Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

The highlighted part is untrue.

....also appeals in SA are always written with an oral hearing.

..."...changed the minds of the court...". Come now. The court comes from a neutral standpoint. Changing what when the only thing that exists in the courts mind is nothing? It's a blank canvas.

Right after reading 300 pages of appeal argument they come with a neutral mind to the hearing.

While I don't really doubt oral argument are usual or maybe even always the case after your remarks about no time limits by any sane court it is hard to have faith in your pronouncements.

Part 19 was getting too slow, so this was started.

Posted By: kmortis

 

[Numbers]

Right after reading 300 pages of appeal argument they come with a neutral mind to the hearing.

While I don't really doubt oral argument are usual or maybe even always the case after your remarks about no time limits by any sane court it is hard to have faith in your pronouncements.

A CSC panel is, according to Italian procedural law, to render a short-form verdict immediately after the deliberation which follows immediately after the oral presentation & Q&A hearing. So if they are doing their job correctly, they will have already read all the relevant materials including appeal documents and prior motivation reports and other relevant documents, which could possibly include testimony, expert reports, or even prior judgments of the CSC or Constitutional Court or ECHR.

I would suggest that a properly functioning CSC panel uses the oral hearing to resolve any issues that remain in their minds after all their reading prior to their deliberation. I suggest that each member of the CSC panel would have formed preliminary opinion(s) about the case prior to the oral hearing, which is what you may also be suggesting. Thus, because of their preliminary opinions, they would have viewpoints which they may give hints of in their questioning.

Those who find the oral hearing of interest, or who doubt its fairness, would benefit in their arguments from reviewing transcripts of the oral hearing. However, I have no idea if such transcripts are available or how to obtain them.

 

[Mike1711]

Right after reading 300 pages of appeal argument they come with a neutral mind to the hearing.

While I don't really doubt oral argument are usual or maybe even always the case after your remarks about no time limits by any sane court it is hard to have faith in your pronouncements.

THERE

ARE

NO

TIME

LIMITS.

Get over it for Pete's sake.

 

[bagels]

Is there a time limit for how long we are going to discuss time limits? I'm asking so I know when to check back

 

[Grinder]

THERE

ARE

NO

TIME

LIMITS.

Get over it for Pete's sake.

SA Supreme Court of Appeals

Oral argument
14.
[Time limits](1) If a matter has been set down for one day, subject to the presiding judge's directions, the time for argument shall not exceed -
(a) two hours for the applicant or appellant's main argument;
(b) two hours for the argument in answer; and
(c) a quarter of an hour for the argument in reply.



From the US Supreme Court website:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx

The Marshal or the Marshal’s representative sits to the right side of the Bench. The Marshal’s roles are to call the Court to order, maintain decorum in the Courtroom, tape the audio portions of argument, and time the oral presentations so that attorneys do not exceed their one-half hour limitations

Is there a time limit for how long we are going to discuss time limits? I'm asking so I know when to check back

When THE SOPHISTICATED ARGUMENTS STATING THERE ARE NO TIME LIMITS END.

 

[Mike1711]

SA Supreme Court of Appeals

"...subject to the presiding judge's directions..."

This is absurd. I will enter no further debate on it, save to point the highlighted part.

 

[Grinder]

A CSC panel is, according to Italian procedural law, to render a short-form verdict immediately after the deliberation which follows immediately after the oral presentation & Q&A hearing. So if they are doing their job correctly, they will have already read all the relevant materials including appeal documents and prior motivation reports and other relevant documents, which could possibly include testimony, expert reports, or even prior judgments of the CSC or Constitutional Court or ECHR.

I would suggest that a properly functioning CSC panel uses the oral hearing to resolve any issues that remain in their minds after all their reading prior to their deliberation. I suggest that each member of the CSC panel would have formed preliminary opinion(s) about the case prior to the oral hearing, which is what you may also be suggesting. Thus, because of their preliminary opinions, they would have viewpoints which they may give hints of in their questioning.

Those who find the oral hearing of interest, or who doubt its fairness, would benefit in their arguments from reviewing transcripts of the oral hearing. However, I have no idea if such transcripts are available or how to obtain them.

One of the reasons I believe the oral argument by Bongiorno were for show and not the dough is what was reported:

At-the-scene: Gavin Lee, BBC News, Rome
A fascinating part of the latest developments in this eight-year long case, is the language being deployed by the defence council. Imagery is being evoked, and characteristics of fictional characters are being drawn upon, superimposed even, on the defendants.
Giulia Bongiorno, the defence lawyer for Raffaele Sollecito, spoke for almost two hours ahead of the judgement this morning, as she attempted to pick apart the prosecution.
She described Sollecito as "pure", "innocent", and as a "Forrest Gump" character, an unwitting victim caught up in events around him. He, sitting directly behind his lawyer, gnawed his fingernails throughout.
This is the lawyer who once compared Amanda Knox to Jessica Rabbit, paraphrasing the cartoon's famous line, and arguing that Knox was "not bad... just drawn that way".
Again, rhetoric and carefully-picked imagery is being used to paint a picture of a defendant's simplicity and goodness, in this latest bid to portray his innocence.​

The Italian SC doesn't do what ours does in that it isn't the constitutional court for Italy. Numbers you have a better handle on this so please correct me but I don't think the ISC makes the sort legal interpretations the US SC does and they evaluate evidence and how the lower courts used evidence whereas the US SC is focused on what laws or the Constitution mean.

I do not believe Bongiorno argued the law but rather the facts,

Numbers did the SC question the attorneys to clarify points they had made in the written appeals?

 

[Grinder]

This is absurd. I will enter no further debate on it, save to point the highlighted part.

It is clear from what I have documented that there are time limits. Does the courthouse explode when an attorney exceeds the time? No.

Is it a criminal offense to exceed the time limits? No.

Are there time limits? Yes obviously.

Using your logic if a policeman doesn't ticket a speeder or a margin of speeding is allowed there is no speed limit.

If there is no time limits why does the Marshall time the oral arguments so attorneys do not exceed their one-half hour limitations?

 

[Numbers]

One of the reasons I believe the oral argument by Bongiorno were for show and not the dough is what was reported:

At-the-scene: Gavin Lee, BBC News, Rome
A fascinating part of the latest developments in this eight-year long case, is the language being deployed by the defence council. Imagery is being evoked, and characteristics of fictional characters are being drawn upon, superimposed even, on the defendants.
Giulia Bongiorno, the defence lawyer for Raffaele Sollecito, spoke for almost two hours ahead of the judgement this morning, as she attempted to pick apart the prosecution.
She described Sollecito as "pure", "innocent", and as a "Forrest Gump" character, an unwitting victim caught up in events around him. He, sitting directly behind his lawyer, gnawed his fingernails throughout.
This is the lawyer who once compared Amanda Knox to Jessica Rabbit, paraphrasing the cartoon's famous line, and arguing that Knox was "not bad... just drawn that way".
Again, rhetoric and carefully-picked imagery is being used to paint a picture of a defendant's simplicity and goodness, in this latest bid to portray his innocence.​

The Italian SC doesn't do what ours does in that it isn't the constitutional court for Italy. Numbers you have a better handle on this so please correct me but I don't think the ISC makes the sort legal interpretations the US SC does and they evaluate evidence and how the lower courts used evidence whereas the US SC is focused on what laws or the Constitution mean.

I do not believe Bongiorno argued the law but rather the facts,

Numbers did the SC question the attorneys to clarify points they had made in the written appeals?

I don't know one way or the other. I thought there was some news report that they did, but I don't have a clear recollection nor do I have a cite.

 

[Grinder]

I don't know one way or the other. I thought there was some news report that they did, but I don't have a clear recollection nor do I have a cite.

Thanks

 

[LondonJohn]

To change the subject.......

Here's an interesting thing: the head honcho of another website which discusses the Kercher case has posted that certain CCTV footage from the night of the murder has "come into his possession". The footage is apparently from cameras which capture the iron staircase up the side of the car park. This is the staircase that Capezzali claimed she'd heard people running up in the aftermath of the murder, at something later than 11pm.

Now for the curious thing Part 1: the head honcho of this website claims that the footage shows that nobody ran up the stairs after 11pm.

If this is really the case, then at a stroke it renders Capezzali's testimony unreliable at best, and a complete concoction at worst. Of course, many objective commentators have long concluded that Capezzali's testimony was hugely flawed and probably of no probative value (it was either an honest misremembering/hallucination or a flat-out lie), but the existence of this CCTV evidence would have been a vivid demonstration of the fundamental unreliability and incredibility of Capezzali's account.

So to curious thing Part 2: If this CCTV evidence exists, and if it really does show that nobody ran up the stairs after 11pm, then why wasn't it used as evidence in the Massei trial and/or the subsequent trials (including appeals)?

Now, the police would have been in charge of recovering and analysing CCTV footage of this sort, under the direction of the PM (Mignini). The police and PM would have had total control over what was recovered, what was analysed, what was deemed probative, what was passed to the defence in discovery, and what was entered into evidence at trial. So what happened in respect of this alleged CCTV footage, which clearly would have been of very significant value in the Massei trial and beyond? When was this CCTV footage obtained by police? Was it obtained before, say, mid-2008? By definition, it must have been in existence from the night of the murder onwards. So did the police have it in their possession within months (maximum) of the murder? If not, why not? This would have been a hugely obvious thing for the police to have investigated. And if the police did have the footage within months, did they look at it properly? After all, if they had looked at it properly, they can't fail to have realised how important and relevant it was to the case. Certainly the defence teams do not seem to have ever been informed of the existence of this footage and the importance of what it showed (or, more accurately, what it didn't show). And to the best of my knowledge, it never showed up as evidence in any of the trials.

So what happened here?

And as a slight side note, curious thing Part 3: How did this important CCTV footage end up in the hands of the people who run a website discussing the case? One must provisionally conclude that the footage was released to them by either the police or the prosecutors' office, or by the lawyer for the victim's family. So how and why did the footage get handed over. Who exactly was holding (and sitting on) this footage? And for how long had they been sitting on it? And what was their motivation and expected outcome for releasing it to effectively nobody more than a private citizen who comments on the case on the internet?

I think there might be some very interesting questions to address and answer about this CCTV footage - if it really does prove that nobody ran up that staircase after 11pm. Who among the authorities had it? When did they obtain it? Why was it not given to the defence? Why was it not used as evidence in trial? Why has it (apparently) only extremely recently been handed over to a private citizen with no legal/familial connection to the case whatsoever? Who handed it over and/or authorised its handover?

 

[Samzilla]

Source for this new cctv footage?

 

[LondonJohn]

Source for this new footage?

Impossible to know for sure. But the people at this website appear in the past to have had strangely close levels of contact with (and cooperation from) certain figures associated with the prosecution and the victim's family's lawyer. One might almost call it improper.....

On top of that, one has to bear in mind that this footage would almost without doubt have been in the possession of the police (and, by extension, the PM) at a primary level. I cannot, for example, believe that the owner of the CCTV camera and footage (whether the Perugia municipal authorities or a private enterprise) bypassed the police and supplied the footage to anyone else. And since, to the best of my understanding, this footage (and its implications) has never been seen by the defence teams - let alone used in court - my money would have to be firmly on it having been in the possession of the police and PM's office.

If that's the case, then it would appear that either the police or PM gave the footage to the website, or the police/PM gave the footage to the victim's family's lawyer, who then gave it to the website. I also find it extremely hard to believe that the police/PM only very recently came across this footage. I would have to believe that either a) they had collected the footage way back in 2007/2008, but for some reason had neglected to analyse it properly and thus discover its worth to the case; or b) they had collected the footage way back in 2007/2008, had analysed it and knew exactly what it showed (and didn't show), and made some sort of decision not to release it to the defence or to introduce it as evidence.

I have a funny feeling we might hear more about this CCTV footage. Especially as the Massei motivations report made specific reference to Capezzali's evidence being reliable and credible, and used it as one of its primary sources for establishing its (entirely bogus and horrifically wrong) timeline for the murder, in the course of finding Knox and Sollecito guilty.

 

[Numbers]

In furtherance of those who wish to broaden the topics under discussion here, I offer this relating to the ECHR case filed by Amanda Knox against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights in convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba:

1. When a claim of a violation of the right to a fair trial resulting in a wrongful conviction is lodged by a person (an applicant) against a CoE State (the respondent State; Italy in this case), the ECHR examines whether that State's judicial system, including police, prosecutors, and courts, followed European Convention of Human Rights due process in the pre-trial and trial proceedings.

1a. One specific violation of Convention due process was denial of a lawyer to a de facto suspect under interrogation. Statements issued by such a person may not used for conviction.

2. If Convention due process was not followed, and the rights of the accused were thereby prejudiced, the ECHR judges that the CoE State (such as Italy) violated Convention Article 6, and may order the State to make certain payments to the applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and for costs.

3. The finding of a violation of Convention Article 6 by the ECHR allows the applicant to request a retrial from the respondent State. The respondent State is then obligated under the Convention treaty to grant the retrial. For Italy, such right to retrial (revision trial) is guaranteed by a judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court.

4. In the retrial, all Convention rights of due process must be observed.

4a. That means in this case that the statements made in interrogation without a lawyer may not be admitted into evidence. Thus, the alleged crime of calunnia vanishes.

 

[LondonJohn]

In furtherance of those who wish to broaden the topics under discussion here, I offer this relating to the ECHR case filed by Amanda Knox against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights in convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba:

1. When a claim of a violation of the right to a fair trial resulting in a wrongful conviction is lodged by a person (an applicant) against a CoE State (the respondent State; Italy in this case), the ECHR examines whether that State's judicial system, including police, prosecutors, and courts, followed European Convention of Human Rights due process in the pre-trial and trial proceedings.

1a. One specific violation of Convention due process was denial of a lawyer to a de facto suspect under interrogation. Statements issued by such a person may not used for conviction.

2. If Convention due process was not followed, and the rights of the accused were thereby prejudiced, the ECHR judges that the CoE State (such as Italy) violated Convention Article 6, and may order the State to make certain payments to the applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and for costs.

3. The finding of a violation of Convention Article 6 by the ECHR allows the applicant to request a retrial from the respondent State. The respondent State is then obligated under the Convention treaty to grant the retrial. For Italy, such right to retrial (revision trial) is guaranteed by a judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court.

4. In the retrial, all Convention rights of due process must be observed.

4a. That means in this case that the statements made in interrogation without a lawyer may not be admitted into evidence. Thus, the alleged crime of calunnia vanishes.

Exactly.

If the ECHR finds Italy in breach (and I believe that the evidence points extremely strongly in that direction), then in practice the remedy ordered by the ECHR will necessarily entail Italy 1) annulling Knox's criminal slander conviction, 2) paying Knox some form of monetary damages, and 3) never retrying Knox on this charge. As you point out, the reason why (3) is in practice a certainty is that if Italy wanted to retry Knox on that charge, it would have to do so without all of the very evidence that originally "supported" their charge. And not even Italy is so stupid as to proceed to trial on that basis.........

 

[Numbers]

To change the subject.......

Here's an interesting thing: the head honcho of another website which discusses the Kercher case has posted that certain CCTV footage from the night of the murder has "come into his possession". The footage is apparently from cameras which capture the iron staircase up the side of the car park. This is the staircase that Capezzali claimed she'd heard people running up in the aftermath of the murder, at something later than 11pm.

Now for the curious thing Part 1: the head honcho of this website claims that the footage shows that nobody ran up the stairs after 11pm.

If this is really the case, then at a stroke it renders Capezzali's testimony unreliable at best, and a complete concoction at worst. Of course, many objective commentators have long concluded that Capezzali's testimony was hugely flawed and probably of no probative value (it was either an honest misremembering/hallucination or a flat-out lie), but the existence of this CCTV evidence would have been a vivid demonstration of the fundamental unreliability and incredibility of Capezzali's account.

So to curious thing Part 2: If this CCTV evidence exists, and if it really does show that nobody ran up the stairs after 11pm, then why wasn't it used as evidence in the Massei trial and/or the subsequent trials (including appeals)?

....

Has the CCTV footage actually been posted on the internet?

How can we be certain that the CCTV is legitimately from the date and time of interest? Can the date and time indicators on CCTV footage be faked or altered?

 

[LondonJohn]

Has the CCTV footage actually been posted on the internet?

How can we be certain that the CCTV is legitimately from the date and time of interest? Can the date and time indicators on CCTV footage be faked or altered?

All of this remains to be established. All there is to work with at this point is a short enigmatic statement claiming that 1) the footage exists, 2) the footage is in the hands of those who run this (highly-partisan) website and fake-wiki, and 3) the footage shows that nobody ran on those iron stairs later than 11pm.

Time will tell, I guess. I also hope that Bongiorno and Dalla Vedova (and Knox/Sollecito and their representatives) are aware of this claim. Because if the claim turns out to have foundation, and that there really IS credible, reliable CCTV evidence showing that nobody ran on those steps after 11pm, then serious questions will need to be asked about when the police/PM had this footage, why it never made it into any of the trials, and why it was never handed over to the defence teams.

As I pointed out in my previous post, it's hard to believe this footage wasn't in the hands of the police/PM by mid-2008 or even late-2007 - well before the first (Massei) trial in 2009. And if that was the case, then for one reason or another the police/PM failed to disclose evidence to the court (or to the defence) that would, at a stroke, have driven a coach and horses through Capezzali's supposed account. An account which the Massei court deemed to be credible and reliable, and which undoubtedly contributed to those first guilty verdicts against Knox and Sollecito.

As I said, it could all get very interesting...........

 

[Numbers]

Exactly.

If the ECHR finds Italy in breach (and I believe that the evidence points extremely strongly in that direction), then in practice the remedy ordered by the ECHR will necessarily entail Italy 1) annulling Knox's criminal slander conviction, 2) paying Knox some form of monetary damages, and 3) never retrying Knox on this charge. As you point out, the reason why (3) is in practice a certainty is that if Italy wanted to retry Knox on that charge, it would have to do so without all of the very evidence that originally "supported" their charge. And not even Italy is so stupid as to proceed to trial on that basis.........

I believe the mechanics of the process would be as follows:

1. After the ECHR judgment that Italy violated Knox's Convention rights under Article 6.1 with 6.3c (and likely under other provisions, including Article 6.1 with 3) became final, Knox would request a revision trial under CPP Article 629, using Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011 as the reason required by Article 630. (Note that under CPP Article 632, not only Knox, the convicted person, but also the General Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal in the district where conviction occurred may request revision.)

2. Because the alleged evidence was in its entirety inadmissible, the judge in the revision trial, before the actual trial began, would declare an acquittal under CPP Article 469, on the grounds that prosecution should not have been started. An Article 469 acquittal is final and not subject to appeal.

3. Knox would then be fully entitled to compensation for the miscarriage of justice under CPP Article 643.

 

[Numbers]

All of this remains to be established. All there is to work with at this point is a short enigmatic statement claiming that 1) the footage exists, 2) the footage is in the hands of those who run this (highly-partisan) website and fake-wiki, and 3) the footage shows that nobody ran on those iron stairs later than 11pm.

Time will tell, I guess. I also hope that Bongiorno and Dalla Vedova (and Knox/Sollecito and their representatives) are aware of this claim. Because if the claim turns out to have foundation, and that there really IS credible, reliable CCTV evidence showing that nobody ran on those steps after 11pm, then serious questions will need to be asked about when the police/PM had this footage, why it never made it into any of the trials, and why it was never handed over to the defence teams.

As I pointed out in my previous post, it's hard to believe this footage wasn't in the hands of the police/PM by mid-2008 or even late-2007 - well before the first (Massei) trial in 2009. And if that was the case, then for one reason or another the police/PM failed to disclose evidence to the court (or to the defence) that would, at a stroke, have driven a coach and horses through Capezzali's supposed account. An account which the Massei court deemed to be credible and reliable, and which undoubtedly contributed to those first guilty verdicts against Knox and Sollecito.

As I said, it could all get very interesting...........

I find this interesting in terms of the extent of official misconduct in this case that possibly could be determined to have occurred if one had full access to the files of the police, including the scientific police (who did not release the DNA profile raw data, the EDFs), and the prosecutors.

 

[bagels]

Nothing would surprise me with this case. The questionable witnesses go back to the very beginning. They managed to find a witness to claim Patrick's bar was shut down all night, when in fact it was open and he was serving customers. In the meantime they grilled a Swiss professor for hours and still didn't believe he was at the bar. There is a pattern of behavior here I think for anyone to see.