Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Look, I happen to look up this discussion and I found myself quoted in last post.
Yes, indeed AK/RS were represented throughpout the whole Guede trial, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. In fact they did so.

(obviously, they don't have a right to cross-examine Guede himself without his consent, since Guede was a defendant, and thus had a right to refuse to answer any question, and to lie).

Hellman said the following Mach.

The General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties have argued that, in denying Rudy Guede’s appeal, the Corte di Cassazione put down “unmovable poles” [paletti insuperabili] for this Corte di Assise with regard to the reconstruction of the crime and the evaluation of the evidence; and, although they modified the scope of [ridimensionato] this argument at the end of the discussion by claiming this ruling as only one element to be assessed, they nevertheless emphasized the particular relevance of this element.

It is only too obvious that the ruling in question is not absolutely binding [on us]; that would be contrary not only to the norms of positive law governing the force [efficacia] of criminal verdicts in other cases (C.P.P. Article 654), but also to all the basic constitutionally-guaranteed institutional principles (Constitution, Article 111), since the current defendants would be made to suffer the effects of a ruling issued in a case in which they were not involved.

What say you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Hellman said the following Mach.



What say you?

D'uh! Dontchaknow that Hellmann is a corrupt idiot who was probably bribed to write that?!

 

[acbytesla]

D'uh! Dontchaknow that Hellmann is a corrupt idiot who was probably bribed to write that?!

I think the real question I would like to ask Mach is should the ruling of fact in a case where a party is not a defendant allowed to be a factor in that defendants separate trial?

This seems to me to violate the simple tenet of basic fairness.

 

[Annella]

Look, I happen to look up this discussion and I found myself quoted in last post.
Yes, indeed AK/RS were represented throughpout the whole Guede trial, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. In fact they did so.

(obviously, they don't have a right to cross-examine Guede himself without his consent, since Guede was a defendant, and thus had a right to refuse to answer any question, and to lie).

Hey Mach!

Glad you are here and maybe you can help us to understand something? Do you concur with Andrea Vogt's blog entry about the nutcase who petitioned the Florence court as a private citizen? She criticized him as an armchair detective, and that all he is doing is prolonging the victims' ( Kercher) family's pain by dragging this out. Would appreciate your thoughts.

TIA.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach could you please refer us to anything confirming the participation of the defense for A&R in the Guede trial?

What kind of document specifically are you looking for?
Can't you access the file library at themurderofmeredithkercher.com site? You can pick up any transcript from the 2008 trial, and just verify that AK/RS lawyers took part to trial debate.
I actually already pointed out the known theory presented by AK/RS defence team about the "Y" shaped glass they claimed was embedded in Guede's shoe. (Or also, the Vinci DNA report that attributed extra allales on the bra clasp to Amanda Knox).

 

[Numbers]

Look, I happen to look up this discussion and I found myself quoted in last post.
Yes, indeed AK/RS were represented throughpout the whole Guede trial, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. In fact they did so.

(obviously, they don't have a right to cross-examine Guede himself without his consent, since Guede was a defendant, and thus had a right to refuse to answer any question, and to lie).

Hi Mach, welcome back.

Now I will ask you for your citation(s) supporting your statement. Are you discussing the Guede's fast-track trial, or a preliminary hearing? That is, CPP Art. 438.1 provides for a preliminary hearing to become the basis for decision - a fast-track trial - at the request of the accused. The judge grants the fast-track trial if he approves the request of the accused. The fast-track trial is not, however, the preliminary hearing according to CPP Art. 438 paragraphs 4 and 5.

However, CPP Art. 441 requires that the fast-track (summary) trial be held in closed (non-public) sessions, unless requested by the accused. Where is the evidence that Guede's fast-track trial was held in open sessions, or that any representatives of Knox or Sollecito were present? Again, please provide us with the citation(s) that show that they were present at the fast-track trial, and that show that they were allowed to ask questions.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hellman said the following Mach.

What say you?

1. What I had to say about the full representation of AK/RS at the Guede trial, I already said it: they were fully represented.
And this is a fact - actually a self-evident fact - regardless of your lack of knowled of the law or your failure to read trial papers or news reports, and regardless your interpretation of Hellmann.
This is the fact I pointed out to Bill Williams about.

2. On legal point, that is the legal consequence of Guede's words in evidentiary reasoning, it's not what I say what matters but rather what Chieffi recalls at at p.26, where reports the PG censuring Hellmann's reference to Const. art. 111. SC says basically: "Citation of art. 111 of Constitution should have been ruled out, can be no basis to argue for Guede's unreliability".
SC accepts the PG point, so Hellmann reasoning recalling Art. 111 is invalid.
But anyway this is a different topic.
Because the point of fact was just number 1., that is AK/RS were represented. Period. This is a point of fact.
Whether Guede's words are usable or evidence, that one one instead is a point of law, it's a different topic and different story, and also refers to a different trial instance.

Anyway if you want to get more into the legal point, then read what Chieffi decides about the usability of Guede's verdict. The Chieffi panel points out that Hellmann's reasoning is wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Mach, welcome back.

Now I will ask you for your citation(s) supporting your statement. Are you discussing the Guede's fast-track trial, or a preliminary hearing? That is, CPP Art. 438.1 provides for a preliminary hearing to become the basis for decision - a fast-track trial - at the request of the accused. The judge grants the fast-track trial if he approves the request of the accused. The fast-track trial is not, however, the preliminary hearing according to CPP Art. 438 paragraphs 4 and 5.

The fast-track trial is defined as a trial decided at the preliminary hearing. So in fact, the fast track trial is the preliminary hearing. And it was indeed the preliminary hearing of the AK/RS proceedings.

However, CPP Art. 441 requires that the fast-track (summary) trial be held in closed (non-public) sessions, unless requested by the accused. Where is the evidence that Guede's fast-track trial was held in open sessions, or that any representatives of Knox or Sollecito were present? Again, please provide us with the citation(s) that show that they were present at the fast-track trial, and that show that they were allowed to ask questions.

Those questions are very strange. It sounds a bit like a person looking out from a boat and asking: what evidence there is we are on the sea? What kind of finding, or "evidence", exactly, do you think would convince you that AK and RS were represented at Guede's trial?
What kind of citation are you looking for, exactly? Maybe you don't realize that the Guede trial was the same thing of AK/RS preliminary hearing? You don't realize maybe, that court hearings such as, for example the testimony of Kokomani of Sept. 26. 2008, belonged to the Guede trial? And that the witness was questioned by RS and AK defence?

Additional point: the trial was hold in closed sessions, as it is the rule (and actually, as far as I know, the parties did not request the sessions to be open). This does not mean that AK/RS were not represented. It has nothing to do with the point actually.

 

[Machiavelli]

But regardless - Guede's trial process was to determine the guilt or non-guilt of Guede alone, on the charges that Guede faced (murder etc). That's all. It wasn't there to determine "what really happened" - even though Italian criminal courts still appear shockingly unable to stop themselves from stepping outside their remit to do so. (...)

It's Italian law, not Italian courts. The courts' duty is precisely to determine what happened, insofar as this is determinant to understand what the suspect actually did.
The judge who decided about Guede was even more invested with this topic, since throug the same proceedings he was also requested to decide about whether there was a solid case against AK & RS.

 

[acbytesla]

1. What I had to say about the full representation of AK/RS at the Guede trial, I already said it: they were fully represented.
And this is a fact - actually a self-evident fact - regardless of your lack of knowled of the law or your failure to read trial papers or news reports, and regardless your interpretation of Hellmann.
This is the fact I pointed out to Bill Williams about.

2. On legal point, that is the legal consequence of Guede's words in evidentiary reasoning, it's not what I say what matters but rather what Chieffi recalls at at p.26, where reports the PG censuring Hellmann's reference to Const. art. 111. SC says basically: "Citation of art. 111 of Constitution should have been ruled out, can be no basis to argue for Guede's unreliability".
SC accepts the PG point, so Hellmann reasoning recalling Art. 111 is invalid.
But anyway this is a different topic.
Because the point of fact was just number 1., that is AK/RS were represented. Period. This is a point of fact.
Whether Guede's words are usable or evidence, that one one instead is a point of law, it's a different topic and different story, and also refers to a different trial instance.

Anyway if you want to get more into the legal point, then read what Chieffi decides about the usability of Guede's verdict. The Chieffi panel points out that Hellmann's reasoning is wrong.

I get that from an Italian legal point. But my question to you this case aside, is that really the right approach? Chieffi is defending the ISC ruling in denying Rudy's appeal. But the truth is there is no reasonable way that Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers can investigate and refute the arguments in Rudy's fast track trial as they can in their own trial. It seems to me to consider elements that cannot hardly be fairly investigated and argued in comparison to how they are in a full trial as unfair.

What do you think?

 

[Machiavelli]

I think the real question I would like to ask Mach is should the ruling of fact in a case where a party is not a defendant allowed to be a factor in that defendants separate trial?

This seems to me to violate the simple tenet of basic fairness.

That one is a different question. It's not about our case, since AK & RS were represented at Guede's trial.

My answer is: yes, the ruling from a trial should be allowed to be a factor in another trial, even if the trials were completely separate (which was not our case anyway). I think this does not violate any concept of fairness at all.
I say "yes" while specifying that: 1) this is not just my opinion, the mechanism belongs to the specifications of the Italian system, it is the actual law, it is fair and constitutional; 2) my opinion, I point this out, refers to the Italian system, and meant to be applied to justice systems that share the same principles; therefore I am not saying that this mechanism would be necessarily "fair" in any system, because there are some other systems that work on different principles. But the Italian system is designed to allow the use of external judicial findings as circumstantial elements into a trial, it's a "civil law" system, it works this way.

By the way there are other mechanisms in other justice system that could be singled out and called "unfair" based exactly on the concepts that you point out. For example in the USA systems you very often have "plea bargains" in exchange of testimonies, which are, de facto, deals and decisions where the "suspect" is not represented, which produce factors that are going to be "used" in the suspect's trial (with most devastating and "unfair" effects, IMHO). In the USA you also have "Grand Juries", external bodies where parties and victims are not represented, which decide whether a party will be allowed or denied fact-finding through a trial (also extremely unfair).

 

[Grinder]

Well. Thanks Mach I went to the PG wiki and found this in the Micheli report on Rudi:

We refer here in particular to the expert reports filed respectively by Ms KNOX’s and Mr SOLLECITO’s defences as regards the dynamics of the homicidal act and of the reports of the mobile telephone traffic, not to mention about the presence of presumed traces to impute the use of a knife with characteristics different from the one that has been seized: in any case, it must be affirmed with equal clarity that the insertion into the body of the current reasons of the associated reasoning followed by the [Bail] Court in no way imports any violation of Mr GUEDE’s defence rights. As emerges with crystal clarity, and also by reason of the peculiarity of a trial where the other accused – in more or less explicit terms – have intended to defend themselves by accusing the third, and vice versa, those items will come to be adduced for the salient purpose of pointing to Mr GUEDE as the sole and effective killer, and – as far as they are marshalled in that direction – have all been held to be non-probative [here] [translator’s note: that is, not admissible as against Guede].

another: The state itself of the body revealed signs of modification from its initial aspect. Taking up the report by the KNOX defence medico-legal consultants, it can be read that on MEREDITH’s body there were found “minute point-like marks on the anterior face of the thorax, indubitably originating directly from the source of bleeding at the neck (their dimensions suggesting that they had been projected by respiratory activity through aerial pathways encumbered with blood). Their aspect (small and rounded) tell us that they were projected upwards with the victim substantially supine (facing upwards) to fall down again, therefore, on to her chest”; analogous small marks are not found on the upper part of the thorax, evidently covered up by the rolled-up top, by which “when those marks were made the bra was no longer being worn: there is no screening or shielding done by this item of clothing, and the droplets stained the cutaneous areas that originally had been covered by it”.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report_(English)

This is from akc.com:

"The first element to be highlighted, and that - in the comparison between the different arguments put forward by
counsel for the defendants in these proceedings - ictu oculi appears thicker towards Knox and Sollecito to the position
of GUEDE, covers the objective of emergency homicidal action carried out by more people, rather than by a single
author.On this point, in order of relevance to the data forensic, you must record the initial position of dr. LALLI, CT of
the Public Ministry, according to which there would be no findings in support of either hypothesis. The report of the
Scientific Police (UACV) filed at the preliminary hearing focuses instead on the presence of typical defensive wounds
on the palmar region and on the thumb of the right hand of the victim, apparently came into contact with the blade of
the knife, that fact, to reconnect to bruise from withholding, does suggest "an action of violent coercion by multiple
attackers, also in order to prevent the woman to oppose the blade of the weapon

 

[Grinder]

By the way there are other mechanisms in other justice system that could be singled out and called "unfair" based exactly on the concepts that you point out. For example in the USA systems you very often have "plea bargains" in exchange of testimonies, which are, de facto, deals and decisions where the "suspect" is not represented, which produce factors that are going to be "used" in the suspect's trial (with most devastating and "unfair" effects, IMHO). In the USA you also have "Grand Juries", external bodies where parties and victims are not represented, which decide whether a party will be allowed or denied fact-finding through a trial (also extremely unfair).

Plea bargaining can be a problem, no doubt. the Grand Jury does not work the way you describe. The Grand Jury only indicts and then a normal trial proceeds. The main issue with the GJ is "suspects' can be questioned without their lawyer present. They are allowed to go out of the chamber and discuss the question with their attorney. The prosecutor controls the GJ in such a way it is said he can indict a ham sandwich.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey Mach!

Glad you are here and maybe you can help us to understand something? Do you concur with Andrea Vogt's blog entry about the nutcase who petitioned the Florence court as a private citizen? She criticized him as an armchair detective, and that all he is doing is prolonging the victims' ( Kercher) family's pain by dragging this out. Would appreciate your thoughts.

TIA.

I'm afraid I can't share Vogt's view about the Kerchers, and that I may have a very different opinon about things that offend the Kerchers' dignity and feelings.

I believe instead some those things are: the use of Meredith's pictures on the part of Knox supporters, or the showing of doctored pictures showing her with AK, or the use of Meredith's name in association with pro-Knox propaganda, or the false propaganda in favor of AK & RS in general, or the traducing and offending of MK's friends, or (most vile and worst) the propaganda that uses the name of Meredith such as attempts to associate them together like proclaiming that they were "friends", and so.

 

[Numbers]

Look, I happen to look up this discussion and I found myself quoted in last post.
Yes, indeed AK/RS were represented throughpout the whole Guede trial, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. In fact they did so.

(obviously, they don't have a right to cross-examine Guede himself without his consent, since Guede was a defendant, and thus had a right to refuse to answer any question, and to lie).

This is indeed interesting information, with regard to AK's and RS's lawyers cross-examining witnesses at Rudy Guede's fast-track trial.

Please provide citations where the testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in Guede's fast-track trial may be read by ISF members.

 

[Machiavelli]

Plea bargaining can be a problem, no doubt. the Grand Jury does not work the way you describe. The Grand Jury only indicts and then a normal trial proceeds. The main issue with the GJ is "suspects' can be questioned without their lawyer present. They are allowed to go out of the chamber and discuss the question with their attorney. The prosecutor controls the GJ in such a way it is said he can indict a ham sandwich.

You confirm that GJ hearing is quite obviously unfair (or at least a very obsolete institution). The GJ is a de facto extra-judiciary body, since does not allow a court debate. You point out that the prosecutor may indict without any element. I take your word and guess that could be. But I'll add, that in some cases may also work the other way as well: it may deny the right of a victim of having a full-scale trial investigation. Because in the GJ there is no suspect's attorney, but there is also no civil party attorney, no victim's representant, and no other parties (like other suspects) represented.

 

[acbytesla]

That one is a different question. It's not about our case, since AK & RS were represented at Guede's trial.

My answer is: yes, the ruling from a trial should be allowed to be a factor in another trial, even if the trials were completely separate (which was not our case anyway). I think this does not violate any concept of fairness at all.
I say "yes" while specifying that: 1) this is not just my opinion, the mechanism belongs to the specifications of the Italian system, it is the actual law, it is fair and constitutional; 2) my opinion, I point this out, refers to the Italian system, and meant to be applied to justice systems that share the same principles; therefore I am not saying that this mechanism would be necessarily "fair" in any system, because there are some other systems that work on different principles. But the Italian system is designed to allow the use of external judicial findings as circumstantial elements into a trial, it's a "civil law" system, it works this way.

By the way there are other mechanisms in other justice system that could be singled out and called "unfair" based exactly on the concepts that you point out. For example in the USA systems you very often have "plea bargains" in exchange of testimonies, which are, de facto, deals and decisions where the "suspect" is not represented, which produce factors that are going to be "used" in the suspect's trial (with most devastating and "unfair" effects, IMHO). In the USA you also have "Grand Juries", external bodies where parties and victims are not represented, which decide whether a party will be allowed or denied fact-finding through a trial (also extremely unfair).

Somehow I knew you would think that was fair. Never mind in the full trial, 7 out of 8 experts said they could not rule out that the murder was the work of a single assailant. You argue that an incomplete investigation should trump a thorough one simply for the reason it predates it. You make the hurried rush to judgment a fait acompli.

With all due respect I believe you don't understand what a Grand Jury is. As for the concept of plea bargaining in exchange for testimony there is a reasonable argument against them. That I don't deny. FYI: A Grand Jury is sort of a mini-trial that decides if there will be a full trial. Decisions in a Grand Jury have ZERO effect on the actual trial.

 

[Grinder]

This is indeed interesting information, with regard to AK's and RS's lawyers cross-examining witnesses at Rudy Guede's fast-track trial.

Please provide citations where the testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in Guede's fast-track trial may be read by ISF members.

Numbers I have provided evidence of the kids' defenses putting forward expert testimony in what amounted to Rudi's trial.

The kids' defenses were allowed to make their claims in the preliminary hearing which apparently was/became Rudi's trial. Both the PG and the PI wiki have the MR from Micheli.

 

[Grinder]

You confirm that GJ hearing is quite obviously unfair (or at least a very obsolete institution). The GJ is a de facto extra-judiciary body, since does not allow a court debate. You point out that the prosecutor may indict without any element. I take your word and guess that could be. But I'll add, that in some cases may also work the other way as well: it may deny the right of a victim of having a full-scale trial investigation. Because in the GJ there is no suspect's attorney, but there is also no civil party attorney, no victim's representant, and no other parties (like other suspects) represented.

Civil parties are only allowed to have voice at sentencing hearings.

 

[Numbers]

The fast-track trial is defined as a trial decided at the preliminary hearing. So in fact, the fast track trial is the preliminary hearing. And it was indeed the preliminary hearing of the AK/RS proceedings.



Those questions are very strange. It sounds a bit like a person looking out from a boat and asking: what evidence there is we are on the sea? What kind of finding, or "evidence", exactly, do you think would convince you that AK and RS were represented at Guede's trial?
What kind of citation are you looking for, exactly? Maybe you don't realize that the Guede trial was the same thing of AK/RS preliminary hearing? You don't realize maybe, that court hearings such as, for example the testimony of Kokomani of Sept. 26. 2008, belonged to the Guede trial? And that the witness was questioned by RS and AK defence?

Additional point: the trial was hold in closed sessions, as it is the rule (and actually, as far as I know, the parties did not request the sessions to be open). This does not mean that AK/RS were not represented. It has nothing to do with the point actually.

So - Guede's fast-track trial was indeed held in closed (non-public) session, according to Mach, which is consistent with CPP Art. 441.3; the closed session is in accordance with Italian law, as long as Guede did not request an open session.

Thus, Mach has no citations or documents supporting the presence of the legal representatives of Knox or Sollecito at Guede's fast-track trial.

What he is falsely and misleading stating as the presence of the AK - RS representatives is in reality the presence of certain documents prepared for the other hearings, such as the preliminary hearing, for the AK and RS defense, that were referred to by the judge in Guede's fast-track trial.