a justice system which makes defendants (and lawyers/judges/juries) endure only one, proper, trial - a trial in which the verdict has legitimacy and authority. If there are deficiencies in that trial, there can be an appeals process just as in the UK/US. There might even be an automatic appeal granted for the most serious crimes (just as in the US all death-penalty convictions carry an automatic appeal). But the verdict of the single trial would be definitive (pending any appeal) and the sentence would be enacted immediately.

The current system in Italy, where defendants have at least three trials (and often, as in our case, more) sometimes lasting several years, is ridiculous on its face. I don't accept the argument that this somehow makes for a "better" or "fairer" justice system. And there's no reason to think that a single, competent court which examines all the issues in proper depth would be any less fair than an automatic two-trial (+ SC) system where the verdict of the first court is not much more than the equivalent of a committal verdict (or Grand Jury indictment) in UK or US courts.

 

[LondonJohn]

With all due respect: I must disagree with your assessment of the Italian Justice system.
I agree that those that participate in the Italian criminal justice system are "riddled with corruption, conflicts of interest, political factions and patronage", but so are the prosecutors and police that participate in the criminal justice systems of many countries, but I find many of the rules and procedures that are written into the Italian criminal justice system to be commendable "fail safes" against unjust convictions that I would like to see adopted to other criminal justice systems, including that of the United States.
What I like most of all is the need for a "Motivation" that requires a clear statement of the reasons, by law, that the accused is guilty, and the automatic and serious appeals by the accused in the case that the "Motivation" is absolute nonsense, which certainly was the case for AK and RS.
It is certainly true that Italy allowed many incompetent and biased judges and prosecutors to participate in the trials of AK and RS, at every level, but the "Motivations" and scrutiny of the "Motivations" by the accused allowed the Italian criminal justice system to stumble, restart, stumble again, and then eventually arrive at the correct result.
It also seems clear that this case, because the system employed the most incompetent, corrupt, biased, and even psychotic court officers, led down a twisted path that revealed many of the weaknesses that still exist in the Italian criminal justice system, and need to be addressed and corrected.
Most of these weaknesses can be traced directly to the decisions of the ISC to fail to recognize the pitfalls of creating judicial truths, such as the multiple participants judicial truth, that led directly to overstepping its legal mandate to review the procedures of the appeal judge and create even MORE judicial truths relating to evidence evaluation, as overturning Hellmann and virtually directing Nencini to declare a guilty verdict with a "Motivation" that ignored both the evidence and the principles decreed by Italian law.
To my way of thinking, the final acquittal on March 27 represented the Italian criminal justice system saying "the mess that these idiots have created here is as apparent as the 'emperors new clothes' and we have to put a stop to it before it gets worse, if that is even possible".
I do not know if any rules or procedures protecting any system designed by human beings can save a the system from the procession of corruption and stupidity we have seen over the past seven years.
Yes, biased and corrupt idiots participated in the bumbling spectacle that Italy has presented, but the Motivations and the strict appeals eventually delivered justice to AK and RS, at least as far as the worst accusations were concerned.
And I think that the inevitable spanking that Italy will receive from the ECHR will, in good time, close out the whole sorry mess.
Just my opinion

While written motivations might be a "nice to have" in the US or UK system, in practice they could never be implemented in either country for ordinary criminal trials. Why not? Because the verdict is decided by ordinary members of the public acting as jurors. It would be unreasonable, not to mention fraught with potential for mistakes/incompetence, to expect any member(s) of a jury to write a detailed report explaining how/why the jury arrived at its verdict.

The only reason it can happen in Italy is that professional judges sit on the judicial panel. And I would argue that the benefits afforded by such a system (the ability to write a motivations report, the ability to provide professional input into the deliberations and verdict) are probably outweighed by the disadvantages (especially the disproportionate influence over the "lay" members of the judicial panel).

Remember too that in UK/US if cases go to appeal, those matters are decided by judges or panels of judges, and a written report explaining the decisions is provided. So there's still a good safeguard and opportunity for a professional dissection of the case if the verdict of the original trial jury is deemed dodgy or unsafe.

 

[Desert Fox]

But the term "appeal" means very different things in the UK/US style of system and the Italian system. In the UK and US, a defendant has a single, definitive trial, after which there is a definitive conviction or acquittal, and the imposition of a sentence if there's a conviction. The trial is a serious and exhaustive affair, and in the vast majority of cases the court reaches the correct verdict.

In Italy, by contrast, for serious offences the two-trial-plus-SC-affirmation system is a joke. It basically makes the court of first instance little more than an evidence/testimony-gathering operation. The real deliberation and verdict is arrived at by the appeal-level court. And even then, Italy doesn't trust its appeal level courts enough to let their verdict be the definitive one - the Supreme Court has to have a look too. And only after the SC has signed off can the defendant be definitively convicted or acquitted, and any sentence imposed.

A very good indication of how bad a process this is in practice - and how/why the word "appeal" should be considered very differently from the UK/US model - is the very high proportion of cases in Italy following this trial process where the appeal-level court modifies or even overturns the verdict of the first court. That, in and of itself, renders the verdict of any court of first instance as largely worthless.

There's no reason whatsoever why a country such as Italy cannot institute a justice system which makes defendants (and lawyers/judges/juries) endure only one, proper, trial - a trial in which the verdict has legitimacy and authority. If there are deficiencies in that trial, there can be an appeals process just as in the UK/US. There might even be an automatic appeal granted for the most serious crimes (just as in the US all death-penalty convictions carry an automatic appeal). But the verdict of the single trial would be definitive (pending any appeal) and the sentence would be enacted immediately.

The current system in Italy, where defendants have at least three trials (and often, as in our case, more) sometimes lasting several years, is ridiculous on its face. I don't accept the argument that this somehow makes for a "better" or "fairer" justice system. And there's no reason to think that a single, competent court which examines all the issues in proper depth would be any less fair than an automatic two-trial (+ SC) system where the verdict of the first court is not much more than the equivalent of a committal verdict (or Grand Jury indictment) in UK or US courts.

With how badly US juries screw up, I am not sure that the Italian way is any "worse" than how we do it in the US. I don't think it better either however.

 

[Desert Fox]

While written motivations might be a "nice to have" in the US or UK system, in practice they could never be implemented in either country for ordinary criminal trials. Why not? Because the verdict is decided by ordinary members of the public acting as jurors. It would be unreasonable, not to mention fraught with potential for mistakes/incompetence, to expect any member(s) of a jury to write a detailed report explaining how/why the jury arrived at its verdict.

The only reason it can happen in Italy is that professional judges sit on the judicial panel. And I would argue that the benefits afforded by such a system (the ability to write a motivations report, the ability to provide professional input into the deliberations and verdict) are probably outweighed by the disadvantages (especially the disproportionate influence over the "lay" members of the judicial panel).

Remember too that in UK/US if cases go to appeal, those matters are decided by judges or panels of judges, and a written report explaining the decisions is provided. So there's still a good safeguard and opportunity for a professional dissection of the case if the verdict of the original trial jury is deemed dodgy or unsafe.

I would also add to your statement that when a case in done in front of a judge or judges in the US, their position is in basically plain language not some 300+ page monstrosity that nobody can understand.
I have read some of them and they are usually reasonably short and I can understand the judge's logic.

 

[Grinder]

Bill you made the statement many a time that 8 of 9 experts said it could have been a single attacker in the Massei trial. This is not as easy to check as how many probables there are in the Massei report.

Would you please list the 9 and give a short quote for each on the likelihood, probability, or possibility that it was a single attacker and who they worked for?

Mach,

If the Guede trial concluded there was only one attacker would that have ended the case against the kids?

 

[Bill Williams]

While written motivations might be a "nice to have" in the US or UK system, in practice they could never be implemented in either country for ordinary criminal trials. Why not? Because the verdict is decided by ordinary members of the public acting as jurors. It would be unreasonable, not to mention fraught with potential for mistakes/incompetence, to expect any member(s) of a jury to write a detailed report explaining how/why the jury arrived at its verdict.

The only reason it can happen in Italy is that professional judges sit on the judicial panel. And I would argue that the benefits afforded by such a system (the ability to write a motivations report, the ability to provide professional input into the deliberations and verdict) are probably outweighed by the disadvantages (especially the disproportionate influence over the "lay" members of the judicial panel).

Remember too that in UK/US if cases go to appeal, those matters are decided by judges or panels of judges, and a written report explaining the decisions is provided. So there's still a good safeguard and opportunity for a professional dissection of the case if the verdict of the original trial jury is deemed dodgy or unsafe.

In Canada, they are, in fact, mandatory in judge-only trials, where the defence elects to be tried by judge-only.

When the defence elects to be tried by judge (trier of the law) and jury (trier of fact) it is illegal for a juror to divulge the reasons for judgement. The only exception to that in recent Canadian practise was at Gillian Guess's trial.

She was charged with obstruction of justice for her own role, herself as a juror at the Regina v. Johal trial. At that trial she'd entered into a romantic relationship, as a juror, with co-accused Peter Gill.

Gillian Guess was convicted of obstruction of justice. After being convicted she said, "I have been convicted for falling in love and nothing more. I have not committed a crime." She was sentenced to 18 months in prison but was released after serving just 12 weeks in a minimum security women's facility known as "Camp Cupcake." She appealed her sentence, but the appeal was dismissed on November 2, 2000.​

There were a number of "secret trials" coincident with the investigation of Guess. Principally the sanctity of the juror room was a hot topic at those trials. Amongst other ticklish issues raised by her indiscretions (!) hers was the only case in Canadian law where jury room discussions were made part of the public record.

 

[davefoc]

You would have had even better results if you had spelled your backwards "LONE" correctly.

The actual code was spelled correctly, but the powerful energy surrounding the code disturbed my aura engagement and I made a typo.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill you made the statement many a time that 8 of 9 experts said it could have been a single attacker in the Massei trial. This is not as easy to check as how many probables there are in the Massei report.

Would you please list the 9 and give a short quote for each on the likelihood, probability, or possibility that it was a single attacker and who they worked for?

With all respect, I decline. Perhaps someone else will take this on. My view is that this is easier to check than Massei's probablies, but it is all there for the reader to glean for themselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - depending on who the "he" is in Massei's reference on page 135, Massei summarized Prof. Introna's opinion as:

He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker. Firstly, he stated this by
taking into consideration the size of the room in which the entire episode took place
and the presence of furniture in the room. He stated that the free space was very
small, so that "there was no possibility for three attackers to have accomplished the
homicide together" with the girl in the position where her body was subsequently
found (page 52 of the transcripts)

I will leave it up to others to fetch the other 7 references.

Suffice it to say that Massei concludes (wrongly IMO) at the end of his report that there were multiple attackers. He cites almost exclusively Lalli:

In fact, putting together the elements mentioned above - including, of course, the forensic observations - it is considered that the injuries and the violence were the
result of an action of several people.

Of course, this by itself does not convict RS and/or AK. Add to this that this was precisely the opposite of the "forensic observations" Massei heard. I then am taken with Numbers observation that the judge's role is not (Chieffi notwithstanding) to take ALL the evidence, good and bad, and synthesize it into an osmotic theory that holds it all.... it is the judge's job to judge the likelihood of each item before reassembling it.... and trying to avoid a personal opinion, but being led by the evidence.

 

[analemma]

While written motivations might be a "nice to have" in the US or UK system, in practice they could never be implemented in either country for ordinary criminal trials. Why not? Because the verdict is decided by ordinary members of the public acting as jurors. It would be unreasonable, not to mention fraught with potential for mistakes/incompetence, to expect any member(s) of a jury to write a detailed report explaining how/why the jury arrived at its verdict.

The only reason it can happen in Italy is that professional judges sit on the judicial panel. And I would argue that the benefits afforded by such a system (the ability to write a motivations report, the ability to provide professional input into the deliberations and verdict) are probably outweighed by the disadvantages (especially the disproportionate influence over the "lay" members of the judicial panel).

Remember too that in UK/US if cases go to appeal, those matters are decided by judges or panels of judges, and a written report explaining the decisions is provided. So there's still a good safeguard and opportunity for a professional dissection of the case if the verdict of the original trial jury is deemed dodgy or unsafe.

I agree with the "disadvantages (especially the disproportionate influence over the "lay" members of the judicial panel)", which is this case has shown a bias toward the establishment and prosecutions, such as in Nencini, when the judge reportedly overrode the "lay" jurors feeling of innocence to find a guilty verdict to agree with the "judicial truth" of the Rudy ISC decision.
I do not agree that in the US, I do not know about the UK, that "there's still a good safeguard and opportunity for a professional dissection of the case if the verdict of the original trial jury is deemed dodgy or unsafe", since the appeals courts show the same deference to the original trial judge and court as we have seen in the AK case in Italy.
Just look at some of the ridiculous US cases on the featured IA case list where inexplicable judicial decisions have excluded evidence and been repeatedly approved by the appeals judge. The appeals judges defer to the court judges: and in this case it would have resulted in a sure conviction.
I strongly agree with those that say that if AK and RS had faced the same type of lunatic, corrupt, and self serving authorities and poisonous trash media in a US court they would have been found guilty by an absolutely clueless "LAY" jury.
And the clueless lay jury would not have to explain its decision, since the clueless lay jury is an 800 bound gorilla(Just look at the case of Lindy Chamberlain, which was all BS and bias).
I am not sure I agree that a single case in front of a clueless 800 pound lay jury is better than three cases in front of three different judges, since with the three cases you have at least one chance in three of finding honest judge(s), as in this case, where there were two honest judges out of five.

 

[Grinder]

With all respect, I decline. Perhaps someone else will take this on. My view is that this is easier to check than Massei's probablies, but it is all there for the reader to glean for themselves.

Then with equal respect I ask that you stop repeating the meme.

My reading of Massei is that none of the experts said it couldn't have been multiple attackers.

The fact, much less the assertion, that 8 of 9 say it could have been a single attacker is near meaningless unless they rule out multiple attackers.

IMO certainly a court could look at the experts' statements and conclude there were multiple attackers. Perhaps you could provide the testimony or something that you believe proves the attack was by one person. The absence of evidence doesn't prove absence. No evidence of Guede in Filomena's room doesn't prove he wasn't in it.

I've always thought the lone wolf strategy was unnecessarily limiting.

This in no way implicates the kids.

ETA - I never bought into the room was too small for more than one attacker. I think that is a forced concept. I believe there pictures with four or more fat cops in there.

 

[Kauffer]

Thanks. As I just said in a post above, the need for the defense of the kids to even have to deal with the number of attackers is weird. I don't see how it can be proven that there was only one attacker. Proven. Yes one would expect some evidence but Locard didn't say the perp would leave behind evidence that the Italians could find.

Well if you read Guede's motivation reports you will see how often Amanda and Raffaele are mentioned by name.

Establishing a judicial truth held in one trial to prohibit a defence in another, is offensive, because it causes the "jury" to ask, "If not them, then who", a question, which, bizarrely, people are still asking.

However, the question of multiple/single attackers was resolvable or should have been resolvable from the evidence in the room to cause the abandonment of the cases against Amanda and Raffaele long before they were ever charged.

 

[Strozzi]

This 2010 article also says Chiari was president of the civil court.

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2010/08/10/368386-caso_matteini_presidente_della_corte.shtml



So again, it's pretty hard to believe Mignini wouldn't know that or that he'd try and pull a fast one saying Chiari was president of another division.

It's also strange disgraced cops Zugarini and Napoleoni joined in......Why would they care what's in some random article read by no one? The magazine has monthly sales of only 6000.

Napoleoni can't admit that her and her squad's poor investigation and interrogation techniques precipitated the disaster. That is why she lies about what really was said and done in the midnight interrogation to cause the credulous American girl to falsely believe the person with whom she texted was the killer. It never occurred to Amanda that Lumumba might be involved when she went into the interrogation. She was terrified of him when she came out. Napoleoni and her squad fed Amanda false information that she was there and caused Amanda to doubt her own memory. Napoleoni joining in Mignini's suit is a righteous effort to cover herself from responsibility.

 

[Grinder]

Mach could you provide a couple of articles on Mignini's latest lawsuit against Maori?

 

[davefoc]

Well if you read Guede's motivation reports you will see how often Amanda and Raffaele are mentioned by name.

Establishing a judicial truth held in one trial to prohibit a defence in another, is offensive, because it causes the "jury" to ask, "If not them, then who", a question, which, bizarrely, people are still asking.

However, the question of multiple/single attackers was resolvable or should have been resolvable from the evidence in the room to cause the abandonment of the cases against Amanda and Raffaele long before they were ever charged.

I'm losing track a bit here of what the issues are about this. Clearly absolutely nothing determined in the trial of Guede should have been admissible in the trial of AK/RS. This seems to be such an obvious point that it is hardly worth a discussion.

So was anything admitted into the trial of AK/RS that had been determined in Guede's fast track trial or were experts called that testified that multiple attackers had been present in the AK/RS trial? Was this another situation where evidence inadmissible against AK/RS in the criminal trial got into the trial record because of actions taken by the Lumumba's attorney?

 

[christianahannah]

To address whether Amanda and Raffaele had a defense during their pre-trial hearing and Guede's fast track trial it appears they did somewhat (how much of a defense would depend on one's perspective or bias).

Amanda spoke before the court in mid-October concerning her innocence and I think this is where she brought up formally being hit during November 5-6. I imagine there is more to her defense but I haven't the time at the present to search.

Here is a link to an article concerning Raffaele's defense. Again, there are probably more articles. Search for the month of October 2008.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/08_...to_7424b004-a1cd-11dd-8e51-00144f02aabc.shtml

Lastly, perhaps Machiavelli would know of any statements of Raffaele given prior to November 5.