Mojo
Mostly harmless
Evidence?
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
Do you really need evidence that Vixen knows what a prank is. Do you suspect she's gone through her entire life never having played a prank, or had a prank played on her?
Well, there are those who don't know a joke when they hear it. They need an explanation to understand it's a joke. Then they may ask for an explanation of what a joke is.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Vixen's pulling one on all of us right now by pretending that all his opinions are indeed facts, but all I have to add to that is: bwahahahahahaha
Last edited:
Another theme of some of Vixen's posts is that the PIP posts criticize the Italian judicial system, and somehow that criticism is an unwarranted diversion from the basics facts of the Knox - Sollecito case. However, I would suggest that the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system is a factor at the heart of the Knox - Sollecito case.
Here's an excerpt from an academic paper reviewing some of the issues associated with the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system (inline superscript citations omitted, words in braces are my additions):
Source:
The Never-Ending Crisis of Italian Justice: Role and Responsibility of its Governance System
Francesco Contini
National Research Council of Italy (IGSG-CNR), Italy
LAW, TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANS
Volume 5 (1) 2023
doi.org
The article does not appear to address how the judges treat criminal cases with different approaches to the laws of the Code of Criminal Procedure - some judges ignore those laws, even one as fundamental as CPP Article 533 (conviction may only be pronounced if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
Here's an excerpt from an academic paper reviewing some of the issues associated with the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system (inline superscript citations omitted, words in braces are my additions):
Source:
The Never-Ending Crisis of Italian Justice: Role and Responsibility of its Governance System
Francesco Contini
National Research Council of Italy (IGSG-CNR), Italy
LAW, TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANS
Volume 5 (1) 2023
Law, Technology and Humans
Law, Technology and Humans provides an inclusive and unique forum for exploration of the broader connections, history and emergent future of law and technology through supporting research that takes seriously the human, and humanity of law and technology. ISSN: 2652-4074 (Online)
doi.org
The article does not appear to address how the judges treat criminal cases with different approaches to the laws of the Code of Criminal Procedure - some judges ignore those laws, even one as fundamental as CPP Article 533 (conviction may only be pronounced if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
Last edited:
How do Italians feel about the justice system. Do many Italians see the justice system as corrupt and dysfunctional.Another theme of some of Vixen's posts is that the PIP posts criticize the Italian judicial system, and somehow that criticism is an unwarranted diversion from the basics facts of the Knox - Sollecito case. However, I would suggest that the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system is a factor at the heart of the Knox - Sollecito case.
Here's an excerpt from an academic paper reviewing some of the issues associated with the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system (inline superscript citations omitted, words in braces are my additions):
Source:
The Never-Ending Crisis of Italian Justice: Role and Responsibility of its Governance System
Francesco Contini
National Research Council of Italy (IGSG-CNR), Italy
LAW, TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANS
Volume 5 (1) 2023
Law, Technology and Humans
Law, Technology and Humans provides an inclusive and unique forum for exploration of the broader connections, history and emergent future of law and technology through supporting research that takes seriously the human, and humanity of law and technology. ISSN: 2652-4074 (Online)
The article does not appear to address how the judges treat criminal cases with different approaches to the laws of the Code of Criminal Procedure - some judges ignore those laws, even one as fundamental as CPP Article 533 (conviction may only be pronounced if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
Welshman, that's a good question. The source I excerpted claimed that Italians had low trust in their courts, but did not go into specific quantitive details on that. The source's main focus was on the duo governance of the Italian courts, split between the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM). That may affect the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the courts, but not their sometimes unlawful and contradictory decision-making.
I suspect the unlawful and contradictory decision-making relates to a fundamental cultural issue, as pointed out by other Italian sources, on the resistance to change from an inquisitional judicial system to an adversarial system, as well as a long-lingering authoritarian (statist) culture among some judges.
I would welcome your assistance, or that of others, in finding any quantitative assessments of the views of Italians on their judicial system.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
The "April Fool's Day prank=B&E" is just another example of the need to present Knox in the worst light possible. That need includes using negative and hyperbolic language and even false claims such as "cunningly", "forced to apologize", and describing a hickey as a "large angry gash".
They've claimed for years that the Marasca-Bruno annulment of Nencini was going to be thrown out and that M-B were paid off, corrupt and/or forced to annul Nencini by outside forces...usually pressure from the US.
Here's an excerpt from an article with one (self-acknowledged conservative) view of a claimed lack of accountability in the Italian judiciary and a currently proposed reform intended to remedy that lack:
Source: https://europeanconservative.com/ar...-explained-a-return-to-the-balance-of-powers/
Note that there are contrary views to the proposed reform; some characterize the proposed reform as a power grab by the political branch.
See: https://revdem.ceu.edu/2025/04/30/judicial-reforms-italy/
What I find unusual and troubling in the Italian system of selecting judges and prosecutors, which may or may not be common in Europe and elsewhere, is that career candidates for those positions are selected (as I understand) merely by an examination of their academic knowledge. There is no vetting as to the psychological status, character, or commitment to legal principles, including, for example, fairness and commitment to following the laws of the CPP and Italian Constitution, of the candidates, contrary to what would be typical in the US, at least at the federal level. Of course, the vetting in the US is done at a political level (a committee of the Senate followed by a vote of the Senate if there is a postive vote from the committee). Another troubling aspect is that in Italy, an individual cannot petition the Italian Constitutional Court to claim that their rights have been violated by the CSC, while the CSC itself seems to be often more aligned with supporting the prosecution's case rather than being neutral (as required by the Italian Constitution, Article 111) and upholding the constitutional rights of the accused.
Last edited:
One of the numerous myths that Vixen tells us the notion Amanda was railroaded by backward and corrupt Italians is a myth when the treatment Amanda received at the hands of this system clearly indicates this is not a myth. The excellent website "Knox Augaries of innocence" highlights numerous abuses committed against Amanda and if as Vixen claims the notion Amanda was the victim of a corrupt justice system was a myth, how was this website able to list so many abuses eg denies access to lawyers, interrogation not being taped, being denied bail and waiting a year before trial, charged with Calunnia for speaking out about abuses in the interrogation, defence requests being denied such as sending Amanda's computer to the manufacturer to see if photos could be retrieved and ignoring effective arguments made by the defence.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
There is no such thing as bail (release secured by money) in Italy. The judge can grant release of a defendant with conditions like restricting travel, having to check in with authorities, or on their own recognizance depending on the seriousness of the crime. Knox was denied house arrest by Judge Ricciarelli on Nov. 25, 2007.
The minimum Italian legal requirement at the time of the interrogation was that it should have been documented in detail in writing by the police and by the prosecutor. Of course, the police interrogation room was set up for audio recording, but the police and prosecutor chose not to record the interrogations by either keeping detailed written documentation or an audio recording. Intentionally failing to record or document interrogations is a common practice when police or a prosecutor intend to use coercive methods of interrogation.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
IOW, a transcript of the questions asked and what she answered. It's interesting that Mignini admitted he always recorded any interviews in his office. So why not give orders to record the two people he suspected? It's obvious the police already suspected Knox and, at the very least, suspected Sollecito was somehow involved, so why not record, if only audibly, what could be inculpatory or even a confession?
Of course, he's given multiple 'reasons', none of which hold up under any logical thinking. There's only one plausible explanation: they didn't WANT any recording or transcript so they played the "they were only witnesses" card. Were any of the witnesses Mignini recorded in his office "official suspects" or merely "witnesses informed of the facts"?
Witness statements were also to be documented in writing, according to Italian law at the relevant time, CPP Article 351.
I did find one or two interesting articles - academic papers - in my search for the attitudes of Italians toward their judicial system, but they were more relevant to civil trials rather than criminal trials. One paper found that among civil trial litigants, those who have lost a case have a less favorable view of the judicial system than those who have won a case, and the longer the trial took (with the longest time being 10 years), the views of both the winners and the losers became less favorable.
Another paper found that the least favorable or trustworthy institutions or groups in Italian society were politicians, with the Italian Parliament viewed slightly higher, while the police were viewed with the highest favor or trust, but in some years tied in favor and trust with the President of the Italian Republic, who otherwise was the second-highest. The judicial system and judges were viewed at about the midpoint of favor and trust between the police and the politicians.
Another paper found that the least favorable or trustworthy institutions or groups in Italian society were politicians, with the Italian Parliament viewed slightly higher, while the police were viewed with the highest favor or trust, but in some years tied in favor and trust with the President of the Italian Republic, who otherwise was the second-highest. The judicial system and judges were viewed at about the midpoint of favor and trust between the police and the politicians.
I messed up the above post. There was actually one paper with several parts, one about the civil litigants' views toward the Italian (civil court) judicial system and another reporting on a more general survey of the trust levels of Italians in various state-related institutions. (I apologize for the error in the post; I wrongly thought I had seen the two results in different publications.)
Source:
LITIGANTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD CIVIL JUSTICE IN ITALY
Claudio Caterino, Isabella Latini, Maria Giuseppina Muratore, Sante Orsini
Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica Volume LXXVIII n.3 Luglio-Settembre 2024
A more fruitful search: the Italian transition from an inquisitorial judicial system to an adversarial judicial system. Many of the quirks and injustices seen in the Knox - Sollecito case trials are the result of Italy's incomplete transition in legal systems, including the survival in judicial practice, at least for some judges, of the inquisitional culture. The 1988 transition required a rewriting of the 1930 Fascist era Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale, CPP). However, there was some resistance to the transition by the Italian judiciary. Changes to the CPP to make it more fair through the adoption of more adversarial procedures have continued over the years, with some changes encouraged by the finding of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by the ECHR in several ECHR cases against Italy coupled with the desire of some Italian parliamentarians to increase the fairness and respect for human rights of Italian judicial procedures.
According to an essay* by Mitja Gialuz, Professor of Procedure at the University of Trieste, Italy, one change made by the 1988 CPP was the elimination "of the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt". The current wording of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, was the replacement. However, the change left judges unclear as to "the required standard to convict a person and therefore Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform".
Despite or because of this defect, the CSC in the 1990s began to refer to the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard (BARD)" for some situations, first" to differentiate the standard required for conviction from that established to adopt a precautionary measure {such as detention}.... until, in a historic decision taken by the Joint Chambers {of the CSC} in 2002, the BARD standard was declared to be fundamental as {the} standard of proof for conviction. Hundreds of decisions followed which used the formula in the way indicated by the Joint Chambers."
In 2006, the Italian Parliament passed a law making BARD the legal standard for convictions in criminal trials, and the wording of CPP Article 533, paragraph 1, was changed to indicate that the BARD standard was the standard for conviction.
The significance of the above history of Italian law is that the Massei court, which did not properly apply CPP Article 533, paragraph 1, and instead convicted Knox and Sollecito on his court's arbitrary assumptions of scenarios of guilt, carried out this unlawful conviction in 2009, only about 3 years after the BARD standard was imposed by law for all convictions. Perhaps Massei had not been properly educated on the comparatively newly adopted standard. The Hellmann Court of Appeal thus properly quashed the Massei court conviction for the murder/rape charges. The Marasca CSC panel 2015 final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito went over the meaning of the BARD standard for conviction and its Italian legitimacy in their MR. However, the Italian judges have not yet universally incorporated this new (19-year-old) law into their practices, as evidenced by the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba on what is at best, for the prosecution's case, ambiguous evidence.
* Source:
Mitja Gialuz, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A Reading Guide, pp. 17 - 51; see p. 37 - 38, in
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical Essays and English Translation; ed. Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014
According to an essay* by Mitja Gialuz, Professor of Procedure at the University of Trieste, Italy, one change made by the 1988 CPP was the elimination "of the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt". The current wording of CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, was the replacement. However, the change left judges unclear as to "the required standard to convict a person and therefore Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform".
Despite or because of this defect, the CSC in the 1990s began to refer to the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard (BARD)" for some situations, first" to differentiate the standard required for conviction from that established to adopt a precautionary measure {such as detention}.... until, in a historic decision taken by the Joint Chambers {of the CSC} in 2002, the BARD standard was declared to be fundamental as {the} standard of proof for conviction. Hundreds of decisions followed which used the formula in the way indicated by the Joint Chambers."
In 2006, the Italian Parliament passed a law making BARD the legal standard for convictions in criminal trials, and the wording of CPP Article 533, paragraph 1, was changed to indicate that the BARD standard was the standard for conviction.
The significance of the above history of Italian law is that the Massei court, which did not properly apply CPP Article 533, paragraph 1, and instead convicted Knox and Sollecito on his court's arbitrary assumptions of scenarios of guilt, carried out this unlawful conviction in 2009, only about 3 years after the BARD standard was imposed by law for all convictions. Perhaps Massei had not been properly educated on the comparatively newly adopted standard. The Hellmann Court of Appeal thus properly quashed the Massei court conviction for the murder/rape charges. The Marasca CSC panel 2015 final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito went over the meaning of the BARD standard for conviction and its Italian legitimacy in their MR. However, the Italian judges have not yet universally incorporated this new (19-year-old) law into their practices, as evidenced by the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba on what is at best, for the prosecution's case, ambiguous evidence.
* Source:
Mitja Gialuz, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A Reading Guide, pp. 17 - 51; see p. 37 - 38, in
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical Essays and English Translation; ed. Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I get that but it doesn't explain the prolonged torture and personalised victimisation. BKT is not a good analogy as his game plan was to outwit the police, leaving them silly cryptic 'clues'. Plus, he was a serial killer, not an impromptu rapist/killer.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
But unlike Knox, Guede was neither charged nor convicted of the theft of the phones, cash and cards. Your claim the police singled out Knox is your pathetic fantasy that police have nothing better to do than pick on some random person. She was charged because of strong probable cause., not because some cop didn't like the look of her.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Knox only referred to the 'prank' because someone had rung up Perugia Police to draw their attention to her past behaviour. Of course, she is going to make light of it. Freaking someone out was just a leetle April Fools joke, ha ha ha, not a reflection on a dark sadistic personality.