Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Mojo]

Here's the interesting part: other journalists, who had been positioned a bit farther away from the protesters and the interaction between Gevorgyan and the police, had not only witnessed the events, but had recorded them on video. Their statement and the video was entered into evidence for Gevorgyan's complaint against the police, but the testimony was ignored and the first-instance court claimed, falsely, that the video supported the police account. The falsehoods of the court survived through a full appeals process.

Did they say something like, "this is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right that these actions should go any further"?

 

[TomG]

Logic has never been a strength of the pro-guilt. They think it was logical for Knox and Sollecito to point out the bathmat footprint to the police when, if guilty, they would have known it was RS's. My favorite guilter 'explanation' is that they thought themselves so clever they wanted to 'pull one over' on the police.

They think it would be logical for RS to give AK an 18-inch unguarded chef's knife instead of one of his safer flip knives to carry around in her book bag for 'protection'. As we all know, there was ZERO evidence of any knife being carried in the cloth bag and ZERO evidence that AK ever carried a knife of any kind. The Massei court just made up the entire story out of think air.

The guilters think it's logical that AK and RS cleaned up the crime scene when it's obvious there was no cleaning. Why clean the bathroom and leave blood in several places, including your own? Why not mop down the floors in the bathroom and corridor/kitchen? Why not flush the feces in FR's and LM's bathroom if Guede were their accomplice? Add to that the illogical claim that they were trying to cover for Guede by accusing Lumumba when they would have knowingly left his feces and his bloody shoeprints? If they had cleaned up anything, they'd have cleaned it ALL with the exception of the bedroom. Then there's the idiotic belief that they could selectively clean up ONLY their own forensic evidence while leaving Guede's. The entire guilter logic is just, well....illogical.

Also, if the climb to the window was so unlikely, why would anyone want to stage a break-in at such an unlikely location? Maybe that was another attempt to 'pull one over' on the cops.

 

[Stacyhs]

How do police botch on investigation? In Ottawa recently, despite a suspect known to police having illegal and prohibited items plainly visible in his car....

.... they proceeded with an impaired driving ruse, thus avoiding having to 'read him his rights'.

No system to track, train lying police...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/no-system-to-track-train-lying-police-lawyer-says-after-another-scathing-decision-1.7547366

So much for the claim touted in this thread, that police have 'no reason to lie'.... when they do the courts should hold them to account.

What some people fail to consider is that the police had a strong motive to lie about the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. Both Amanda and Raffaele claimed they were threatened and abused. Naturally, whether true or not, the police would deny this because admitting it would likely end their careers. As Marasca said, they were under a lot of pressure to solve the case ASAP.

We also know that Napoleoni, Zugarini, and several other officers were willing to break the law, including abusing their police powers, to get what they wanted and cover for each other.

 

[Stacyhs]

Also, if the climb to the window was so unlikely, why would anyone want to stage a break-in at such an unlikely location? Maybe that was another attempt to 'pull one over' on the cops.

Why go to all the trouble of breaking the window when all they had to do was leave the door standing wide open? A burglary motive wasn't even necessary when a girl was sexually assaulted and murdered.
But I still ask: why would anyone stage a robbery and then tell the police nothing was taken? It makes zero sense.

 

[Myriad]

It makes zero sense.

It makes no sense, which just shows how entitled and superior AK and RS were acting to think they could get away with it!

It's the Chewbacca Prosecution.

 

[Numbers]

Here's a 1970 Boston case where a police officer lied about being assaulted with a brick by a 19-year-old physics student. Turns out the student had books in his hand as he was watching an anti-war demonstration; while watching the protest, the student had been attacked without rational (reasonable) cause by the police officer. However, the student was convicted, sentenced to 6 months in jail (suspended) and to 3 years of probation, but lost his scholarship, job, and security clearance, and had to drop out of Northeastern University. He was exonerated in a 1990 hearing after he was allowed by the Boston Globe to find among their photos of the demonstration one of him - arms full of books - being dragged away by police.

I reject the claims that police or prosecutors never frame people, that Knox and Sollecito were not framed, that there must be a widespread conspiracy for police or prosecutor to frame someone (it's just teamwork), that the police or prosecutor must have some extraordinary "rational" motive (for example, protecting an informant) to frame someone, or that it's not "framing" if the police are "sincerely" convinced that the person is guilty. My definition of framing is very similar (but not identical) to the Italian definition of the crime of calunnia - it's a knowingly false accusation against someone made to a person in authority and/or fabricating false evidence against someone - for example, by coercing a false confession or false statement from someone, and/or suppressing exculpatory evidence favoring someone.

Source: https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/11302

There are some other ways to frame someone that I realize I should have included: falsely interpreting or translating a statement from one language to another to give the appearance of guilt and falsely interpreting or reporting the results of a forensic test. This falsity would include incomplete reporting of relevant statements or forensic results that are favorable to the person being framed. Examples of falsifying statements in the Knox - Sollecito case are Mignini leaving out the closing "have a good evening" (in Italian) from Knox's text responding to Lumumba and the interpreter not informing her police colleagues that she understood that Knox's text could have simply been an attempt at a casual farewell by someone with an imperfect knowledge of Italian. Examples of falsifying test results by falsely interpreting results would include Stefanoni's failure to include any mention of the DNA of two other males besides Sollecito in the (alleged) bra clasp DNA result.

As readers here may be aware from previous posts (from a quite awhile ago), in 2016, after Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges in a 2015 CSC judgment that included, in its MR, criticism of the investigation conducted by the police as supervised by prosecutor Mignini, Italy passed a criminal law that entered into the Codice Penale as CP Article 375. That article is titled "Frode in processo penale e depistaggio" translating to "Fraud or Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings", a law which attaches criminal penalties to acts by police or other public officials that include any falsification or remaining silent in a criminal case; the law is general in that it would apply to official acts making someone innocent appear guilty or someone guilty appear not guilty.

Here's a Google translation of the first part of CP Article 375; I'm leaving out the remainder because it goes into great detail on the various levels of punishment applied depending on what kind of crime is being falsified, with aggravating and extenuating circumstances.

Art. 375.
Fraud or misdirection in criminal proceedings

Unless the act constitutes a more serious crime, a public official or person in charge of a public service who, in order to prevent, hinder or divert an investigation or a criminal trial:
a) artificially alters the corpus delicti or the state of the places, things, or people connected to the crime;
b) requested by the judicial authority or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal proceeding, states something false or denies the truth, or keeps silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts on which he is being questioned, is punishable by imprisonment for three to eight years.
If the act is committed by destroying, suppressing, concealing, damaging, in whole or in part, or by creating or artificially altering, in whole or in part, a document or object to be used as evidence or in any case useful for discovering or ascertaining the crime, the penalty is increased by one third to one half.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/n...itti-contro-l-amministrazione-della-giustizia

Note: corpus delicti may be defined in the context of the law as the "body of evidence, including physical objects" that shows that a crime has been committed and who may have committed the crime. In a murder case, it would include, of course, the body of the victim as well as other evidence.

 

[Numbers]

There are some other ways to frame someone that I realize I should have included: falsely interpreting or translating a statement from one language to another to give the appearance of guilt and falsely interpreting or reporting the results of a forensic test. This falsity would include incomplete reporting of relevant statements or forensic results that are favorable to the person being framed. Examples of falsifying statements in the Knox - Sollecito case are Mignini leaving out the closing "have a good evening" (in Italian) from Knox's text responding to Lumumba and the interpreter not informing her police colleagues that she understood that Knox's text could have simply been an attempt at a casual farewell by someone with an imperfect knowledge of Italian. Examples of falsifying test results by falsely interpreting results would include Stefanoni's failure to include any mention of the DNA of two other males besides Sollecito in the (alleged) bra clasp DNA result.

As readers here may be aware from previous posts (from a quite awhile ago), in 2016, after Knox and Sollecito had been finally acquitted of the murder/rape charges in a 2015 CSC judgment that included, in its MR, criticism of the investigation conducted by the police as supervised by prosecutor Mignini, Italy passed a criminal law that entered into the Codice Penale as CP Article 375. That article is titled "Frode in processo penale e depistaggio" translating to "Fraud or Misdirection in Criminal Proceedings", a law which attaches criminal penalties to acts by police or other public officials that include any falsification or remaining silent in a criminal case; the law is general in that it would apply to official acts making someone innocent appear guilty or someone guilty appear not guilty.

Here's a Google translation of the first part of CP Article 375; I'm leaving out the remainder because it goes into great detail on the various levels of punishment applied depending on what kind of crime is being falsified, with aggravating and extenuating circumstances.


Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/n...itti-contro-l-amministrazione-della-giustizia

Note: corpus delicti may be defined in the context of the law as the "body of evidence, including physical objects" that shows that a crime has been committed and who may have committed the crime. In a murder case, it would include, of course, the body of the victim as well as other evidence.

There's also an Italian criminal law, CP Article 373, that provides for criminal penalties for a court-appointed technical expert or interpreter who provides a false report or makes false statements (Google translation):

Article 373 of the Criminal Code
(R.D. 19 October 1930, n. 1398)
[Updated 24/04/2025]

False expert opinion or interpretation
The expert or interpreter, who, appointed by the judicial authority, gives false opinions or interpretations, or states facts that are not true, is subject to the penalties established in the previous article.

The conviction entails, in addition to the disqualification from holding public office, the disqualification from the profession or from the art.

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art373.html

 

[Numbers]

There's also an Italian criminal law, CP Article 373, that provides for criminal penalties for a court-appointed technical expert or interpreter who provides a false report or makes false statements (Google translation):



Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art373.html

It may help to know what the text and penalty of the preceding CP Article 372, is, in order to understand fully CP Article 373. Here's a Google translation of CP Article 372:

Art. 372.
False testimony.

Anyone who, testifying as a witness before a judicial authority or the International Criminal Court, affirms something false or denies the truth, or conceals, in whole or in part, what he knows about the facts about which he is being questioned, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

This article, in the original 1930 text of the CP, was amended in 1992 and 2012; adding the ICC was of course part of the amendments.

 

[Numbers]

There's also an Italian criminal law, CP Article 373, that provides for criminal penalties for a court-appointed technical expert or interpreter who provides a false report or makes false statements (Google translation):



Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art373.html

The "court-appointed" may also include prosecution or police appointed.

 

[Numbers]

I searched through the cases against Italy pending before the CoM to find the oldest one involving a criminal case. The one that met those criteria was Sud Fondi SRL and others v. Italy 75909/01 published 20 January 2009 and final 20 April 2009. It's a case that illustrates the high levels of confusion and dysfunction that can be found in Italian law and the Italian judicial system.

Note that this case has a CSC reversal of an appeals court decision without referral. Such reversals are not uncommon in Italian judicial practice.

One other point: the values in 2007 of the land and the buildings confiscated by Italy in this case were estimated as no less than about 300 and 20 million euros, respectively. Considering the Italian government would not be eager to pay such sums to the applicants, it is not surprising that so far Italy has not taken measures to address the violations of the Convention found in the case. I suggest that potential financial losses to the Italian treasury are a motivation for the slowness of Italian responses to findings of violations of the Convention by the ECHR.

A brief summary: Sud Fondi SRL was a relatively large company that owned land on the seashore in the Bari municipality. The others are two smaller companies that also owned land next to the Sud Fondi property. The three companies in a partnership sought permission from Bari to develop the land. The Bari municipality checked in laws and land development regulations and found no issues, so it permitted the development in 1995. However, in 1996 started an investigation and came to the view that the development was not legal, resulting in a temporary order seizing the property. Then, in response to an appeal by the companies, the CSC returned the property, since the CSC could find no illegality. However, in 1999 a criminal court found that there had been illegality, but that the three companies and their respective owners had not committed any crime - that is, they were acquitted - because the Bari municipality had informed them that the development was legal. On the other hand, it ordered the transfer of ownership of the land and buildings of the development to the Bari municipality. An appeal court in 2000 agreed with the acquittal but quashed the confiscation of the land and buildings. However, in 2001 the CSC reversed that appeal court decision without referral. The CSC found that the development and buildings on the land of the property were illegal because of national laws relating to a ban on buildings in such areas and environmental protection laws.

Thus, the CSC acquitted the accused on the grounds that they had not been guilty of negligence and had had no unlawful intent to commit the offences, which were the result of an “inevitable and excusable error” in the interpretation of “vague and poorly formulated” regional regulations which interfered with the national law. The Court of Cassation also took into account the conduct of the administrative authorities. It noted, in particular, that (i) on obtaining the planning permission the applicant companies had received assurances from the director of the municipal office; (ii) that the covenants protecting the site did not appear on the development plan; and (iii) that the competent national authority had not intervened. Lastly, the Court of Cassation urged against conjecture in the absence of an inquiry into the reasons for the authorities’ conduct. It also ordered the confiscation of all the buildings and land.

The ECHR found two violations of the Convention: Article 7 and Article 1 of Protocol 1. The reasons were, respectively,

Since the statutory basis for the offence did not satisfy the criteria of clarity, accessibility and foreseeability, it had been impossible to foresee that a penalty would be inflicted. Further, for the purposes of Article 7, a legislative framework that did not enable an accused to know the meaning and scope of the criminal law was deficient not only as regards the general conditions pertaining to the “quality” of the “law”, but also as regards the specific requirements of legality in the criminal law. Consequently, the confiscation of the properties had not been prescribed by law for the purposes of Article 7 and amounted to an arbitrary penalty.

and

...the fact that the applicant companies had acted in good faith and without negligence had not been seen as relevant and the applicable procedures had taken no account of the degree of responsibility or recklessness or, at least, of the relationship between the companies’ conduct and the offence. Further, confiscation on that scale without compensation was not justified by the stated aim of bringing the land concerned into conformity with the urban development regulations. Lastly, it was the very municipality which had granted the illegal planning permission which, paradoxically, had become the owner of the confiscated land. In the light of these considerations, a fair balance had not been struck.

Sources:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

 

[Stacyhs]

Update on Guede's charges for raping and beating his former girlfriend:

The preliminary hearing for Rudy Guede, who risks trial in Viterbo for sexual violence, mistreatment and injuries towards his ex-girlfriend, has been postponed to July 11 due to a failure to notify. The Ivorian, after the girl's complaint, was also subjected to a year of special surveillance in addition to the measure of the prohibition of approaching with an electronic bracelet. Guede has always denied the accusations. The violence would also be evidenced by some photos that the 24-year-old kept on her cell phone and that were searched for by a computer expert during the evidentiary incident.

He and his lawyer are complaining that the there's a negative atmosphere regarding him and that it goes against an assumption of innocence. You know, like Knox and Sollecito faced.

Rudy Guede denounces "a climate of morbidity and prejudice mounted against him" in view of the preliminary hearing before the GUP of Viterbo in which he is accused of mistreatment and sexual violence against his ex-girlfriend (charges that he denies).

He did so through a note from his defense attorney, Carlo Mezzetti, released by ANSA. The lawyer emphasized that the climate toward Guede "clearly clashes with the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence and with the respect that is due to all the people involved in the matter under investigation"."Mr. Guede and the defense attorney - it is further stated in the note from lawyer Mezzetti - have always observed a behavior marked by confidentiality during all the preliminary investigations, which appears all the more necessary when discussing particularly delicate matters.

I wonder if his lawyer, Carlo Mezzetti, is related to Laura Mezzetti who is now a lawyer.

 

[Numbers]

Update on Guede's charges for raping and beating his former girlfriend:



He and his lawyer are complaining that the there's a negative atmosphere regarding him and that it goes against an assumption of innocence. You know, like Knox and Sollecito faced.


I wonder if his lawyer, Carlo Mezzetti, is related to Laura Mezzetti who is now a lawyer.

Stacyhs, thanks for posting this news.

I found this in Perugia Tomorrow dated 4 June 2025 (Google translation):

The preliminary hearing against Rudy Guede, accused of sexual violence, mistreatment and personal injury against his ex-girlfriend, was held yesterday morning at the Viterbo court. The 37-year-old Ivorian, known for his involvement in the Meredith Kercher murder case, is now once again at the center of a judicial affair with a strong media impact.

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo: accuse di violenza dalla ex compagna - Perugia Tomorrow

Rudy Guede torna davanti al giudice con l'accusa di violenza e maltrattamenti all'ex compagna. Udienza preliminare a Viterbo, con foto dei lividi agli atti.

www.perugiatomorrow.it

And this in Civonline.it dated 4 June 2025:

The preliminary hearing for Rudy Guede, the 38-year-old Ivorian accused of sexual assault by his ex, has been postponed until July.The young man, who served a 16-year sentence for the murder of English student Meredith Kercher, was released from prison in the summer of 2023 and began a relationship with a 25-year-old woman from Viterbo who then reported him for mistreatment, injuries and sexual assault. On 6 December 2023, Guede was ordered not to approach the injured party. The prosecutor's office has requested that he be sent for trial. Yesterday morning, his lawyer Carlo Mezzetti noted a defect in notification, which is why the preliminary hearing was postponed until July. In the meantime, the lawyer has released a note in which, referring to the media treatment reserved for the young man, he speaks of "a climate of morbidity and prejudice" in contrast with the presumption of innocence.

....

According to the lawyer Mezzetti: “in this context, however, in the past few days, some press articles have been published in which serious conduct is attributed to Mr. Guede, without even using the conditional, with many scandalous details. All this at a time when the suspect has not even been sent for trial yet”. The lawyer concludes by saying that: “At this point we are therefore forced to specify that in relation to these publications and other future ones that may have the same tenor, Mr. Guede reserves the right to take legal action to protect his honor”.

Rudy Guede: «Contro di me clima morboso e pregiudizievole»

E’ accusato dall’ex di maltrattamenti, lesioni e violenza sessuale. L’udienza preliminare di ieri mattina è stata rinviata a luglio per un difetto di notifica

www.civonline.it

 

[Numbers]

Some (PGP) have posted that law enforcement officials are only interested in searching for criminals and had no reason to coerce false statements from Knox and Sollecito. That view, however, ignores the complexity of human motivations or non-reasoning that may occur even in law enforcement professionals under some circumstances, for example, pressure to close a notorious case quickly. Sometimes motivations even of law enforcement may not seem rational, for example, as in the US satanic cult ritual child abuse panic*.

Recently, Los Angeles County, California probation officers allegedly permitted or instigated beatings of detained juvenile offenders by other detained juvenile offenders at a detention center. This misconduct was recorded on video surveillance cameras in the detention facility, although according to press reports, the surveillance recordings were only looked at after a particularly severe beating and complaint led to an investigation. I can only speculate that the probation officers allegedly involved were staging these "gladiator fights" for their entertainment.

The point is that the purity of intent or even the rationality of law enforcement officers and other justice system officials should not be assumed. If one has an open mind about the intent and rationality of justice system officials, the events of the Knox - Sollecito case become more understandable.

Here's an excerpt from a news report on this alleged misconduct by the LA County probation officers:

Los Angeles County on Monday agreed to pay $2.7 million to a teenager who was attacked by at least six other young people at a juvenile detention center in so-called “gladiator fights” that were allegedly facilitated by probation officers.

The boy's beating in 2023 at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall was captured on surveillance video that also showed several officials standing idly by and some of them shaking hands with the participants in the beating.

A state grand jury in March charged 30 correctional officers for their role in allowing and sometimes encouraging nearly 70 fights to take place between July and December 2023. The officers face charges including child endangerment and abuse, conspiracy, and battery.

More than 140 victims between the ages of 12 and 18 were involved, according to authorities.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said after the charges were announced that it seemed the attacks were planned.

“They often wanted them to happen at the beginning of the day, in a certain time, in a certain place. A space and a time was created for the fights, and the plan was for the fights to happen,” he said.

The investigation began after the Los Angeles Times first obtained and published video footage that shows a then-16-year-old being attacked by at least six other young people, who came at him one by one as officers stand by watching. ....

Source: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...adiator-fights-at-detention-facility/3715012/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

 

[Numbers]

An ECHR judgment published today, 5 June 2025, may have relevance in understanding the defects of the Chieffi CSC panel judgment and the Nencini Court of Appeal provisional judgment.

In Anna Maria Ciccone v. Italy 21492/17, the ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 6.1 in a case where an Italian Court of Appeal convicted a radiologist who had been accused, with others, of complicity in involuntary manslaughter for the death of a patient who had been misdiagnosed. She had failed to detect a broken femur in a patient who had been assaulted.

In the first instance trial, Ciccone had been acquitted largely based on statements by experts (appointed by the prosecutor). The Court of Appeals, however, convicted her without hearing testimony from those experts, but instead relying on written reports.

In the Knox - Sollecito case, did the Nencini Court of Appeal hear the testimony of all the experts, including Conti & Vecciotti? If not, its provisional conviction would, if it had become final, be subject to the same ECHR case law as the case of Anna Maria Ciccione v. Italy, among many other issues.

Whether or not it heard C&V, if the Nencini Court of Appeal dismissed their criticisms of the police lab's evidence collection and DNA testing of the knife blade and bra in wording that was contrary to scientific principles or in any way arbitrary or unreasonable, there would also be a violation of Convention Article 6.1 if the Nencini conviction judgment was final.

See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Press release (English)

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Judgment (French)

 

[Stacyhs]

Stacyhs, thanks for posting this news.

I found this in Perugia Tomorrow dated 4 June 2025 (Google translation):

Rudy Guede di nuovo a processo: accuse di violenza dalla ex compagna - Perugia Tomorrow

Rudy Guede torna davanti al giudice con l'accusa di violenza e maltrattamenti all'ex compagna. Udienza preliminare a Viterbo, con foto dei lividi agli atti.

www.perugiatomorrow.it

And this in Civonline.it dated 4 June 2025:

Rudy Guede: «Contro di me clima morboso e pregiudizievole»

E’ accusato dall’ex di maltrattamenti, lesioni e violenza sessuale. L’udienza preliminare di ieri mattina è stata rinviata a luglio per un difetto di notifica

www.civonline.it

" Mr. Guede reserves the right to take legal action to protect his honor”.

He has no honor. He's a convicted murderer and rapist who continues to implicate two innocent people for his own crime. For his lawyer to even make such a statement shows his own intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Numbers]

" Mr. Guede reserves the right to take legal action to protect his honor”.

He has no honor. He's a convicted murderer and rapist who continues to implicate two innocent people for his own crime. For his lawyer to even make such a statement shows his own intellectual dishonesty.

Yes. Although I believe the lawyer was referring to a presumed "honor" under the Italian criminal and civil laws against defamation and libel.

 

[Stacyhs]

Some (PGP) have posted that law enforcement officials are only interested in searching for criminals and had no reason to coerce false statements from Knox and Sollecito. That view, however, ignores the complexity of human motivations or non-reasoning that may occur even in law enforcement professionals under some circumstances, for example, pressure to close a notorious case quickly. Sometimes motivations even of law enforcement may not seem rational, for example, as in the US satanic cult ritual child abuse panic*.

Recently, Los Angeles County, California probation officers allegedly permitted or instigated beatings of detained juvenile offenders by other detained juvenile offenders at a detention center. This misconduct was recorded on video surveillance cameras in the detention facility, although according to press reports, the surveillance recordings were only looked at after a particularly severe beating and complaint led to an investigation. I can only speculate that the probation officers allegedly involved were staging these "gladiator fights" for their entertainment.

The point is that the purity of intent or even the rationality of law enforcement officers and other justice system officials should not be assumed. If one has an open mind about the intent and rationality of justice system officials, the events of the Knox - Sollecito case become more understandable.

Here's an excerpt from a news report on this alleged misconduct by the LA County probation officers:



Source: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...adiator-fights-at-detention-facility/3715012/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

I find it incredibly dishonest to accuse the acquitting judges, defense lawyers, defense experts, and defense witnesses of being bent, on the take, or otherwise dishonest but defend the police in the Kercher investigation, several of whom (Napoleoni, Zugarini, et al), were convicted of crimes themselves. That includes Mignini who was initially convicted of abuse of office and was made to release Mario Spezi by court order for being illegally arrested and detained for 3 weeks. Then there's his co-prosecutor Comodi who was convicted of illegally hacking into the Public Prosecutor's records and was demoted and transferred to Milan as a civil judge.

 

[Numbers]

Yes. Although I believe the lawyer was referring to a presumed "honor" under the Italian criminal and civil laws against defamation and libel.

Here's a Google translation of the Italian criminal law on defamation and libel (defamation through publication) - not to be confused with the crime of calunnia (false accusation against someone to the police, prosecutor, or judge):

Art. 595.
Defamation.

Anyone who, outside the cases indicated in the previous article, while communicating with several people, offends the reputation of others, is punished with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 1,032 euros.
If the offense consists in the attribution of a specific fact, the penalty is imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to 2,065 euros.
If the offense is made through the press or any other means of publicity, or in a public document, the penalty is imprisonment of six months to three years or a fine of not less than 516 euros.
If the offense is made to a political, administrative or judicial body, or to one of its representatives or to an authority constituted as a college, the penalties are increased.

 

[Numbers]

I find it incredibly dishonest to accuse the acquitting judges, defense lawyers, defense experts, and defense witnesses of being bent, on the take, or otherwise dishonest but defend the police in the Kercher investigation, several of whom (Napoleoni, Zugarini, et al), were convicted of crimes themselves. That includes Mignini who was initially convicted of abuse of office and was made to release Mario Spezi by court order for being illegally arrested and detained for 3 weeks. Then there's his co-prosecutor Comodi who was convicted of illegally hacking into the Public Prosecutor's records and was demoted and transferred to Milan as a civil judge.

Stacyhs, thanks again for the important information you post. I had not been aware that Comodi had been convicted of a crime in a fast-track trial before a court in Florence. The CSM (High Council of the Magistrates) then, in part as a precaution but also as a demotion, transferred her to the Milan court district and limited her to civil cases. IIRC, during the Massei trial, she raised some suspicions among some observers when it was learned that she had arranged for the contract for the graphics - the cartoon claiming to illustrate the murder - to be fulfilled by a relative of hers.

 

[Stacyhs]

Comodi was acquitted in the case regarding the cartoon so she didn't have to pay for it. The fact that the prosecution had a cartoon created that cost 182,000 euros paid for by the state is yet another example of the prosecution having access to funds that the defense does not have. Knox and Sollecito had to pay for their own expert witnesses, etc.