Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I was under the impression that all victims in Italy are given the right to have their attorney present during the trial without the need to file a civil suit. Is this not the case?

You're correct: it's a vestige of the inquisitorial system that used to be the basis of criminal law in Italy. The victim (or the victim's family if the victim is dead) has the right to be part of the inquisitorial process, and to question the accused and any witnesses giving testimony.

It's perhaps worth pointing out here that some people elsewhere seem to be under the erroneous impression that Italy still has an inquisitorial criminal justice system. This is not true. Italy currently has a strange (and unwieldy) hybrid of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems. The adversarial common-law doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" is now enshrined in Italian law - although there appears to be some evidence that certain reactionary sections of the Italian judiciary (I'm looking at you, Massei) are reluctant to embrace or follow this relatively new doctrine. And the burden of proof is now entirely placed upon the accusers (usually the state prosecuting magistrates) - although again this idea has been slow to take root among the more reactionary judges (waves again in Massei's direction).

The main inquisitorial elements that remain are the right of the court to question the defendants and witnesses, the absence of separation between judge and jury, and the power of the court to conduct investigation separate to that conducted by police or prosecutors. Incidentally, it is this last element that was the genesis of the admittance of the inmate witnesses in July: the inmates were not defence witnesses (contrary to the ignorant arguments from many pro-guilt commentators): they were called by the court as court witnesses, after the lead judge agreed to a defence request that the court should used its powers of investigation to determine the veracity/reliability of the inmates' stories. The defence did not at any time present the inmates as defence witnesses; what actually happened was that the defence asked the court to carry out its proper function of investigation into the inmates' stories. If either of the stories had been examined in the court and had been determined to be accurate and reliable, only then would the defence have used the inmates as defence witnesses.

 

[Grinder]

IIRC the adversarial system was installed in Italy in the mid eighties replacing the pro-government-prosecution system from the thirties installed by Mussolini.

It would seem that some cultural vestiges cause the system to differently than it was intended to. I would appear that the calumnia threats keep the defense from making as strong of arguments - this may not be all that bad as lawyers here seem not suitably contained.

 

[pilot padron]

BTW:my Finnish deciphering has much difficulty with this

Sent as PM

 

[Danceme]

That's an interesting speculation, although it would be interesting to find out what was the source of that blood on the booties, forty-some days after the first forensic evidence collection? Or do you suppose they recycled those booties (save the planet!) without properly cleansing them?

You've completely misunderstood. I don't think it's blood on the booties. I think the fabric of the sterile booties may contain some chemical which, when the overspray of luminol landed on them in droplet form, what we are seeing is the droplets of luminol spray reacting to said chemical. In other words, this tech was standing there as the luminol was sprayed and some droplets landed on his booties which reacted to the chemical composition of the fabric or the sterilization chemical the booties were treated with.

.....why is it considered evidence of murder by you?

how can you assume they came from the night of the murder

...whatever makes you think that an evidence collection 'mission' forty-some days after the last.....

Where does the assumption come from that they have to be the result of Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder....

Why would you discount that probability...

The absurd number of assumptions you made about me above really makes me loathe to respond in any form to your post except to point out your blatantly obvious antagonism.

That does bring to mind a question, one of life's imponderables I've found, just exactly how does a guy tactfully (and safely!) influence female clothing choices when they get big enough you can't outright tell them?

You simply forget you're a 'guy' talking to a 'girl' and you remember that you're a 'lawyer' talking to a 'client' and her family, and that's she's on trial for her life, both in court and the media, and you tell her quite matter of factly that she and her loved ones really should dress more sedately and more formally in keeping with what is expected of such a serious matter in a serious court of law. Simple really, no embarrassment required. Lawyers are very used to this.

Danceme.

I think that Kaosium made some good points. Whatever the substance is, if it can be transferred from one part of the apartment to another, then it could be responsible for luminol-positive areas elsewhere.

No, Kaosium did not make good points, he misunderstood my post. I don't think what caused specks to glow on the booties was a substance tracked from one area to another at all.

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with that sentence, syntactically speaking. Granted, I have no idea what she is trying to convey semantically.

I don't really see much wrong with the sentence either, certainly not to the point of how other posters have reacted. I think she made erroneous use of the word countless but other than that it read fine.
Eta: countless can also mean "incapable of being counted". I hazard a guess this is how she meant it to read.

http://www.answers.com/topic/countless

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Although I agree that the Knox/Mellas families could have dressed a bit differently in court for the first trial (my impression is that they did not really believe that anyone could seriously convict Amanda for murder until it happened), this thing about Deanna's wardrobe on the 4th of July is rediculous. What she is wearing is a typical outfit in the US on 4th of July, and the only thing even giving any message at all is the colors. What if she had worn a similar shirt, but with a discreet American flag patch on it? Shocking!!

It's another example of the ridiculous reporting and commentary on this case, a good portion of which comes from a very few sources.

I agree with you completely about Deanna's wardrobe. Ganong didn't make a mistake in wrongly describing the photo, she wanted to continue her smear campaign against Amanda's family. She learned from the media early on, and while most of the media has now seen the truth and corrected much if it's reporting, Ganong and her friends are still stuck in 2008.

If we are going to criticize clothing choices why not point out that Manuela Comodi's pants couldn't possibly be any tighter and I am sure many of you have seen how Monica Napoleoni presents herself. The photo of Napoleoni in blue jeans with her badge stuck in her cleavage is really professional.

http://i.imgur.com/Pn9z2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6tSud.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/p5RLb.jpg


The attacks on Amanda's family have been outrageous all while ignoring the actions of others. I personally don't care what Comodi and Napoleoni wear but, if you are going to be the fashion police, it's ridiculous to criticize Deanna's outfit which was a perfectly normal outfit while ignoring other attire that could easily draw criticism.

 

[JREF2010]

would appear that the calumnia threats keep the defense from making as strong of arguments -.

never thought of that, but the shoe fits, very interesting point made in this discussion.

Not ever being in the courtroom, and only reading what those that are there write, i have the impression the Defense is more subdued and the Prosecution and especially Maresca, seem to have carte blanche' in yelling and raising their voices and making any kind of accusation they want.

The calunnia does give the prosecution side a upper hand, if not only through intimidation.

Which makes perfect sense now, why Stefanoni would threaten to sue the Neutral Experts with something similar to Calunnia, defamation, slander...etc..

 

[snook1]

The Machine made a claim at .org that he was informed that "the verdicts won't be overturned on the appeal, but their sentences will be reduced".

Say what?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The Machine made a claim at .org that he was informed that "the verdicts won't be overturned on the appeal, but their sentences will be reduced".

Say what?

Ask The Machine what his source is.

 

[komponisto]

I was under the impression that all victims in Italy are given the right to have their attorney present during the trial without the need to file a civil suit. Is this not the case?

Not exactly. Anyone can be in court, of course; but to actually participate in the trial you need to be a party to the case. The Italian system allows the victim's relatives to become a "civil party" [parte civile], if they so choose. This is analogous to filing a civil suit in Anglo-Saxon systems.

Now, from a theoretical point of view, I don't know that a civil party is actually obligated to support the prosecution; however, in practice, my understanding is that they nearly always do. In fact, they may even take harsher positions than the prosecution.

For example, as far as I know, Maresca could perfectly well have advocated for the "lone wolf" theory during Guede's trial, had his clients wished it, opposing any attempt to spread blame to Amanda and Raffaele. He could then have appealed any part of the decision which granted Guede mitigation on the grounds of the concurrent participation of others. I don't know that he could have affected the prison sentence (that may be the exclusive province of the prosecution) but he could have gotten increased monetary damages.

 

[Matthew Best]

The Machine made a claim at .org that he was informed that "the verdicts won't be overturned on the appeal, but their sentences will be reduced".

Say what?

I guess he has a terrible lack of respect for the Italian judicial process if he is confident that a decision has been reached before the trial is even over. If I were an Italian judge I'd be rather insulted.

Isn't it the pro-innocence posters who are supposed to deride Italian courts? Looks like we're going to see the tables turned shortly....

 

[komponisto]

The Machine made a claim at .org that he was informed that "the verdicts won't be overturned on the appeal, but their sentences will be reduced".

Say what?

The Machine also said that Conti and Vecchiotti would confirm Stefanoni's findings.

I'm not shifting my probability estimate.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Machine made a claim at .org that he was informed that "the verdicts won't be overturned on the appeal, but their sentences will be reduced".

Say what?

Oh don't worry about "The Machine": (s)he is an over-invested individual who doesn't know what (s)he is talking about. Either (s)he has credulously bought into the ignorant opinions of this mysterious "source" regarding Hellmann's court's verdict, or (s)he is outright lying. Either way, what (s)he is suggesting is arrant nonsense. I suspect that the whole "a source tells me..." spiel is nothing more than a bogus attempt to inject some sort of independent authority into his/her own confirmation-biased "argument".

In addition to which, of course, it's not accurate or true: all rational observers who are attempting to predict the verdict are going (correctly) for acquittal - even if (like Pisa and Clouseau) they have to perform spectacular reverse-ferrets in the process.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I have a question for The Machine,

Why are Conti and Vecchiotti working so hard to help Amanda Knox?

 

[snook1]

The Machine also said that Conti and Vecchiotti would confirm Stefanoni's findings.

I'm not shifting my probability estimate.

Yeah, I remember that one. Still, it's pretty amazing how he can make a claim like that without any further explanation.

 

[snook1]

Oh don't worry about "The Machine": (s)he is an over-invested individual who doesn't know what (s)he is talking about. Either (s)he has credulously bought into the ignorant opinions of this mysterious "source" regarding Hellmann's court's verdict, or (s)he is outright lying. Either way, what (s)he is suggesting is arrant nonsense. I suspect that the whole "a source tells me..." spiel is nothing more than a bogus attempt to inject some sort of independent authority into his/her own confirmation-biased "argument".

In addition to which, of course, it's not accurate or true: all rational observers who are attempting to predict the verdict are going (correctly) for acquittal - even if (like Pisa and Clouseau) they have to perform spectacular reverse-ferrets in the process.

That's true.
It's not the first time he was trying to use the source thing.
His sources are not reliable, at best.
Though, I'm kinda shocked that he's doing this.

 

[komponisto]

Speaking of The Machine, "it" recently had this to say:

Amanda Knox is a sadistic sex killer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to understand why she, Sollecito and Guede murdered Meredith. I believe that she and Sollecito are psychopaths.

Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths, but not Guede? I find this comment rather revelatory of the...psychology of some of the more ardent guilters.

(Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not psychopaths. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know what a psychopath is, or doesn't know anything about Knox and Sollecito. I don't think Guede is either, by the way.)

 

[LondonJohn]

That's true.
It's not the first time he was trying to use the source thing.
His sources are not reliable, at best.
Though, I'm kinda shocked that he's doing this.

Not really surprising given the amount of mendacity on display in that sad little corner of the internet. It's likely an attempt to imbue his/her own inconsequential "opinions" with the air of third-party authority. It's not a very clever ploy though.

In addition, "The Machine" (or his/her bogus mystery "source") doesn't understand the appeal trial process in Italy. This is not about "overturning" or "upholding" the Massei verdict: Hellmann's court will make a deliberation of guilt or non-guilt entirely without reference to the Massei verdict. It's a de novo trial. It might just about be acceptable to use the terms "confirm" or "go against" the Massei verdict, but the use of the word "overturn" indicates that "The Machine" (or his/her mystery "source") does not know what (s)he's talking about.

The machine also stated that he was told by the same "source" in advance that the Conti/Vecchiotti DNA report would be largely favourable to the defence. Now, call me Mr Cynical, but you don't have to be a prescient genius to have come to that conclusion. Anyone with any understanding whatsoever about DNA testing and crime scene forensic analysis could easily have pre-judged that an independent report would severely criticise the police forensic scientists, and that it would also very likely conclude that the knife and bra clasp were inadmissible as evidence against Knox/Sollecito.

I wonder how "The Machine" will react when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted in Hellmann's court. It will, I imagine, be a massive blow to his/her pride, as (s)he has spent a huge amount of time and effort over the past three-and-a-half years on a personal mission to convince the English-speaking world of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. I don't think that over-invested personalities like "The Machine" know when they are beaten or when they are simply wrong, so I think it will be interesting to see what happens...

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Speaking of The Machine, "it" recently had this to say:



Knox and Sollecito are psychopaths, but not Guede? I find this comment rather revelatory of the...psychology of some of the more ardent guilters.

(Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not psychopaths. Anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know what a psychopath is, or doesn't know anything about Knox and Sollecito. I don't think Guede is either, by the way.)

They slip up all the time revealing that they only have anger toward Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[LivingonaPrayer]

Indeed. In fact, I'm inclined to believe he made his mind up long before now. Remember, he's already read both appeal documents, as well as the Massei-Cristiani report.

Although new to this forum, I have followed this case for too many years. I must agree that he has indeed formed opinions prior to the start of the appeal and had determined what he felt needed to be reviewed

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fine's "informed opinion" =/= evidence. Ironic given the demand for those on the other side of the argument to provide forensic evidence of every claim.

I read the discussion about this letter as speculative rather than categorical. The people putting forth ideas tacitly acknowledge that they don't know and are making their best guess.

It's not the same as the laundry list of "evidence" laid out by those arguing for guilt, e.g., Amanda left bloody footprints in the corridor, and this must be accepted as proven fact even though the footprints tested negative for blood and DNA.