Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Methos]

[...]
Absolutely false. This is the pro-Knox supporters' world. It's a delusional trip.
(prosecution never suppressed any evidence, never lied, never used false documents) [...]
(...)

Please explain how "7700 Sequence Detector ABI PRISM" on page 81 of the file dottoressa Stefanoni gave to the court isn't a lie? When it is clear, from the documents, that the "Flubit Fluorometer" was used on that trace and came up with a "Too low"....

 

[toto]

yes, it is now a proven fact that Amanda Knox was on the murder scene when Meredith was killed, that Meredith was killed by multiple persons (and Guede was not the one holding the knife) and Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood.
It is also proven that she falsely accused an innocent voluntarily and that false accusation was a prolonged behaviour, and any alleged violation would be irrelevant to the evidence on the point.

It is also obvious that the trial was annulled for political reasons, just like the Andreotti trial, by a judge who was a former politician (and formerly investigated, but "saved"), and was annulled because, after the corruption with a political imprimatur of the Hellmann trial, that would have created a situation in which Sollecito would be the only person who goes to jail (while USA would refuse to extradite Knox), a situation obviously non sustainable on the international leval because in that situation those who "know" would blackmail and destabilize too many people.

I think a book, properly sourced, needs to be written about this. This book should also include great detail about how attempts were made in Italy to write this wrong, if any attempts were made. i think your interpretation of Knox and Sollecito's Not guilty verdict is a little one sided.
I take on board your view that Knox's ECHR appeal will fail. (Am I reading you right?).

 

[Bill Williams]

Even Bruno Marasca state they agree with the lower courts there is incontrovertible evidence that Knox was killed by more than one person.

It's not my opinion. It's the 5th Ch SC's opinion.

It's your opinion that it's the 5th Ch SC's opinion. Can you point to anyone else in Italy who shares your view? Other than Mignini, I mean.

 

[Methos]

Even Bruno Marasca state they agree with the lower courts there is incontrovertible evidence that Knox was killed by more than one person.

It's not my opinion. It's the 5th Ch SC's opinion.

When, Where?

 

[Machiavelli]

Not really. Although Italy could have proved it had they recorded the interrogation. Incompetence is a theme in this case. We'll see what the final word is when the ECHR is done with the case.

ECHR does not give "final words" on cases.

I think there is some truth to this. While it's true the USA would have certainly refused extradition, it's not because of 20 posters on ISF e-mailing John Kerry saying she's like totally innocent bro, it's because Italy would have no case claiming there was a reasonable basis to believe the accused committed the crime outside of a Massei/Nencini show trial and they would have to actually provide all the relevant documentation on the case, and evidence, and risk exposing the entire fraud.

The fraud was the Hellmann acquittals.
That's the fraud that some powerful Italian people needed to cover.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think a book, properly sourced, needs to be written about this. This book should also include great detail about how attempts were made in Italy to write this wrong, if any attempts were made. i think your interpretation of Knox and Sollecito's Not guilty verdict is a little one sided.
I take on board your view that Knox's ECHR appeal will fail. (Am I reading you right?).

What I would find helpful from Machiavelli is exactly this, a properly sourced book which explains his point of view.

Too much of what Machiavelli claims, he simply cannot talk about. He's claiming that this was essentially a political verdict - but when one asks him about Claudio Hellmann and Wladimiro De Nunzio, presidente Corte d'Appello di Perugia, and their role in this (from his view) travesty, he simply refuses to name sources.

It's all a large, unsourced conspiracy apparently.

A properly sourced book, including his view of a timeline for the murder (and whether or not he thinks Knox's phone "pinged" from the basketball court, etc.) would save us all a lot of time.

 

[bagels]

ECHR does not give "final words" on cases.

Technically true, the Italian court will have to grumble as they rubber stamp the revision trial clearing her of any wrongdoing.

The fraud was the Hellmann acquittals.
That's the fraud that some powerful Italian people needed to cover.

I'm sure the conspiracy will be exposed any day now.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's your opinion that it's the 5th Ch SC's opinion. Can you point to anyone else in Italy who shares your view? Other than Mignini, I mean.

I already pointed out an article to you last year - but you have a big problem in your method: your "evidence" lies in the text itself. Not in what others say or think (or don't say about it).
This is what you've always done: you'd like to construe narratives fron theories of the kind "what person n.3 has said about what person n.2 said about issue A..." so you invented your false stories like claims about Nencini saying females have Y chromosomes, and other amenities - since you obviously don't want to really deal with issues in their reality.

 

[Bill Williams]

I already pointed out an article to you last year - but you have a big problem in your method: your "evidence" lies in the text itself. Not in what others say or think (or don't say about it).
This is what you've always done: you'd like to construe narratives fron theories of the kind "what person n.3 has said about what person n.2 said about issue A..." so you invented your false stories like claims about Nencini saying females have Y chromosomes, and other amenities - since you obviously don't want to really deal with issues in their reality.

These "others" say things differently than you. Your position seems to be that your interpretation of "the text" is the only interpretation possible.

If that is true, why is it that you are the only one promoting that particular interpretation?

And yes, it is true, you posted a link in the late fall of 2015 which simply asked questions which the author believed required answers; and those questions WERE in the ballpark of the issues as you see them. In the intervening months, though, there has been no groundswell around those questions, nor even any other links to be had! - so I'd like to hear from that author again - or has even he moved on?

 

[Machiavelli]

I think a book, properly sourced, needs to be written about this. This book should also include great detail about how attempts were made in Italy to write this wrong, if any attempts were made. i think your interpretation of Knox and Sollecito's Not guilty verdict is a little one sided.
I take on board your view that Knox's ECHR appeal will fail. (Am I reading you right?).

My position about Knox's ECHR appeal is actually that it is only meant to be a distraction for the media. She only wants to "play" it in the media, wants to use it to try "discredit" the calunnia convitcion - rather than to actually change it. The ECHR verdict itself might be even nouanced - might contain different observatons as for art. 6 and art. 3 - and it would be irrelevant as for the merits of a calunnia conviction.
Its findings would never change a guilty verdict - not even in the (remote) event that it would manage to obtain a review trial.

Personally I believe the art. 3 claim in the ECHR complaint is inadmissible, and the whole potential merit of the complaint depends on art.3. - but it doesn't really matter if there are violations or not on those points. These are points of law, which don't affect the findings about events, which are not going to change.
These things only matter in the pro-Knox narrative.
Those Knox supporters who "cling" to the ECHR verdict are just dishonest. They know the ECHR points are factually independent from the evidence of the calunnia case. They use them to shift attention - to put "the police" (or anyway someone else) on trial, to "blame" someone else - in order to make Knox look better in the media.

 

[Machiavelli]

These "others" say things differently than you. Your position seems to be that your interpretation of "the text" is the only interpretation possible.

Who says different things?

If that is true, why is it that you are the only one promoting that particular interpretation?

And why don't you read the text instead?

You know, I don't promote *any* interpretation at all.

It's the text. Only the text. No "other interpretation", no "interpretation" is possible.

I may only explain you how the text has to be translated into English, and the language rules why it is so.

 

[Numbers]

One important judicial issue that underlies the violations of defendant's rights in the Knox - Sollecito case is the resistance of the Italian judiciary against acceptance of the changes to the Italian Constitution and laws of procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP) made by the Italian Parliament in 1988 and later years, including the amendments to Article 111 of the Constitution in 1999 and the revision of CPP Article 533.1 establishing that a verdict of conviction shall {only} be delivered if the accused is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The word "only" does not actually occur in the Italian text, while consistent with the BARD standard, CPP Article 530.2 established that a verdict of acquittal must be delivered if the proof is insufficient, contradictory or lacking that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed the act, the act is deemed an offense by law, or that the offense was committed by a person with mental capacity {justifying legal responsibility}. CPP Article 530.3 established that the verdict must be an acquittal also if there is proof or {reasonable} doubt {demonstrating} that the underlying causes of the act are a reason for {legal} justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment.

Prosecutors in Italy are different from those in the US and England/Wales in that they are magistrates, in the same branch of government as judges, but also prosecutors are legally responsible for directing police in the specifics of any criminal investigation, even though the police are organizationally under the Ministry of the Interior (Polizia di Stato) or the Ministry of Defense (Carabinieri). Italian prosecutors are legally obligated to not only investigate to discover evidence against a suspect, but also to carry out ascertainments on the facts and circumstances in favor of the suspect (CPP Article 358). However, according to reports in legal academic literature, prosecutors in Italy not only do not seek exculpatory evidence, they often do violate defense rights, according to a survey of 1000 Italian lawyers. (Quoted passage below)

This misconduct by the prosecution, which was clear in the Knox - Sollecito case, is thus apparently common in Italy.

...Di Federico and Sapignoli describe prosecutors as independent police officers who, in practice, do not fulfil their duty to be impartial investigators.
The authors conducted a large empirical study (involving 1000 lawyers): 48.8% of the lawyers interviewed reported that prosecutors do not comply with article 358 cpp which requires them to search for exculpatory evidence; 19.5% of the lawyers said that prosecutors search for exculpatory evidence only when the counsel pushes them to do so; and only 2.1% of the lawyers said that prosecutors always search for exculpatory evidence. The authors describe prosecutors as straight accusers that are prepared to play with the interpretation of legal procedural rules to achieve a conviction. This means that, for example, prosecutors do not respect the legal rules that require them to finish the investigation in a fixed time; that pre-trial custody is used to put pressure on accused persons even when there are no lawful justifications to do so; and that witnesses are not free to report what they saw and heard, because prosecutors put a lot of pressure on them in order to be sure that they will support the prosecution’s version of events. However, as Di Federico says, the case study only focused on the lawyers’ perspective; and, in general, his analysis is aimed at demonstrating that there is a sharp contrast between legal rules and practice. ...

Source: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/1577/

Adversarialism in Italy: Using the concept of legal culture to understand resistance to legal modifications and its consequences

Montana, R. (2012). Adversarialism in Italy: Using the concept of legal culture to understand resistance to legal modifications and its consequences. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 20(1), pp. 99-120. doi: 10.1163/157181712X615258
PDF

quoting: G Di Federico and M Sapignoli, Processo penale e diritti della difesa (Carocci, Roma 2002) p. 16 -17.
See also, G Di Federico, ‘Il pubblico ministero: indipendenza, responsabilità, carriera separata’ in G Di
Federico (ed), Manuale di Ordinamento Giudiziario (CEDAM, Padova 2004)

 

[christianahannah]

~snip~ The fraud was the Hellmann acquittals.
That's the fraud that some powerful Italian people needed to cover.

I ask this in all sincerity - has any Italian journalist done any investigative reports concerning any coverup with regards to the Hellmann acquittals? Are there any media inquiring about any fraud with the case? Do not Italian journalists care about and investigate corruption in their courts and country?

On another subject how are the people doing in the present as far as their careers and reputations, i.e. Mignini, Stefanoni, Comodi, etc.?

 

[Bill Williams]

Who says different things?



And why don't you read the text instead?

You know, I don't promote *any* interpretation at all.

It's the text. Only the text. No "other interpretation", no "interpretation" is possible.

I may only explain you how the text has to be translated into English, and the language rules why it is so.

I will default to christianahannah on this. Please have a go at her questions.

What I don't get is when someone denies they have a point of view, saying instead that what they say about something is objective reality.....

A reality which assumes massive judicial fraud that no one in Italy seems much interested in. I mean a journalist could win Nobel exposing this "objective" fraud.

So I guess de Nunzio and Hellmann are soon going to be arrested?

 

[bagels]

My position about Knox's ECHR appeal is actually that it is only meant to be a distraction for the media. She only wants to "play" it in the media, wants to use it to try "discredit" the calunnia convitcion - rather than to actually change it. The ECHR verdict itself might be even nouanced - might contain different observatons as for art. 6 and art. 3 - and it would be irrelevant as for the merits of a calunnia conviction.
Its findings would never change a guilty verdict - not even in the (remote) event that it would manage to obtain a review trial.

Personally I believe the art. 3 claim in the ECHR complaint is inadmissible, and the whole potential merit of the complaint depends on art.3. - but it doesn't really matter if there are violations or not on those points. These are points of law, which don't affect the findings about events, which are not going to change.
These things only matter in the pro-Knox narrative.
Those Knox supporters who "cling" to the ECHR verdict are just dishonest. They know the ECHR points are factually independent from the evidence of the calunnia case. They use them to shift attention - to put "the police" (or anyway someone else) on trial, to "blame" someone else - in order to make Knox look better in the media.

The US media isn't even following this case anymore. If the ECHR rules in her favor, I'd be surprised if it was picked up by more than a couple online publications.

Your analysis of the calunnia case seems entwined with your belief that she voluntarily implicated Patrick free from any coercion. Clearly this is a contested view.

Your input on the case would only be interesting if you believed she had no case even if her version of events was correct.

 

[Bill Williams]

The US media isn't even following this case anymore. If the ECHR rules in her favor, I'd be surprised if it was picked up by more than a couple online publications.

Your analysis of the calunnia case seems entwined with your belief that she voluntarily implicated Patrick free from any coercion. Clearly this is a contested view.

Your input on the case would only be interesting if you believed she had no case even if her version of events was correct.

The conspiratorial view of this case, where someone honestly believes that Knox is trying to manipulate the media..... it is one thing to claim this in 2010, it is laughable to claim this in 2017. This case is now nowhere near any media radar. Even both Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt have moved on, in the former's case probably because she took a shellacking in the Winterbottom film (in 2014) and was perhaps the only one grateful it did not get a wide release.

Indeed, that it did not get a wide release is part and parcel of your point, bagels. Yet the contrary minded in our midst still think this is all about the media.

 

[Machiavelli]

One important judicial issue that underlies the violations of defendant's rights in the Knox - Sollecito case is the resistance of the Italian judiciary against acceptance of the changes to the Italian Constitution and laws of procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure, CPP) made by the Italian Parliament in 1988 and later years, including the amendments to Article 111 of the Constitution in 1999 and the revision of CPP Article 533.1 establishing that a verdict of conviction shall {only} be delivered if the accused is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (...)

This is false. The BARD standard already existed in jurisprudence, not only before art.111 reform but even long before the 1988 reform.
It was only not written in the code, but it was written in jurisprudence. Reasonable doubt was alread linked by jurisprudence as what was defined in the previous code as "insufficient proof".

Prosecutors in Italy are different from those in the US and England/Wales in that they are magistrates, in the same branch of government as judges, but also prosecutors are legally responsible for directing police in the specifics of any criminal investigation, even though the police are organizationally under the Ministry of the Interior (Polizia di Stato) or the Ministry of Defense (Carabinieri).

This wording is incorrect. Prosecutors are not "legally responsible" for police.
And btw, also remind that in the Italian system there are also Investigating Judges, who have a responsability to vouch for Prosecutors on some kind of investigation activity and need to assess and give green light to their cases and can make changes or give directives.
There is an "aliquota" (a "corp", a "fraction") which the Minister of Interior or the Ministry of Defence (people of their own choice) put at disposition of the Prosecutor as detectives (Polizia giudiziaria), that is the Prosecution can issue written orders and tasks and proxies for them. But the Prosecution cannot actually direct them except through these written orders.

Italian prosecutors are legally obligated to not only investigate to discover evidence against a suspect, but also to carry out ascertainments on the facts and circumstances in favor of the suspect (CPP Article 358). However, according to reports in legal academic literature, prosecutors in Italy not only do not seek exculpatory evidence, they often do violate defense rights, according to a survey of 1000 Italian lawyers. (Quoted passage below)

This is only an generic anti-magistrate position. This position exists in Italy, as much as the contrary one. Pretty much any such prejudicial stance is pointless. Some people just don't like or don't trust the power magistrates (most lawyers have manifestly contrary interests, obviously), other people don't like lawyers, other people don't like police. And many people don't like judges' acquittals.
Based on the same logic anyone could write a post saying "American Police often shoots black people and plant false evidence against black suspects" . It is not honest to deduce misconduct from such prejudices, even thought it is much more grounded than allegation against Italian magistrates.

This misconduct by the prosecution, which was clear in the Knox - Sollecito case, is thus apparently common in Italy.

False (not only there was no misconduct proven, there was also no *claim* of misconduct by the defence in this case). All this is offensive, nauseating lies.

 

[Machiavelli]

The US media isn't even following this case anymore. If the ECHR rules in her favor, I'd be surprised if it was picked up by more than a couple online publications.

Your analysis of the calunnia case seems entwined with your belief that she voluntarily implicated Patrick free from any coercion. Clearly this is a contested view.

Not contested by judges. Not even by a single judge. At any level.
I obviously agree there is full evidence of Knox's malice.
But if we just note the judges' findings, they say Knox's calunnia was a "prolonged behaviour". And there is not even a *claim* of coercion in this case - the defensive theory was false memory syndrome, not coercion.

Your input on the case would only be interesting if you believed she had no case even if her version of events was correct.

What version of events? What she claimed in the trial? The version of events she presented in the trial was almost identical to the police version. The only difference was her memory of receiving a hit at the back of the head during the 1st police interrogation.
There was no other defensive claim about any other difference. The official version of events was undisputed. At least of those observable events (false memory syndrome cannot be observed). That was her position in the trial.

 

[Numbers]

As I have posted earlier, the BARD standard was declared fundamental by a Joint Chambers (CSC) decision in 2002. That is different that a legal standard in the CPP, which can only be enacted by Parliament; that was only done by Law No. 46 in 2006.

Here is an excerpt of what I previously posted (#2643 of Cont. 23):

The reforms of 1988 intended to eliminate the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based upon the presumption of guilt. The Constitution and Convention requires a presumption of innocence (no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted); therefore, Article 530.2 was introduced, with the intent that one is not guilty if the evidence does not support guilt. However, the wording of 530.2 itself was considered unclear for establishing the required standard for guilt, so in 2002 the Joint Chambers of the CSC decided that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was required as the standard for conviction. Parliament confirmed this by passing law 46/2006 which incorporated the BARD standard into CPP Article 533.1.
Source:
Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Behavior: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014 p. 37 - 38

 

[Machiavelli]

As I have posted earlier, the BARD standard was declared fundamental by a Joint Chambers (CSC) decision in 2002. That is different that a legal standard in the CPP, which can only be enacted by Parliament; that was only done by Law No. 46 in 2006.

Here is an excerpt of what I previously posted (#2643 of Cont. 23):

The reforms of 1988 intended to eliminate the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based upon the presumption of guilt. The Constitution and Convention requires a presumption of innocence (no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted); therefore, Article 530.2 was introduced, with the intent that one is not guilty if the evidence does not support guilt. However, the wording of 530.2 itself was considered unclear for establishing the required standard for guilt, so in 2002 the Joint Chambers of the CSC decided that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was required as the standard for conviction. Parliament confirmed this by passing law 46/2006 which incorporated the BARD standard into CPP Article 533.1.
Source:
Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Behavior: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014 p. 37 - 38

But it is completely false. The inquisitorial system had nothing like a "presumption of guilt".

And by the way, the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the principle of reasonable doubt: those two principles are just independent.

The Cassazione Sentence on reasonable doubt 20371 finds that the legistlator only formalized in the code "a principle already established in jurisprudence" (so Cass. pen., sez. I, ud. 11 maggio 2006 (dep. 14 giugno 2006), n. 20371):

«in legge un principio già acquisito, presente da anni con sempre maggiore frequenza nella giurisprudenza di questa Corte ed incontestabile anche alla stregua delle Convenzioni Internazionali sottoscritte dall'Italia, per cui nel giudizio la condanna dell'imputato è possibile soltanto qualora vi sia la certezza processuale della responsabilità dell'imputato, mentre quando la prova è incompleta si impone la assoluzione (v. per tutte Cass. n. 43324/2005, omissis; Cass. n. 41052/2005, omissis; Cass. n. 41176/2005, omissis; Cass. sez. 6^, n. 1518/1997 Rv. 208144; Cass. sez. 2^, n. 3777/1995, Rv. 203118)»

An essay on the modification of art. 533:

http://www.diritto.it/docs/37781-il-principio-del-ragionevole-dubbio-a-quasi-dieci-anni-dalla-modifica-dell-art-533-c-p-p-lo-stato-dell-arte?page=1

It is not true that there was a presumption of guilt, and it is not true that there was no standard beyond reasonable doubt.
Your claim is simply false.
There was no "egregious innovation" at all. Most scholars agree the previous standard was identical to before the 533 change.

The art. 111 is rather more important, and has some implication in jurisprudence and also in the procedure code. But those are rather minor changes, the 1989 code was already extremely protective of the rights of the accused (much more than the American procedure by the way).