Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

We will soon find out if Amanda's claim of police brutality and forced confession has any merit. A cynic might think she is trying to wriggle out of having been caught bang to rights falsely accusing her boss of the rape and murder of her 'friend'.

Well no: that's the sort of thing that might be thought by a person blinded by vengeance, confirmation bias, and some sort of bizarre, irrational need to see a plainly-not-guilty Knox be found guilty and punished.

But on top of that, it would appear that now you understand that the following statement of yours...

A direct statement by a defendant is treated as pretty much prima facie evidence

...is simply not true, in that it's not an absolute statement. So we may be making at least the tiniest bit of progress towards education and enlightenment!

 

[acbytesla]

Are you? What makes you think the US secretary of state will object to extraditing someone on a common garden felony charge of calunnia, from a country with whom it has a mutual extradition treaty?

You're kidding right? The US Secretary of State works for the President of the United States. A political position. If the majority of Americans see that Amanda was railroaded then the President would look weak and callous not being concerned and protecting that young American girl when he could have. The beauty of the SecState making the decision is the President doesn't have to get involved.

But guess what Vixen? The Sec State wouldn't have to since Callunia is not a crime in the US and according to the extradition treaty with Italy the crime has to be a crime in both countries. Any US judge would throw it out of court. Also It'll wouldn't ask knowing that the extradition does not comply with the treaty.

 

[LondonJohn]

These statements are totally and absurdly in error for the Italian courts.

This statement is an incomplete explanation of what the appeal to an Italian second-instance court may include.

What the Italian appeal (second-instance) courts do is to evaluate the case, which they may do de novo (from the beginning) if the presiding judge wishes to do so. That is, they may re-hear evidence and hear new evidence. They also interpret the law, or implement it, de novo.

This is different from the procedure in the US, where, at least for the Federal US courts, the law is interpreted by a de novo examination, while the evidence of the trial is reviewed for clear error, including interpretation and admissibility. The appeal court has the power to acquit. If the appellant claims there is new significant evidence, and the appeal court agrees, then the appeal court orders a new trial with the new evidence; very rarely, the appeal court may acquit or dismiss based on compelling significant new evidence.

In Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) does not hear new evidence, but evaluates the evidence that was used by the lower court and its interpretation as grounds for the lower court judgment. It also evaluates and interprets the law. The CSC may acquit without referral or by affirming the acquittal of a lower court, but it cannot convict except by affirming the judgment of a lower court that has heard the evidence.

It's very clear indeed that Vixen does not properly understand the formation, function, purpose and remit of the appeal-level court and the Supreme Court in Italian criminal justice (hint: they fullfil markedly different functions from, for example, similarly-named courts in E&W justice, with markedly different remits). It's also clear that the bandying around of bogus (and more-often-than-not misused, inappropriate or plain wrong) Latin terminology is little more than an attempt to infuse the "arguments" with some sort of strange pseudo-scholarly weight.

As such, it's probably of little use trying (once again) to explain what the different levels of court actually do (and don't do) in the Italian system. As Pope memorably wrote: "A little learning is a dangerous thing". And a little mendacious tutoring from some of the nutters who purport to be neutral "scholars" on hate-filled partisan sites such as PMF and TJMK really does set one up to fail when it comes to an objective, well-reasoned debate on this subject.

 

[Desert Fox]

You're kidding right? The US Secretary of State works for the President of the United States. A political position. If the majority of Americans see that Amanda was railroaded then the President would look weak and callous not being concerned and protecting that young American girl when he could have. The beauty of the SecState making the decision is the President doesn't have to get involved.

It gets even worse that that. . . .There have been a number of cases in the United States of police brutality. This would be a case where it would be seen as the president is alright with punishing people for reporting police brutality.

Edit: One should also mention that this is also being tried seven years after the fact. Everything points towards being an attempt to cover up their own activities

 

[Desert Fox]

* The Washington State law is:
RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

It is a gross misdemeanor by Washington State law and they have a two year statute of limitations in Washington state.
Edit: I looked it up, that is how I know.

 

[acbytesla]

You are incorrect. The appeal court can ONLY look at points of law appealed against.

How would you know this to be true? Are you an expert on Italian law? Perhaps you can provide the appropriate citation of Italian law that supports this conclusion?

If you provided this I might believe your argument has some merit. As it is, I think you are of course talking out your backside. Feel free to prove me wrong...if you can,

 

[Bill Williams]

"Manifest illogicality" is a legal argument. Do you suppose there might be something manifestly illogical about independent experts being assigned and their work essentially ignored by a court which failed to appoint new independent experts that challenged the previous work? Was C&V mentioned in Cheffi? By Nencini?

They read the reports, they didn't delve into the details unless they were encompassed by a prosecution/defense/court argument on the 'manifest illogicality' of them. This may be what causes some confusion and what I've been saying is why the 'manifest illogicality' argument has become passé and if I recall correctly from what I read years back has even been condemned by the other Supreme Court in Italy, the Constitutional one, not that it stops it from being introduced sometimes still, like in this case.

However that doesn't mean they went into every little detail in the case, nor that they passed judgement on those issues which which were the purview of the other courts. For the passage you've posted they probably just cribbed it from Nencini himself and simply used it as an example, it has no other relevance outside that.

I'd be tempted to argue that the Marasca panel assigned one of their number to read the full record/history of the DNA evidence, straight from a review of the film the Scientific Police themselves took of the December collection.

They then read how Massei convicted, mainly by taking the word of Stefanoni that she knew what she was talking about - including a prior court haring where the judge ruled that Stefanoni did not need to turn over the EDF's to the defence.

Then they read how Hellmann acquitted because there actually was a third party review of the DNA. Then the read Chieffi who said that if Hellmann was allowed to stand, that this would call into question all DNA-centric trials since 1986.

Then they read Nencini who sided with Stefanoni, but because so suspect-centric that it was patently unfair.

To convict, one has to trust Stefanoni at her word, and hold your nose watching the Scientific Police video. To acquit one listens to independent analysis like Vecchiotti.

I think that the panel member came back as said, "Look, there's no proof they were even in the murder room." Another said, "And everyone agrees that Knox was there as long as you count midmorning of Nov 2nd."

Then someone else said, "Goodness gracious, Nencini came to a manifestly illogical decision to convict, esp. on the DNA. Tell you what, whatever it is we write in the motivations report, make sure you highlight the manifest illogicality of the whole guilt-scenario by writing a synoptic amalgam of all the "truths" at all the trails. Besides, it will drive Machiavelli nuts."

The other ISC panel members say, "Who?"

 

[Grinder]

It is a gross misdemeanor by Washington State law and they have a two year statute of limitations in Washington state.
Edit: I looked it up, that is how I know.

There are federal laws just not the one I found and they have over one year sentences.

A false report is a crime governed by federal and state laws, which vary by state, involving a person who, with intent to deceive, knowingly makes a false statement that is material to the criminal investigation of a crime and makes the statement to a peace officer or law enforcement official.

The following is an example of a jury instruction dealing with false reports:

Any person who makes a [false report] [false statement] to a law enforcement officer is guilty of a crime.​

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial.[1] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[2] Rod Blagojevich,[3] Scooter Libby,[4] Bernard Madoff,[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.[6]​

Would it be considered a similar enough crime? I don't know but if the sentence were less than a year it would be much like Washington's law.

And the first time I posted it and Numbers questioned it I said I made an error but on rereading I don't think it was.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry​

So lying to Congress or the FBI or to a judge would all under this code which has a up to 5 years and is a felony.

 

[LondonJohn]

How would you know this to be true? Are you an expert on Italian law? Perhaps you can provide the appropriate citation of Italian law that supports this conclusion?

If you provided this I might believe your argument has some merit. As it is, I think you are of course talking out your backside. Feel free to prove me wrong...if you can,

I think one aspect that Vixen (and many other pro-guilt commentators) is overlooking - for whatever reason - is that in fact a higher court can rule that a lower court has made errors of law if it judges that the lower court has not applied the proper legal principles to findings of fact.

To take numerous examples in this particular case, the SC effectively ruled that many of the findings of fact of the lower courts were invalid, since these lower courts did not (in the opinion of the SC) apply the correct rules of assessment to evidence and testimony. For example, the evidence and testimony presented in two lower courts clearly indicated that Curatolo was at best an unreliable witness, and at worst a total shambles, a fantasist, a man whose mental faculties were grossly distorted by long-term substance abuse, and/or a liar. There was enough evidence in front of the SC to enable it to make that judgement without ever having to hear Curatolo in person to assess his credibility. Therefore, the SC ruled (correctly) that Curatolo's testimony should have been totally disregarded by any court in its determination on this guilt of Knox/Sollecito. In effect, the SC is indirectly contradicting a finding of fact of a lower court, but on the correct basis that the law was misapplied when the lower court made its improper finding of fact. Likewise Quintavalle. Likewise Capezzali.

The exact same situation applies to pretty much every single piece of forensic evidence in this case. The SC had in front of it ample evidence that virtually every one of Stefanoni's "results" ranged from unreliable to downright inadmissible, and that much of the other forensic work (foot print and shoe print analysis, anyone?) was so riddled with gross error as to make it fundamentally unreliable. So the SC was able to rule, correctly, that the lower courts erred hugely in the incorrect weight they gave to the prosecution's presentation of the forensic evidence (and at the same time, the lower courts gave incorrect lack of weight to such things as the (devastating) Conti/Vechiotti Report - a report which, it has always to be remembered, was commissioned and controlled by the court itself!).

 

[acbytesla]

'Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant' is not at all equivalent to the Italian crime of calunnia, for it fails to include the element of deliberately and falsely calling the police, prosecutors and similar 'corrupt', for malicious reason. In Amanda's case, Nencini or Massei (IIRC) argued 'aggravated calunnia' as an attempt to evade justice because of self-involvement in the crime of aggravated murder, the exact false charge Amanda levelled at Patrick.

Looking on google, a closer Federal offence could be 'Obstruction of Justice' which carries up to 20 years imprisonment, so clearly extraditable:



Source: wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

OK, so it is not exactly equivalent, being more directed towards the Enron-style destruction of corporate documents to conceal large scale fraud, but the principle of perverting justice, as the key intention, is there.

I don't think so Vixen. Actually it appears you don't after reading the statute. How is it perverting justice by saying the police hit her?

 

[Numbers]

'Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant' is not at all equivalent to the Italian crime of calunnia, for it fails to include the element of deliberately and falsely calling the police, prosecutors and similar 'corrupt', for malicious reason. In Amanda's case, Nencini or Massei (IIRC) argued 'aggravated calunnia' as an attempt to evade justice because of self-involvement in the crime of aggravated murder, the exact false charge Amanda levelled at Patrick.

Looking on google, a closer Federal offence could be 'Obstruction of Justice' which carries up to 20 years imprisonment, so clearly extraditable:



Source: wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

OK, so it is not exactly equivalent, being more directed towards the Enron-style destruction of corporate documents to conceal large scale fraud, but the principle of perverting justice, as the key intention, is there.

Yes, your example(s) absolutely do not apply. My example of a Washington State law on false statements does apply to calunnia. Simply making a false statement to police is generally only a misdemeanor because US police (when they are performing at their best, which is not always the case) investigate all such statements for veracity. Apparently, the Italian police do not; they extract such false statements with the intent of "solving" their cases by arresting the most vulnerable or convenient suspects.

Nothing in your post has any bearing on the Amanda Knox case.

Here are my challenges to you. Find a case where: 1) someone has been extradited from the US for making a false statement, under interrogation, and where coercion was alleged, to local police; and/or 2) someone has been extradited from the US for allegedly making a false statement in testimony that claimed that the person had been physically abused by police during an interrogation.

 

[acbytesla]

There are federal laws just not the one I found and they have over one year sentences.

A false report is a crime governed by federal and state laws, which vary by state, involving a person who, with intent to deceive, knowingly makes a false statement that is material to the criminal investigation of a crime and makes the statement to a peace officer or law enforcement official.

The following is an example of a jury instruction dealing with false reports:

Any person who makes a [false report] [false statement] to a law enforcement officer is guilty of a crime.​

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial.[1] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[2] Rod Blagojevich,[3] Scooter Libby,[4] Bernard Madoff,[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.[6]​

Would it be considered a similar enough crime? I don't know but if the sentence were less than a year it would be much like Washington's law.

And the first time I posted it and Numbers questioned it I said I made an error but on rereading I don't think it was.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry​

So lying to Congress or the FBI or to a judge would all under this code which has a up to 5 years and is a felony.

I still don't see how Amanda saying the police hit her is similar. Is Amanda saying that to cover up a crime? She isn't. She uses it as a reason she made another statement. Not to cover up.

It also wasn't made to cover up the murder as she was acquitted for that. No, I don't see how this statute applies. For the same reason essentially obstruction of justice doesn't apply.

 

[Numbers]

There are federal laws just not the one I found and they have over one year sentences.

A false report is a crime governed by federal and state laws, which vary by state, involving a person who, with intent to deceive, knowingly makes a false statement that is material to the criminal investigation of a crime and makes the statement to a peace officer or law enforcement official.

The following is an example of a jury instruction dealing with false reports:

Any person who makes a [false report] [false statement] to a law enforcement officer is guilty of a crime.​

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial.[1] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[2] Rod Blagojevich,[3] Scooter Libby,[4] Bernard Madoff,[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.[6]​

Would it be considered a similar enough crime? I don't know but if the sentence were less than a year it would be much like Washington's law.

And the first time I posted it and Numbers questioned it I said I made an error but on rereading I don't think it was.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry​

So lying to Congress or the FBI or to a judge would all under this code which has a up to 5 years and is a felony.

You are missing several points: 1) the difference between state and federal law in terms of jurisdiction; 2) the similarity between the definitions of the crime of calunnia (Italy) and the crime of false report to a public servant (Washington State); 3) the fact that extradition is based on the law of the state in which the person sought is resident, unless the crime alleged is equivalent to a federal crime (examples: counterfeiting national currency, securities fraud, terrorism, certain drug trafficking offenses).

The allegation of calunnia against the police would be closer in the US to an allegation of perjury. In Washington State, perjury is called "false swearing"; the law relating to inconsistent statements* does not apply:

CW 9A.72.040
False swearing.
(1) A person is guilty of false swearing if he or she makes a false statement, which he or she knows to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) False swearing is a gross misdemeanor.
[2011 c 336 § 392; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.040.]

And, here is the (b) section of 18 USC 1001 that you somehow forgot, which states that (a) section doesn't apply:

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

So don't keep pointing to 18 USC 1001 as somehow related to the Italian crime calunnia of testifying in court that police hit you while they interrogated you. And for which testimony there is no objective documentary contradictory evidence from the police, only there self-serving statements saying they did not.


*RCW 9A.72.050
Perjury and false swearing—Inconsistent statements—Degree of crime.
(1) Where, in the course of one or more official proceedings, a person makes inconsistent material statements under oath, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which material statement was false but only that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false.
(2) The highest offense of which a person may be convicted in such an instance as set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be false. If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of the lesser degree. If perjury or false swearing would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of false swearing. For purposes of this section, no corroboration shall be required of either inconsistent statement.

 

[Grinder]

If people here believe one can lie to the FBI about a crime attempting to frame someone and it isn't a serious crime, I say go try it.

 

[Desert Fox]

So lying to Congress or the FBI or to a judge would all under this code which has a up to 5 years and is a felony.

Let us say that it can be spun this way for argument sake. . . . .

What we are talking about is a young woman whom, under interrogation, broke and told the police what they wanted to hear. In similar cases, the victim of the interrogation is almost never prosecuted (I don't know of any and I have looked a fair number of cases which have some similarities)

Do you really think the Secretary of State would actually allow extradition on such a hot potato.

BTW: Most federal crimes have a five year statute of limitations so even under federal law, she would be free and clear. In addition, there is still the issue of a speedy trial.

 

[Grinder]

I still don't see how Amanda saying the police hit her is similar. Is Amanda saying that to cover up a crime? She isn't. She uses it as a reason she made another statement. Not to cover up.

It also wasn't made to cover up the murder as she was acquitted for that. No, I don't see how this statute applies. For the same reason essentially obstruction of justice doesn't apply.

If we are only talking about this latest charge and court case, then I agree it is different. They have special laws AIUI against "defaming" the police, judges et al. I don't believe we have such a specific law.

Is the Sedition Act still in effect?

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort​

 

[Desert Fox]

I did find a case which touches on this one
A false report to the FBI of police brutality
https://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-...g-false-report-of-police-brutality-to-the-fbi
This is however a report to the FBI

This is a State one and is only a misdemeanor.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/05/03/man-who-claimed-police-brutality-found-guilty/
From looking up his name, looks like he go community service

Found another one, way back from 1996
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-17/local/me-37044_1_north-hollywood
Got 60 days in jail.

 

[acbytesla]

If we are only talking about this latest charge and court case, then I agree it is different. They have special laws AIUI against "defaming" the police, judges et al. I don't believe we have such a specific law.

Is the Sedition Act still in effect?

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort​

We are just talking about the latest callunia charge. Vixen is suggesting that would be an extraditable offense. There really is no equivalent offense in the US, so I can't imagine it to be so. I don't think the charge of Callunia regarding Patrick would be either, but that issue is now moot. Sedition? Seriously?

 

[Grinder]

Really don't have enough interest to pursue the extradition game and would doubt even if possible that they will even ask.

But if someone has a good link to a site that indicates it is done state by state I like to see it.

Notwithstanding this conversation I find it hard to believe a person from Wyoming could be extradited for false reporting to serve a five year sentence because they have a felony false reporting statute.

 

[Grinder]

We are just talking about the latest callunia charge. Vixen is suggesting that would be an extraditable offense. There really is no equivalent offense in the US, so I can't imagine it to be so. I don't think the charge of Callunia regarding Patrick would be either, but that issue is now moot. Sedition? Seriously?

I'm not sure they call the current case calumny, could be.

Sedition laws prevented criticism of the government which is what I think her current case is about.