Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

As Marasca said, Amanda was covering up for Rudy.

And just like Maresca, you offered no proof of this. You can't even prove that Amanda ever called or texted Rudy ever. According to you Amanda was covering for someone she barely knew.

It's important in a court of law for a jury to examine the evidence and not to consider wild speculation lacking any proof.

 

[acbytesla]

I was also able to read the auto translate but it is well short of being clear. rather than just reproduce the Google since you understand it please rewrite in a form that is clear.

Yea, about all I understood is that Mignini was censured for "banning". Not clear to me what that is. Seems it has to do with preventing Raffaele from talking to counsel..but I'm not really sure. I'd love to know if his being censured is a slap on the wrist or is it more serious .

 

[LondonJohn]

Yea, about all I understood is that Mignini was censured for "banning". Not clear to me what that is. Seems it has to do with preventing Raffaele from talking to counsel..but I'm not really sure. I'd love to know if his being censured is a slap on the wrist or is it more serious .

It's pretty clear to me. This is all about the ridiculous, mendacious and downright unlawful way in which Mignini prevented Sollecito (and Knox, for that matter) from getting access to a lawyer in the three days following their arrest and detention on 6th November.

Basically, there's an allowance in the Code for PMs to deny arrested persons access to counsel - but ONLY under extremely unusual and strictly-defined circumstances. In essence, the PM has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that to allow access to counsel might have a significant change of hampering the investigation and/or perverting the course of justice. And pretty much the only time this is at issue is with serious organised crime (e.g. the Mafia) or terrorism. In either instance, lawyers might wittingly or unwittingly be used to convey information such as alibis, or to intimidate potential witnesses, or to hide/destroy evidence.

If a PM wishes to invoke this denial of counsel, (s)he must set out the written grounds to do so, and present them in writing to the arraignment judge. The written grounds must specifically argue that the circumstances are extreme and unusual, and must spell out the reasons why the PM feels that the investigation might be hampered and/or justice perverted if the defendant(s) were to get access to a lawyer.

Mignini simply invoked this denail on a whim. Because it made things easier for him, and probably because he thought that Sollecito and/or Knox might further "buckle" without any legal advice, and might totally "spill the beans". But what he did was unlawful and unfair. And what's more, the supine arraignment judge, Micheli, blithely waved through Mignini's invocation of the denial of counsel - he actually asked Mignini if he (Mignini) had completed the formal written motivation, and Mignini demurred (he hadn't written any such thing....). So in a sense, Micheli is as guilty as Mignini on this matter. It also further illustrates vividly just how improper and unjust is the cosy relationship between judges and PMs.

And as I read it, Mignini has basically been formally told off by his superiors. It will sully his record, and presumably it will also potentially have some bearing on the rest of his career. The man's a disgrace for many reasons. This is just one of those reasons.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yea, about all I understood is that Mignini was censured for "banning". Not clear to me what that is. Seems it has to do with preventing Raffaele from talking to counsel..but I'm not really sure. I'd love to know if his being censured is a slap on the wrist or is it more serious .

I'll see what I can find when time permits. It would be good to have Machiavelli here for a competent translation.

Still I found this after googling, "Marasca and Bruno arrested after massive judicial scandal." Maybe nothing came up for that because I didn't google in Italian.

 

[LondonJohn]

In the UK police can hold you for questioning without charge on serious crimes for days, as long as they get a warrant from a magistrate, who never says no.

You can remain silent but it can be held against you (unlike the US Fifth Amendment). We have an adversarial system, so police will endeavour to make a case as strong as possible before sending it to the CPS who decide whether to prosecute.

For all non-terrorism serious offences, an arrested person can be held for 24 hours for questioning, then for up to a further 36 hours with the agreement of a senior police officer, then for up to a further 36 hours with the granting of a magistrate's warrant. That makes 96 hours in total (= 4 days). After that maximum time period, the person must either be charged or released from custody without charge (though the person can of course be arrested and immediately charged at any point in the future).

And magistrates can - and do frequently - refuse to grant the final 36-hour extension.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a stack of evidence, which will never go away.

There is not one piece of reliable, credible evidence which points to Knox and Sollecito having participated in the attack and murder of Kercher.

 

[LondonJohn]

The First court evaluates evidence. The appeals court evaluates evidence if the judge decides the point of appeal requires it. You will note in the current case the first court (merits hearing) trial lasted eight months. The appeal, barely three days. See the difference in emphasis? The latter can all be done sitting in chambers, almost.

Oh dear.

Appeals courts (of all colours) do most of their work ex-camera. That is to say, the judges hearing the appeal read, analyse and evaluate all the documentation related to the case in private chambers, and not in a courtroom. The courtroom in an appeal scenario is only used to a) hear new witness testimony (if applicable), b) hear arguments and submissions from prosecutors and defence lawyers, and c) announce the verdict. So an appear doesn't last "three days". It lasts weeks or even months before those three days even happen.

So it's utterly inappropriate (and rather embarrassing) to make the simplistic comparison of courtroom time for first-level trials and appeal-level trials. And that's before one even takes into account (as others have pointed out as well) that in Italy, even first-level courts sit at sporadic times, often with significant gaps in-between court time - thus making it even more inappropriate to simplistically take Calendar Day 1 of the trial and Calendar Day X of the trial (i.e. the day when the verdict is announced) as any indicator of the length of time taken actually trying the case.

 

[Grinder]

from .net a better or at least more readable version: The disciplinary tribunal, presided over by a lay Councillor, Antonio Leone, issued its ruling after the hearing took place in the Palazzo dei Marescialli this morning. Mignini, according to the accusations made by the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court, had caused “unfair harm to a detainee by the postponement/prohibition” issued “only orally, with serious and inexcusable breach of the law”, of the right to confer with counsel, in obvious violation of the norm contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes a “motivated decree” issued in writing and delivered immediately to all affected parties.

The substitute PG of the Supreme Court, Luigi Salvato, while recognizing as 'proven' the facts described in the indictment, had urged at the hearing the acquittal of Mignini, (defended by the Supreme Court Councillor Piercamillo Davigo) deeming the misdemeanor fact 'minor' (of little relevance) taking into account that Sollecito was allowed to speak to his lawyer, Tiziano Tedeschi, before being questioned by the GIP (judge for preliminary investigations) at the preliminary hearing. PG's request was therefore rejected by the disciplinary panel (tribunal) which will deposit within a month their reasons (motivazioni] for the verdict.

Odd thing to be called a misdemeanor.

ETA - though open to correction I believe the .net translator added misdemeanor to the sentence. Changing the word "fact" to misdemeanor. I changed it.

 

[Bill Williams]

from .net a better or at least more readable version: The disciplinary tribunal, presided over by a lay Councillor, Antonio Leone, issued its ruling after the hearing took place in the Palazzo dei Marescialli this morning. Mignini, according to the accusations made by the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court, had caused “unfair harm to a detainee by the postponement/prohibition” issued “only orally, with serious and inexcusable breach of the law”, of the right to confer with counsel, in obvious violation of the norm contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes a “motivated decree” issued in writing and delivered immediately to all affected parties.

The substitute PG of the Supreme Court, Luigi Salvato, while recognizing as 'proven' the facts described in the indictment, had urged at the hearing the acquittal of Mignini, (defended by the Supreme Court Councillor Piercamillo Davigo) deeming the misdemeanor 'minor' (of little relevance) taking into account that Sollecito was allowed to speak to his lawyer, Tiziano Tedeschi, before being questioned by the GIP (judge for preliminary investigations) at the preliminary hearing. PG's request was therefore rejected by the disciplinary panel (tribunal) which will deposit within a month their reasons (motivazioni] for the verdict.

Odd thing to be called a misdemeanor.

Probably a translation artifact, which would have otherwise been picked up by a translator with some legal training.

 

[Desert Fox]

Is he going to appeal it all the way up the Italian corut system?

 

[acbytesla]

from .net a better or at least more readable version: The disciplinary tribunal, presided over by a lay Councillor, Antonio Leone, issued its ruling after the hearing took place in the Palazzo dei Marescialli this morning. Mignini, according to the accusations made by the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court, had caused “unfair harm to a detainee by the postponement/prohibition” issued “only orally, with serious and inexcusable breach of the law”, of the right to confer with counsel, in obvious violation of the norm contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes a “motivated decree” issued in writing and delivered immediately to all affected parties.

The substitute PG of the Supreme Court, Luigi Salvato, while recognizing as 'proven' the facts described in the indictment, had urged at the hearing the acquittal of Mignini, (defended by the Supreme Court Councillor Piercamillo Davigo) deeming the misdemeanor fact 'minor' (of little relevance) taking into account that Sollecito was allowed to speak to his lawyer, Tiziano Tedeschi, before being questioned by the GIP (judge for preliminary investigations) at the preliminary hearing. PG's request was therefore rejected by the disciplinary panel (tribunal) which will deposit within a month their reasons (motivazioni] for the verdict.

Odd thing to be called a misdemeanor.

ETA - though open to correction I believe the .net translator added misdemeanor to the sentence. Changing the word "fact" to misdemeanor. I changed it.

I didn't think they had misdemeanors in Italy?

 

[Grinder]

I didn't think they had misdemeanors in Italy?

as I added above this seems to be an editorial change by .net. They probably want to make it look better for the Great Mignini.

I looked for a translation of misdemeanor and none came up which strengthens your thought.

That said I doubt it will amount to much if his history is a guide.

 

[Grinder]

Now once again it is baffling that the PGP don't see that the treatment of both the kids and in particular Amanda as non native was egregious. I can understand that the PLE would go to the line with questioning them without declaring them suspects. I can even accept a little over the line. What I can't fathom is not allowing them their right to an attorney and in the case of Amanda seeing her mother. It seems clear the system allows LE to tap calls and listen in to conversations. After Amanda gave her 1:45 am statement she should have been given an attorney and Mignini et al. should not have conversed with her until she saw that attorney.

How the PGP can go on supporting these behaviors is baffling. What possible extreme circumstances existed?

 

[bagels]

Mignini is Dirty Harry, cleaning the streets of Perugia of their roaming gangs of satanic sex cults and the mafia conspirators on the Supreme Court who back them up.

He's a loose cannon, but dammit he gets results!

 

[acbytesla]

as I added above this seems to be an editorial change by .net. They probably want to make it look better for the Great Mignini.

I looked for a translation of misdemeanor and none came up which strengthens your thought.

That said I doubt it will amount to much if his history is a guide.

I'd say you're right, but Mignini has been involved in 2 of the most notoriously bad cases in Italian history. This doesn't look good.He's an embarrassment. Still, Italy seems to have a habit of sweeping embarrassments under the rug.

If I was betting, I'd say it will come to nothing....but it can't be good for Mignini if Raffaele stays in the public eye.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is he going to appeal it all the way up the Italian corut system?

It's not a court finding. Mignini has not (yet) been found guilty of any criminal offence, and nor has he been found liable/culpable in a "civil" court. What's happened is that Mignini's supervisory body (his bosses, in effect) has investigated his conduct and has issued a formal censure for misconduct. So in many ways it's akin to a person in an office job making a serious professional error and receiving a formal reprimand by his/her bosses.

I don't know whether Mignini has any avenue to "appeal" this censure, but usually those sorts of professional sanctions are not appealable (just as an employee who receives, say, a formal written warning for misconduct cannot appeal that warning). One would imagine that this formal censure would have an effect upon Mignini's reputation and standing in the Italian criminal justice community, and that it might also adversely affect his future career prospects. We'll see, I suppose.

 

[Grinder]

I'd say you're right, but Mignini has been involved in 2 of the most notoriously bad cases in Italian history. This doesn't look good.He's an embarrassment. Still, Italy seems to have a habit of sweeping embarrassments under the rug.

If I was betting, I'd say it will come to nothing....but it can't be good for Mignini if Raffaele stays in the public eye.

And for now Raf is doing just that. He and Introna are doing a presentation soon.

Didn't MOF people fight on as well?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'd say you're right, but Mignini has been involved in 2 of the most notoriously bad cases in Italian history. This doesn't look good.He's an embarrassment. Still, Italy seems to have a habit of sweeping embarrassments under the rug.

If I was betting, I'd say it will come to nothing....but it can't be good for Mignini if Raffaele stays in the public eye.

Who knows. This could nudge George Clooney's "The Monster of Florence," out of development hell......

 

[acbytesla]

And for now Raf is doing just that. He and Introna are doing a presentation soon.

Didn't MOF people fight on as well?

Yes, I think so. What happened to the cases against Amanda a day Raffaele? I think Mignini's instinct is to attack when he feels attacked. That may not serve him well if he continues along that line.

 

[acbytesla]

Who knows. This could nudge George Clooney's "The Monster of Florence," out of development hell......

Who's to say but I would bet against that movie ever being made. Clooney's star is fading in Hollywood. Maybe if Hail Caesar is a hit.But George isn't the bankable star he once was. An American movie about an Italian serial killer and an idiot prosecutor? All rides on a great script, not this other stuff.