Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

And then we come to the elephant in the room: the fundamentally unjust way in which prosecutors are colleagues of criminal judges, and are still viewed by judges as entirely impartial "seekers of the truth" (as per the broken and now-discarded inquisitorial system), while at the same time they are directing the actual investigation into the crime. The net result in practice is that whatever batcrap theory of the crime the prosecutor comes up with (and remember, prosecutors are paid to prosecute and to win the cases they prosecute, so even a 4-year-old can figure out that they might just be prone to bias in that direction), the court tends to start with that theory as "the objective truth", and in effect tells the defence that unless they can actively disprove that theory, then that's what "the truth" shall be deemed to be.

It doesn't take a doctorate in criminal jurisprudence to figure out that the Italian system is effectively set up to fail in its current broken form.

This is the essence of the case, and when one reads the Massei and Nencini motivations report, this is the sub-text of just about all of those 100s of pages.

That despite the evidence, the prosecutors and their forensic people are to be believed. Regardless. Massei says that DNA cannot be date-stamped in one section, then assumes that Knox's DNA can be time-stamped in her own bathroom. I won't rehearse here the dozens of times Massei simply rules in favour of the prosecution on a point because of some rationale that goes, "I cannot see why they would wish to deceive the court."

Which is why the issue of the number of rings on Raffaele's Nike soles is not a far fetched issue - look at how long the PLE hung on to Raffaele's Nikes, mainly because there was nothing else, really, against him.

Don't let the fact that the number of rings on his soles does not match the number of rings on the sole-print on the pillow..... it woud be up to the **defence** to prove that if one is 8 and the other is 7, that 8 does not equal 7; or else the judge will take the prosecutions' word for it.

I can well imagine a line in Massei saying, "Why would the prosecution tell the court that 8 equals 7 unless it were true? The defence has shown nothing to disprove that 8 does not equal 7."

Perhaps at a more sophisticated level, that's the statues of the DNA evidence which came from Stefanoni's lab - and when Machiavelli was posting here, Machiavelli told us about one of the preliminary courts actually siding with Stefanoni on the non-release of her work. "Either accuse her of a crime or quit asking for full disclosure."

And it is also not farfetched to think that anyone asking for full disclosure might themselves be charged with defamation or calunnia just for asking! I mean, as you point out, there is no "arms-length" between the ruling judges and those bringing the case!!!!

Indeed, there is evidence both in the Hellmann and the Marasca/Bruno rulings that (even in acquitting the pair) on some issues they had to step lightly - not being seen as too far out of step with the "judicial truths" their predecessors came up with.

All in all, I for one am glad this is over. All except ECHR, which acc. to Numbers is a slam dunk. I guess we'll see about that.

 

[Desert Fox]

Of course it's important to state that the poor/erroneous/unlawful application of justice does take place in every country at times, including countries such as the US and UK. But it appears that this problem is considerably more common and more serious in a country such as Italy. If the numbers being quoted here are accurate - 24,000 people wrongly imprisoned in Italy (pop. 60 million) over the past 25 years vs 1,900 total proven miscarriages of justice in the US (pop. 300 million) over the same time period - then Italy has a vastly bigger problem.

In the United States, there is limited ability to appeal a verdict. As such, I am extremely cautious with respect to the statement that Italy has a bigger problem. I think we are in a situation where we cannot actually know.

 

[Numbers]

{1} This is the essence of the case, and when one reads the Massei and Nencini motivations report, this is the sub-text of just about all of those 100s of pages. That despite the evidence, the prosecutors and their forensic people are to be believed. Regardless. Massei says that DNA cannot be date-stamped in one section, then assumes that Knox's DNA can be time-stamped in her own bathroom. I won't rehearse here the dozens of times Massei simply rules in favour of the prosecution on a point because of some rationale that goes, "I cannot see why they would wish to deceive the court."

Which is why the issue of the number of rings on Raffaele's Nike soles is not a far fetched issue - look at how long the PLE hung on to Raffaele's Nikes, mainly because there was nothing else, really, against him.

Don't let the fact that the number of rings on his soles does not match the number of rings on the sole-print on the pillow..... it woud be up to the **defence** to prove that if one is 8 and the other is 7, that 8 does not equal 7; or else the judge will take the prosecutions' word for it.

I can well imagine a line in Massei saying, "Why would the prosecution tell the court that 8 equals 7 unless it were true? The defence has shown nothing to disprove that 8 does not equal 7."

Perhaps at a more sophisticated level, that's the statues of the DNA evidence which came from Stefanoni's lab - and when Machiavelli was posting here, Machiavelli told us about one of the preliminary courts actually siding with Stefanoni on the non-release of her work. "Either accuse her of a crime or quit asking for full disclosure."

And it is also not farfetched to think that anyone asking for full disclosure might themselves be charged with defamation or calunnia just for asking! I mean, as you point out, there is no "arms-length" between the ruling judges and those bringing the case!!!!

Indeed, there is evidence both in the Hellmann and the Marasca/Bruno rulings that (even in acquitting the pair) on some issues they had to step lightly - not being seen as too far out of step with the "judicial truths" their predecessors came up with.

{2} All in all, I for one am glad this is over. All except ECHR, which acc. to Numbers is a slam dunk. I guess we'll see about that.

1. I believe the Massei and Nencini motivation reports - or excerpts thereof (because of their mind-numbing length) - deserve to be used as examples of "arbitrary" judgments by legal scholars.

2. The ECHR judgment will most likely be issued in one year or more from this September. So we must wait for the final final resolution, which will be the judgment of an Italian revision trial which acquits Amanda on the calunnia charge after the ECHR judgment against Italy.

Here is the preamble of the ECHR Factsheet "Police arrest and assistance of a lawyer":

Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) of the European Convention on Human Rights: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.”
“Certainly the primary purpose of Article 6 [of the Convention] as far as criminal matters are concerned is to ensure a fair trial by a tribunal competent to determine any criminal charge, but it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings.” (Imbriosca v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, § 36).
« n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” …, Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 … The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55).

Source:
http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=press/factsheets&c=

 

[Bill Williams]

In the United States, there is limited ability to appeal a verdict. As such, I am extremely cautious with respect to the statement that Italy has a bigger problem. I think we are in a situation where we cannot actually know.

Agreed.

 

[Welshman]

I agree the Italian justice system is corrupt and dysfunctional but I feel the system has a beneficial feature. In the UK juries are used to decide guilt or innocence. There is no recording of jury deliberations. It is a criminal offence for jurors to speak about what was discussed outside the jury room. The problem with this is that we don’t know why jurors reached their decision. This makes it harder for the defence to appeal a guilty verdict if they don’t know why a jury reached a guilty verdict.

In Italy judges have to write motivation reports. I feel this has advantages. We know why judges made their decision. A motivation report can show how strong or weak the case is against a defendant. The Massei and Nencini motivation reports showed how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele was. One of the indications the prosecution have a weak case is when people have to resort to using ridiculous arguments to argue the case for guilt. Vixen often uses ridiculous and nonsensical arguments in her posts. The arguments used in Massei were often ridiculous. Mark Waterbury’s book the Monster of Perugia had an entire chapter on the stupid arguments used by Massei in his report. For instance, Massei argued that Rudy knocked on the door to use the toilet in the cottage. He attacked Meredith after finishing in the toilet and Amanda and Raffaele joined in. This scenario is utterly ludicrous. How did Rudy know Amanda and Raffaele two strangers would allow him to attack Meredith. Why would Amanda and Raffaele help a stranger kill Meredith? Why did Massei have to resort to ludicrous arguments in his report if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong?

The Chieffi report used to annul Hellman and Nencini’s report were full of falsehoods as detailed below. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did two motivation reports have to resort to using falsehoods?

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3142&p=153035
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3011

The advantages of motivation reports is that it can give the defence material to work when preparing an appeal.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree the Italian justice system is corrupt and dysfunctional but I feel the system has a beneficial feature. In the UK juries are used to decide guilt or innocence. There is no recording of jury deliberations. It is a criminal offence for jurors to speak about what was discussed outside the jury room. The problem with this is that we don’t know why jurors reached their decision. This makes it harder for the defence to appeal a guilty verdict if they don’t know why a jury reached a guilty verdict.

In Italy judges have to write motivation reports. I feel this has advantages. We know why judges made their decision. A motivation report can show how strong or weak the case is against a defendant. The Massei and Nencini motivation reports showed how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele was. One of the indications the prosecution have a weak case is when people have to resort to using ridiculous arguments to argue the case for guilt. Vixen often uses ridiculous and nonsensical arguments in her posts. The arguments used in Massei were often ridiculous. Mark Waterbury’s book the Monster of Perugia had an entire chapter on the stupid arguments used by Massei in his report. For instance, Massei argued that Rudy knocked on the door to use the toilet in the cottage. He attacked Meredith after finishing in the toilet and Amanda and Raffaele joined in. This scenario is utterly ludicrous. How did Rudy know Amanda and Raffaele two strangers would allow him to attack Meredith. Why would Amanda and Raffaele help a stranger kill Meredith? Why did Massei have to resort to ludicrous arguments in his report if the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong?

The Chieffi report used to annul Hellman and Nencini’s report were full of falsehoods as detailed below. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong, why did two motivation reports have to resort to using falsehoods?

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3142&p=153035
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3011

The advantages of motivation reports is that it can give the defence material to work when preparing an appeal.

While I cautiously agree with your premise (that motivation reports are a beneficial feature), I believe that the current downsides more than outweigh the benefits. Bear in mind also that while UK/US juries are not required to write such reports (and nor should they be expected to, being as they are volunteers and untrained in legal writing), if one appeals a verdict in both countries, the appeal court judges will write careful and detailed documents pertaining to their decision on appeal.

And going back to Italy, as you point out yourself, the motivation reports are themselves of little use when one realises that a) the pro judges on the judicial panel effectively direct the collective thinking of the panel, and b) the pro judges still seem largely to be unable to let go of the old inquisitorial system where it was their job to ascertain "the truth" about a crime, and then to fit the suspects into that "truth" narrative. In Italy in 2016 (and in 2009), the ONLY role of the criminal courts is to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant in respect of the crime(s) with which (s)he has been charged. If there IS sufficient such evidence to meet that burden, then the court must find for guilt; and if there is NOT sufficient such evidence to meet that burden, then the court must acquit.

The Massei and Nencini reports in the Knox/Sollecito trials process only served to illustrate - extremely vividly - that those courts were not acting according to their judicial remit, and they were not trying Knox or Sollecito fairly according to the twin maxims of "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Those courts were, IMO, therefore illegitimate and unlawful. And while it was useful to see the motivations reports in both instances, in order to see just how ridiculous, incompetent and unlawful their "reasoning" had been, at the end of the day one always has to come back to the central question: Is their sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Any rational, objective, well-informed person (or Supreme Court judge.....) can clearly see that not only was the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt not met in respect of either Knox or Sollecito, in fact there was NOT ONE credible, reliable piece of evidence that pointed towards either defendant's participation in the murder. And that's the case regardless of any of the nonsense written in the Massei/Nencini motivation reports.

 

[Welshman]

If the case of Amanda and Raffaele is anything to go by, a problem with the Italian justice system is that the police/prosecution can present a case riddled with contradictions. The police took a knife from Raffaele's flat and said Amanda or Raffaele had stabbed Meredith and Meredith's DNA was on the knife. During Amanda's interrogation both Amanda's and the police account did not say Amanda was accused of stabbing Meredith. The statements the police prepared for Amanda said nothing about stabbing Meredith. The same applies to Raffaele. In an interview Mignini was asked how Amanda could murder Meredith without leaving forensic traces. Mignini said Amanda directed from the hallway. If Amanda and Raffaele had stabbed Meredith, why did the police keep changing their version of events and presented scenarios which did not involve Amanda and Raffaele stabbing?

During the interrogation Amanda was not accused of directly taking part in the murder of Meredith only that she was covering for Lumumba. The statement the police prepared for Amanda said the same thing. Raffaele was not accused in his interrogation of taking part in Meredith's murder at all. He was simply accused of covering up for Amanda. The statement the police prepared made no mention of Raffaele taking part in Meredith's murder. During Amanda's interrogation and in the statements the police prepared for Amanda no mention was made of Raffaele. In view of this, why were Amanda and Raffaele accused later of directly taking parts in Meredith's murder?

Is it fair to convict people when the police/prosecution can't decide on a coherent scenario of how a crime was committed and keep changing scenarios?

 

[Desert Fox]

In the United States, there is limited ability to appeal a verdict. As such, I am extremely cautious with respect to the statement that Italy has a bigger problem. I think we are in a situation where we cannot actually know.

Agreed.

Of course this does not mean we should ignore the problems in Italy or anywhere else. . . .For example, I have issues with the Mr Big Technique used in other places.

 

[analemma]

This is an informal forum, rather like a discussion in a pub or a debating club.
One quotes from memory. If I can remember what Massei said, why should I need to dredge up the 400-page report every time his name is mentioned?

AN Vixen is the Drunk person arguing in the Pub.
"One quotes from memory. ", and the memory of Vixen is VERY selective.

 

[Vixen]

AN Vixen is the Drunk person arguing in the Pub.
"One quotes from memory. ", and the memory of Vixen is VERY selective.

Don't knock the pub.


Seriously though, how rude is it to to fiddle about with your smart phone in the middle of a debate and everybody has to pause whilst it buffers up.

'Wiki says I was right!'

'Hang on, I'm just going to look up google on mine.'

Yawn!

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't knock the pub.


Seriously though, how rude is it to to fiddle about with your smart phone in the middle of a debate and everybody has to pause whilst it buffers up.

'Wiki says I was right!'

'Hang on, I'm just going to look up google on mine.'

Yawn!

I've heard some sorry excuses for not bothering to quote things correctly, but that one takes the cake. If you would bother to take a couple of minutes to confirm your information and actually post accurate information rather than "from memory", it might save you a lot of embarrassment and everyone a lot of time.

 

[Vixen]

I've heard some sorry excuses for not bothering to quote things correctly, but that one takes the cake. If you would bother to take a couple of minutes to confirm your information and actually post accurate information rather than "from memory", it might save you a lot of embarrassment and everyone a lot of time.

There are about five logical fallacies there. I have a very good memory. When I need to look things up, I look them up.

Sure I am mistaken now and then, but 99% of the time, my memory serves me correctly, as I don't tend to state things unless I am sure of them.

OTOH I note you often deliberately twist my words and change what I said in order to score points.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Vixen is excellent at remembering factoids from true crime novels; written by her buddy, who she is shilling for, in 2 days so that he can make fast money on a poor young woman's murder.

Facts from scientific papers published by the top people in their field in the top journal of forensic genetics? Well....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kookaburra III

SNIP
Is it fair to convict people when the police/prosecution can't decide on a coherent scenario of how a crime was committed and keep changing scenarios?

This is a fair question, but one might ask it of Australia with respect to the Lindy Chamberlain case. I am reading "Innocence Regained," by Norman Young. Here is an interesting passage concerning changes in the prosecution's case: "Such flexibility led [defense counsel] Crispin to complain that there were so 'many changes of tack in this case on the Crown's part that one almost expects to see Mr Barker and Mr Adams on the deck of the Kookaburra III.'" (Young, p. 192)

I present this comment because every nation has problems with wrongful convictions, although some nations may do certain things related to their respective criminal justice system better than others.

 

[Stacyhs]

There are about five logical fallacies there. I have a very good memory. When I need to look things up, I look them up.

Sure I am mistaken now and then, but 99% of the time, my memory serves me correctly, as I don't tend to state things unless I am sure of them.

OTOH I note you often deliberately twist my words and change what I said in order to score points.

In that case, please state exactly what these "five logical fallacies" are. I'd love to see them.

You are "mistaken now and then"? Your memory is correct "99% of the time"?

Not from what we've seen in this forum.

I don't twist your words. I quote them exactly. I have no need to twist your words.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is a fair question, but one might ask it of Australia with respect to the Lindy Chamberlain case. I am reading "Innocence Regained," by Norman Young. Here is an interesting passage concerning changes in the prosecution's case: "Such flexibility led [defense counsel] Crispin to complain that there were so 'many changes of tack in this case on the Crown's part that one almost expects to see Mr Barker and Mr Adams on the deck of the Kookaburra III.'" (Young, p. 192)

I present this comment because every nation has problems with wrongful convictions, although some nations may do certain things related to their respective criminal justice system better than others.

When the prosecution has to change their case as often as they did in the Kercher case, it's indicative that they don't really have a sound case at all.

How many motives did they come up with? Six? Did Amanda hold Meredith down or was she watching from the hallway? Or was she in the kitchen?

 

[Vixen]

In that case, please state exactly what these "five logical fallacies" are. I'd love to see them.

You are "mistaken now and then"? Your memory is correct "99% of the time"?

Not from what we've seen in this forum.

I don't twist your words. I quote them exactly. I have no need to twist your words.

You wrote:

'As you said earlier, your fiction takes less time than your non-fiction to write.'


The deliberate wanton exact opposite to what I did say.

Q.E.D ::

 

[Vixen]

When the prosecution has to change their case as often as they did in the Kercher case, it's indicative that they don't really have a sound case at all.

How many motives did they come up with? Six? Did Amanda hold Meredith down or was she watching from the hallway? Or was she in the kitchen?

It was Amanda who kept changing her story. We have lost count how many different alibis she has come up with. More variations than Elgar's 'Enigma'!

 

[Bill Williams]

It was Amanda who kept changing her story. We have lost count how many different alibis she has come up with. More variations than Elgar's 'Enigma'!

This factoid used to be one of the favourites of guilters about 6 or eight years ago. Most guilters abandoned it when reading the 2010 Massei report - a report which ironically was written to justify the first conviction.

Even in convicting Massei wrote that Amanda kept to her innocence and her main alibi throughout. She'd been at Raffaele's, an alibi he confirmed. Indeed guilters had to attack Raffaele's confirmation of it, which implicitly meant that Amanda had been consistent.

Of course, the only variation on Amanda's alibi came during the famous interrogation - one in which she signed two confessions written for her in Italian legalese, in a language and legal idiom she had only a beginner's knowledge of.

But to Massei - it is strange that the canard "she kept changing her story" would be trotted out six years after the Italian courts themselves dropped that idea.

Then again, Nick van der Leek wrote that she had in his cut and paste book, and Vixen simply parrots that book. Note: by Vixen's own account, NVDL came to this case fresh in May 2015 and by the end of that month had his Amazon account suspended for claims of plagiarism.

 

[Stacyhs]

You wrote:

'As you said earlier, your fiction takes less time than your non-fiction to write.'


The deliberate wanton exact opposite to what I did say.

Q.E.D ::

Now, watch how this is done; you are partially correct. I misread what you wrote and thought you said the opposite. See? I can admit when I make a mistake. Try it sometime.

However, you are incorrect when you say it was "deliberate" and "wanton". It was a simple mistake which I have now acknowledged.

But you still have not listed the "five logical fallacies" of my statement. Please do so.