Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Mary_H]

There is reason to doubt this positive interpretation, Mary. I mean, did the ISC really simply send this back wanting (as someone else put it) 100 more pages in a Hellmann-like motivations report - fully expecting that they'll end us signing off on acquittals?

They could have signed off on Hellmann on March 26, sustaining the acquittals, and then used the motivations report to clean up the outstanding legal issues. I mean, are they really in the job-creation business in Italy - so that both Raffaele and Amanda have to spend another $1M, and the Kerchers have to wait another year before Italy tells them what happened to their kin?

I don't see it. The ISC did not quash the acquittals by criticizing both the prosecution and the defence - they quashed the acquittals mainly saying that Hellmann came to the wrong "facts" of the case. Also in the case of motive, they say that Massei essentially ruled the wrong way, too.

You see, I could buy this positive interpretation you put on it, if the ISC had simply left it at.....

Because THAT by itself could have meant they felt that Hellmann erred in procedure by not evaluating enough "facts" to properly come to ruling it an acquittal.....

....... instead they said that Hellmann made the wrong finding of fact in relation to Curatolo, Nara, and the motive. It is as simple as this. Hellmann heard Curatolo and disbelieved him. Hellmann heard Nara and disbelieved her. That's what fact-finding judges do - they hear the evidence and make a decision on its factuality.

It's not what the ISC does; if you believe what Italians say the ISC does. The ISC wants a reexamination of at least those three findings of fact and there is plenty of room to say that the ISC is directing the Florence court to come to a specific decision about it - or else the table tennis match continues....

... and the Kerchers get further uncertainty, and Knox and Sollecito spend more money - perhaps until they cave in and cop a plea for lack of funds.

Truly I wish the way you interpret it is true, Mary. It may have been true if the ISC had simply ruled on some sort of "osmotic" principle without the other comments about facts.

However, we will see. If the first thing the prosecutor does on Sept 30 is request that all charges against Knox and Sollecito be dropped for lack of evidence, I'll eat my hat and apologize to you profusely.

If in December or January a suddenly speedy Florence court once again acquits the pair, I'll eat YOUR hat.

I will not eat anyone's hat if the Florence court convicts them. That's what I think will happen, because Italy (for some weird reason) needs to win this one. For me, that's what the ISC is telegraphing.

But be still your gentle heart. I have not successfully predicted ANYTHING in relation to this.

I'm perfect!

LOL, you sure are, Bill.

The ISC could have signed off on March 26, but they are having trouble letting go. They ARE in the business of creating jobs and hence have no compunction about drawing this out and wasting time, Italian-style. If they have any brains at all, they know acquittals are inevitable (it is possible they have no brains at all).

I don't think you're going to have to eat your hat, but you might have to eat mine. I've got one that's perfect -- pink felt with rhinestones -- made, where else, in Italy.

But then, my prediction rate has been nothing to write home about, either.

 

[Mary_H]

2008-11-30 DailyMail [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...t-diary-reveals-Foxy-Knoxy-thinking-sex.html]

In her book published last week, Ms Sarzanini refers to previously unpublished extracts from Knox's diary, that she kept from August 2007 until a few weeks after the murder.​

It's interesting that the first line of the article is the only one that is claimed to have come from a diary Amanda allegedly kept: "On top of her list of things to do before leaving for Italy, Amanda Knox wrote in her diary that she needed to visit a sex shop to buy condoms."

One also wonders about the need to visit a sex shop to buy condoms, when they are right there by the checkout line at Safeway.

I don't know about the to-do list, but everything else quoted in that article is from Amanda's e-mails, not a diary. We know Sarzanini got the prison diary from the cops who raided Amanda's cell. Where did she get a diary Amanda kept before prison?

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #37

Oh, that diary. Yeah, what Diocletus said. Sheesh.

"diary, that she kept from August 2007 until a few weeks after the murder."

 

[acbytesla]

"diary, that she kept from August 2007 until a few weeks after the murder."

Oh, that diary. The one that was stolen from her and got published. The one that Amanda actually was awarded monetary damages. So are you saying that some of the guilters out there are suggesting that missing pages in a book that was stolen from Amanda a long time ago is a smoking gun?

Is this the diary? Or are you referring to another diary? And if there is another diary, where has it been all this time?

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, that diary. The one that was stolen from her and got published. The one that Amanda actually was awarded monetary damages. So are you saying that some of the guilters out there are suggesting that missing pages in a book that was stolen from Amanda a long time ago is a smoking gun?

Is this the diary? Or are you referring to another diary? And if there is another diary, where has it been all this time?

Maybe the thief ripped out the pages.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh, that diary. The one that was stolen from her and got published. The one that Amanda actually was awarded monetary damages. So are you suggesting that some of the guilters out there are suggesting that missing pages in a book that was stolen from Amanda a long time ago is a smoking gun?

That Diary which Anamda had started in August. Where was that diary the night she was put in prison? It was most likely in her handbag that she would have had with her at the police station. So the police would have had to handle it before giving it back to Amanda so she could continue writing for them from her prison cell.

You know those Italian police, the like to record everything. They would have copied that diary before passing it to Amanda. If there were anything incriminating in those pages that were torn out we would have heard about it durring the trial.

Would the Italian police still have copies of those lost pages? Would Amanda be able to get them back? Probably not. What we also know about the Italian police is that they are quick to destroy evidence that doesn't help them.

 

[acbytesla]

That Diary which Anamda had started in August. Where was that diary the night she was put in prison? It was most likely in her handbag that she would have had with her at the police station. So the police would have had to handle it before giving it back to Amanda so she could continue writing for them from her prison cell.

You know those Italian police, the like to record everything. They would have copied that diary before passing it to Amanda. If there were anything incriminating in those pages that were torn out we would have heard about it durring the trial.

Would the Italian police still have copies of those lost pages? Would Amanda be able to get them back? Probably not. What we also know about the Italian police is that they are quick to destroy evidence that doesn't help them.

You hit on all cylinders there. This is one of the sillier memes I have heard in a long while. Cuki seems to be making a suggestion that missing pages in a diary that none of has seen, has not been presented in any trial that was under police control is somehow proof of something nefarious?

Is that right Cuki??

 

[RoseMontague]

"I am starting to see this October pages ripped out of her diary claim in the last few weeks. Is this information coming from Follain's book and is there any other confirmation anywhere that this is true?"

I looked into this a year or so back. The claim comes from Follain regarding the three diaries seized at the cottage. It is interesting that Follain makes this statement about the early October onwards pages being ripped out yet quotes entries from a diary that would have to been written in mid to late October. He also states that she used her diaries as a notebook so how would he know that these missing pages were diary entries and not homework or study notes? It is just another myth, imo.

 

[Diocletus]

Check it out. Some amazing dna scientists have isolated sasquatch's genome: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013...r-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/ Apparently, Sasquatch has modern European genes. Who knew.

Also, this lab has confirmed that a meteor strike is more likely than contamination.

 

[acbytesla]

I looked into this a year or so back. The claim comes from Follain regarding the three diaries seized at the cottage. It is interesting that Follain makes this statement about the early October onwards pages being ripped out yet quotes entries from a diary that would have to been written in mid to late October. He also states that she used her diaries as a notebook so how would he know that these missing pages were diary entries and not homework or study notes? It is just another myth, imo.

Good work Rose. There really hasn't been any real evidence introduced since the Scientific police botched counting the rings on Raffaele's sneakers.

 

[Dan O.]

I looked into this a year or so back. The claim comes from Follain regarding the three diaries seized at the cottage. It is interesting that Follain makes this statement about the early October onwards pages being ripped out yet quotes entries from a diary that would have to been written in mid to late October. He also states that she used her diaries as a notebook so how would he know that these missing pages were diary entries and not homework or study notes? It is just another myth, imo.

2007-11-10 Repubblica [http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/se...uccisa2/visita-genitori/visita-genitori.html] (it)

In prison, Amanda is writing a diary of his last days before his arrest. "It seems that I need to pass on paper that has the heart," said the chaplain of the women's prison in Perugia, Don Saul Scarabattoli.
Under review by the squad also the diary of Amanda, a camera and the laptop the girl.​

Somewhere I had read that the spiderman notebook was spiral bound. If you remove pages from a spiral bound notebook, it may sometimes leave debris behind in the spine. But it is easy to pull out this debris and then there is no trace that any page is missing.

 

[Bill Williams]

Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez's book "Math on Trial" has finally been peer reviewed. The review highlights serious errors made in the study, claiming that mathematics (statistics) can be of help in solving crime.

see: http://www.ams.org/notices/201307/rnoti-p910.pdf for Paul H. Edelman's review.

Paul H. Edelman is professor of mathematics and law at Vanderbilt University.

On comment about the flaw in Schneps methodology regarding DNA testing on statistics: "(The problem with Schneps handling of the) Kercher case (more commonly referred to as the Amanda Knox case in the U.S.) seems to me to be better described as a dispute over testing protocol rather than over mathematics."

Schneps is a frequent contributor to one of the PMF guilt sites.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You are ready to waste a considerable amount of time making shallow comments to the effect that courts made this or that decision, yet you call it a "waste of time" to seek to discuss what led to these decisions. I can't agree.


It's your contribution to the discussion that is vacuous, not the deeply sinister decision of the ISC. It doesn't mean that the Hellman-Zanetti report was of a "poor legal standard", because the Supreme Court did not give legal reasons for deciding in favour of the prosecution. You have even admitted that you cannot give the supposed legal reasons.


Lots of words saying nothing at all.

Okay, so please do explain how you believe the Supreme Court is effectively creating a legal precedent in this case?

 

[acbytesla]

Okay, so please do explain how you believe the Supreme Court is effectively creating a legal precedent in this case?

When they rule on the facts of the case, they are in effect setting a legal precedent. They are carving out a role for the court that it didn't have before.

 

[Bill Williams]

Okay, so please do explain how you believe the Supreme Court is effectively creating a legal precedent in this case?

It may not be quite accurate to regard this as a "precedent". Clearly the ISC acted outside of its mandate.

It is the role of the ISC to sort out if lower courts acted in accordance with accepted precedent to ensure uniformity and "not upset the applecart" if some decision is found to be sound.

When the ISC acts outside of its mandate the issue is one of consequence. Because the ISC is supposed to rule on matters of law or procedure, not fact, it is fair game for the ISC to uphold or reverse a lower court based on finding that:

1) the lower court acted outside of established precedent without valid reason
2) the lower court mis-applied precedent.​

Or other such things. The ISC acts as the referee, in a sense.

The problem is one of accountability... the ISC here is not acting "outside of precedent", so much as it is acting outside of its mandate, with no accountability. Lower courts have accountability in the sense that if they don't follow the law or established procedure, the referee (the ISC) yellow card's them. It's like the referee yellow carding them not for an infraction of the rules, but for passing to a certain player, or not taking a shot on goal - being carded for strategy rather than the rules.

What's weird about this is that the referee is actually telling the lower courts what facts - strategies on the soccer pitch - to use. When the referee interferes like that outside of it's mandate, with no board of referees to supervise its work... well, the referee can pretty much do what it wants.

Does this establish a precedent? Once again CoulsdonUK, you're asking a question where you have the ability to provide your own answer, simply by quoting the part of the ISC's motivations report that establishes such. You may be asking out of a genuine wish to know - and don't mean it as argumentative at all - but it is clear that the ISC acted outside of its arena with no accountability. Clearly future ISC sittings will not be bound by this - the ISC pretty much is a law unto itself.

Which brings is to the ECHR. Perhaps the "precedent" is that Italy has the highest rate of appeals to the ECHR, even if in real numbers the actual rate of overturning of Italy's decisions is low. But that "real number", although statistically low, is still the highest number of overturned cases in the EC.

In fairness, CoulsdonUK, IMO you're asking the wrong question when you raise "precedent".

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK - it's like asking if a jury is "setting a precedent" binding other juries to find as they find with similar facts. Juries are (mostly) laws unto themselves. In Canada it is illegal for a jury to divulge their reasons for coming to a decision. The ISC in Italy has signalled with the RS/AK reversal of the acquittals that it will simply do what it wants.

 

[Antony]

Okay, so please do explain how you believe the Supreme Court is effectively creating a legal precedent in this case?

I'm not saying that they "created a precedent"; what I'm saying is they acted illegally by challenging H-Z's interpretation of the evidence - even going so far as to make up their own facts.

Let's turn this around: when I asked you to explain your attack on Hellman and Zanetti for supposedly "poor legal standards", you replied that you weren't going to waste your time answering.

Earlier you also said you didn't understand why people should be frustrated with you. It's because the rest of us in this discussion are focussing on the merits of the case, including the different legal decisions, while all you seem prepared to say is variations on "Massei found them guilty", "the Supreme Court found Hellman's verdict faulty", "the prosecution won all of its points in the SC hearing", etc.

Even when I make a direct question asking you to state the merits of the Supreme Court decision (in ascribing "poor legal standards" to H-Z), you decline to give an answer.

 

[acbytesla]

This all gets down to what the term "precedent" means. If the court is allowed to rule on the details of a case as opposed to the law of the case, that is a precedent. What right does the court have to do that? This actually is a dangerous ruling for Italy. Well beyond this case. The ISC with this ruling has carved out new powers for itself. This is where the other branches of government should step in and curtail that expansion of the role of the judiciary.

In the US, the Supreme court has the authority to "interpret" the laws and that is all. But what is interesting is that is not in the US Constitution anywhere. This a role that the court carved out for itself and continues to hold by the acquiescence of Congress and the Executive branch. Judicial review was established in the US with Marbury v. Madison in 1803 when the US Supreme court ruled that then Secretary of State James Madison was required to deliver the appointment documents of former President John Adams appointment of William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.

In the same way the Italian court is expanding its role with this decision as that early US court expanded its role during the Jefferson administration. If the government doesn't jump in and tell them no, now, they will be saddled with a court that thinks it has unlimited power.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

When they rule on the facts of the case, they are in effect setting a legal precedent. They are carving out a role for the court that it didn't have before.

It may not be quite accurate to regard this as a "precedent". Clearly the ISC acted outside of its mandate.

It is the role of the ISC to sort out if lower courts acted in accordance with accepted precedent to ensure uniformity and "not upset the applecart" if some decision is found to be sound.

When the ISC acts outside of its mandate the issue is one of consequence. Because the ISC is supposed to rule on matters of law or procedure, not fact, it is fair game for the ISC to uphold or reverse a lower court based on finding that:

1) the lower court acted outside of established precedent without valid reason
2) the lower court mis-applied precedent.​

Or other such things. The ISC acts as the referee, in a sense.

The problem is one of accountability... the ISC here is not acting "outside of precedent", so much as it is acting outside of its mandate, with no accountability. Lower courts have accountability in the sense that if they don't follow the law or established procedure, the referee (the ISC) yellow card's them. It's like the referee yellow carding them not for an infraction of the rules, but for passing to a certain player, or not taking a shot on goal - being carded for strategy rather than the rules.

What's weird about this is that the referee is actually telling the lower courts what facts - strategies on the soccer pitch - to use. When the referee interferes like that outside of it's mandate, with no board of referees to supervise its work... well, the referee can pretty much do what it wants.

Does this establish a precedent? Once again CoulsdonUK, you're asking a question where you have the ability to provide your own answer, simply by quoting the part of the ISC's motivations report that establishes such. You may be asking out of a genuine wish to know - and don't mean it as argumentative at all - but it is clear that the ISC acted outside of its arena with no accountability. Clearly future ISC sittings will not be bound by this - the ISC pretty much is a law unto itself.

Which brings is to the ECHR. Perhaps the "precedent" is that Italy has the highest rate of appeals to the ECHR, even if in real numbers the actual rate of overturning of Italy's decisions is low. But that "real number", although statistically low, is still the highest number of overturned cases in the EC.
In fairness, CoulsdonUK, IMO you're asking the wrong question when you raise "precedent".

I am not looking for a confrontation on this and I might be using the wrong word. However, if they have acted as some suggest then either this has happened before under Italian law or it hasn’t. If they are acting outside their role then that strikes me as serious, which frankly doesn’t make sense to me because they know ECHR would overturn any European Union Supreme Court if they acted outside their remit; this brings me back to why I believe as accurate as the translation is we (me) are missing some legal nuance in the Supreme Court motivation.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not looking for a confrontation on this and I might be using the wrong word. However, if they have acted as some suggest then either this has happened before under Italian law or it hasn’t. If they are acting outside their role then that strikes me as serious, which frankly doesn’t make sense to me because they know ECHR would overturn any European Union Supreme Court if they acted outside their remit; this brings me back to why I believe as accurate as the translation is we (me) are missing some legal nuance in the Supreme Court motivation.

I'd be the first to agree with you Coulsdon, I'm not looking for confrontation either. That said, I don't understand the nuances of this ruling. There really doesn't seem to be any. I also don't know if lower courts often just ignore what appears to be a blatant argument that the lower court must see the "facts" as the upper court did. I also am not familiar with how the ECHR operates being a Yank. My point is and my opinion regarding this ruling has NOTHING to do with this specific case. I strongly believe that the government of Italy, the Parliament or the Executive Branch finds away to limit this kind of expansion of power.. I think it is more important that Italy puts a stop to this kind of ruling than the ECHR. It's important that authority is limited with checks and balances of the other branches of government.