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

[Welshman]

The Italian justice system is riddled with flaws as the discussion here has shown. In view of this how can the people on Tjmk claim the italian justice system is a fair and brilliant system.

 

[Diocletus]

Justice delayed is justice denied they say. Aside from delay there is a whole host of problems touching the fairness of the proceedings to date including interrogation without caution or legal assistance (probably by some measure the most important) non-disclosure (a clear second) and use of the memoriale, most recently by the ISC in tying Amanda's recollection of the scream to the ear witnesses, to name but three.

I have to add the inane decision by the supremo courto that the Knox/Sollecito result has to be reconciled with the uncontested judgment in the Guede trial that Guede didn't act alone. No it doesn't.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have to add the inane decision by the supremo courto that the Knox/Sollecito result has to be reconciled with the uncontested judgment in the Guede trial that Guede didn't act alone. No it doesn't.

Erasmus over at IIP calls that collateral estoppel. It's a good one alright.

 

[Grinder]

So Grinder we can allow Italy some slack according to you because all they mostly do is keep people wrongfully jailed for extra years all while bankrupting them with repeated appeals? How about putting a little thought into your posts. Or do think its OK for RS and AK to sit a year w/o charge? To be jailed 4 years for this incredibly stupid and insane case? To be still up to your arse in alligators after almost 6 years? And to be bankrupted and mentally tortured for possibly 6 more years? You can do better than that!

As I said I'm focused on this case. In most non-Mafia cases the defendants are not held in prison while they decide to charge or during the trial from what I've read. A lack of speedy trial is a problem and I've acknowledged that but not as significant to me as the lack of a fair trial which I believe is the case here.

I clearly think that not allowing them house arrest at a minimum was wrong and to some extent hindered their defense.

Justice delayed is justice denied they say. Aside from delay there is a whole host of problems touching the fairness of the proceedings to date including interrogation without caution or legal assistance (probably by some measure the most important) non-disclosure (a clear second) and use of the memoriale, most recently by the ISC in tying Amanda's recollection of the scream to the ear witnesses, to name but three.

The Kerchers feel that the dragging on of this has hurt them. The Italian system is set up for long trials. They seem to think that is just fine.

The asides are what bother me the most.

 

[Diocletus]

Erasmus over at IIP calls that collateral estoppel. It's a good one alright.

I'll one-up that. It's "non-mutual, offensive collateral estoppel." In a criminal case no less.

That the Italian Supreme Court would even think of allowing such a thing is all I need to know to determine that they just aren't that sophisticated.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Italian justice system is riddled with flaws as the discussion here has shown. In view of this how can the people on Tjmk claim the italian justice system is a fair and brilliant system.

"Fair" is a relative term. Ask Nyki Kish if she thinks the Canadian justice system is fair? It seems to allow someone like Justice Nordheimer to impose a simplified theory onto a complex series of chaotic events, and convict her from that oversimplification - and it takes years to untie the knot.

Ask Debra Milke if Arizona has anything other than a third-rate justice system. She can be convicted on a confession she didn't even make! Ask David Camm who was convicted while he had 11 alibi witnesses.

The one good feature of Italy's system is the automatic, fact-finding appeal. Yes, this perhaps anecdotally produces more convictions at the first phase.... but we all need to be cautious at labelling a system unfair because it produced a bad result. That makes all of them "unfair".

 

[anglolawyer]

I'll one-up that. It's "non-mutual, offensive collateral estoppel." In a criminal case no less.

That the Italian Supreme Court would even think of allowing such a thing is all I need to know to determine that they just aren't that sophisticated.

Without a law degree there is no way I could ever understand that.

 

[Grinder]

The one good feature of Italy's system is the automatic, fact-finding appeal. Yes, this perhaps anecdotally produces more convictions at the first phase.... but we all need to be cautious at labelling a system unfair because it produced a bad result. That makes all of them "unfair".

How many of the cases that lacked being speedy were a result of the three level trial system and having cases sent back? (Rhetorical.)

 

[Diocletus]

Without a law degree there is no way I could ever understand that.

What's the Italian Supreme Court's excuse?

 

[Bill Williams]

How many of the cases that lacked being speedy were a result of the three level trial system and having cases sent back? (Rhetorical.)

I don't know. (Factual)

 

[Grinder]

I have this vague memory that at some point the defense was allowed to do something in the Guede trial. I have started to search and found some things of interest. One is that the fast track trial is closed to the public and the other is testimony about Rudi. The PGP keep alleging that he was an okay guy but in court and under oath the testimony made him out to be less than okay.

Prosecutors accuse him of sexually assaulting Miss Kercher with the help of Knox and Sollecito in what may have been a kinky sex game gone horribly awry.
In the document, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”, accused Guede of drinking too much, taking drugs and trying to steal the handbags of young women during nights out on the town.
“Rudy was often drunk. I know he took cocaine. Often he was off his head with the drugs that he was taking. And when he was like that he would be a nuisance to girls, he’d block their path and try to hassle them. When we were in crowded places he stole their bags,” Barrow testified, according to excerpts of his evidence printed in the Italian press.
Guede has previously complained that he has been falsely accused of being a drug dealer, a drug user and a criminal, and that instead he led a “tranquil and serene” life.
Guede’s separate, fast-track trial will start at the end of next week and could finish by October – before the judge has even ruled on whether there is enough evidence to send Knox and Sollecito to trial.
A quick trial limits the number of witnesses and kinds of evidence that can be submitted and if convicted defendants generally receive lighter sentences. Guede’s lawyers have said that their client will not make any admission of guilt, however. A fast-track proceeding is closed to the public, unlike a full trial.

 

[Grinder]

Hmmmmm

Guede's lawyers told reporters today that they have decided to ask for a fast-track trial for their client because they do not want him to be tried together with Knox and Sollecito.

"We feel the need for a separate trial," they told Italian wire agency Ansa. "We think we need to keep our position separate from the other two suspects." The lawyers went on to say that "choosing this fast-track trial does not mean we are looking for a reduction of the sentence because our goal is his full absolution as Rudy Guede is totally extraneous to the crime." The lawyers added that they would also ask that their client be released from jail immediately.

Nicodemo Gentile, one of Guede's defense lawyers, said that in the evidence presented by the prosecutor there is "no link between Guede and the murder weapon, nor is he involved in the attempt to fake a theft at the scene of the crime in order to divert investigators."

He added, "We are aware that the accusations against our client are heavy but we are able to prove that there are other equally believable theories."

Should Knox and Sollecito not opt for the fast-track trial like Guede, the judge must decide whether they should be indicted or released.

 

[Grinder]

Momi discounted because he went to the press but not Curatolo, Nara or Quintavalle.

Abuker Barro, known as Momi, a Somalian acquaintance of Guede, was due in court in Perugia yesterday to repeat claims made to investigators that he had seen Guede rifling through women's handbags in clubs in Perugia and making aggressive advances to women when drunk.

But the judge, Paolo Micheli, blocked him from completing his testimony after lawyers for Guede showed a video of Barro meeting journalists to allegedly negotiate payment of €2,000 (£1,588)for revealing his testimony on Italian television. Micheli will ask magistrates to decide whether Barro should be prosecuted for abusing his role as a witness, which could exclude his testimony.

The incident, described by Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, as 'an assault by the media', follows a series of leaks to the press of evidence and even jail diaries by suspects during the investigation into the brutal slaying of Kercher, 21, who was found semi-naked with her throat stabbed in her bedroom in Perugia on 2 November.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hmmmmm

Guede's lawyers told reporters today that they have decided to ask for a fast-track trial for their client because they do not want him to be tried together with Knox and Sollecito.

"We feel the need for a separate trial," they told Italian wire agency Ansa. "We think we need to keep our position separate from the other two suspects."

The lawyers went on to say that "choosing this fast-track trial does not mean we are looking for a reduction of the sentence because our goal is his full absolution as Rudy Guede is totally extraneous to the crime." The lawyers added that they would also ask that their client be released from jail immediately.

Nicodemo Gentile, one of Guede's defense lawyers, said that in the evidence presented by the prosecutor there is "no link between Guede and the murder weapon, nor is he involved in the attempt to fake a theft at the scene of the crime in order to divert investigators."

He added, "We are aware that the accusations against our client are heavy but we are able to prove that there are other equally believable theories."

Should Knox and Sollecito not opt for the fast-track trial like Guede, the judge must decide whether they should be indicted or released.

This is where I wish I either spoke Italian or was an Italian lawyer. I keep running up against this notion that prosecutorial "theories" have weight as if they were, in and of themselves, "evidence."

I am wondering if the notion is the same in Italian law, as it is in California law. That if a jury is presented with two equally believable "theories", then they are law-bound to choose the one which acquits? To me it would justify the remark made by Rudy's lawyer that all they had to do was present a theory (and to hell with evidence) which was at least as believable as the prosecution's.

Aside alert - this is not meant as a sidetracking from welcoming back Grinder: why on earth would Grinder put any stock in newspaper reports when he doesn't put any stock in true crime writers and "fake quotations"? Why, then, trust that these news reports are not based on "fake quotations"?

 

[Grinder]

Aside alert - this is not meant as a sidetracking from welcoming back Grinder: why on earth would Grinder put any stock in newspaper reports when he doesn't put any stock in true crime writers and "fake quotations"? Why, then, trust that these news reports are not based on "fake quotations"?

There are several reasons. The main reason is that unlike a book that comes out years after the fact, it is far easier for someone to correct the record when quotes are reported at the time. Often quotes are given at the same time through press conferences and releases to many reporters and therefore a misquote will be caught by another writer and the paper can make corrections.

The quotes that I object to the most are ones that may never have occurred and if they did occur, were in private.

One of the ones I objected to the most was what the police were saying to each other in the station before and during the arrest of Amanda and Raf. There is no way that Follain heard those exchanges and the only way he could have really been given them was by the cops themselves and most likely some time after they had time to craft them.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hmmmmm

Guede's lawyers told reporters today that they have decided to ask for a fast-track trial for their client because they do not want him to be tried together with Knox and Sollecito.

"We feel the need for a separate trial," they told Italian wire agency Ansa. "We think we need to keep our position separate from the other two suspects." The lawyers went on to say that "choosing this fast-track trial does not mean we are looking for a reduction of the sentence because our goal is his full absolution as Rudy Guede is totally extraneous to the crime." The lawyers added that they would also ask that their client be released from jail immediately.

Nicodemo Gentile, one of Guede's defense lawyers, said that in the evidence presented by the prosecutor there is "no link between Guede and the murder weapon, nor is he involved in the attempt to fake a theft at the scene of the crime in order to divert investigators."

He added, "We are aware that the accusations against our client are heavy but we are able to prove that there are other equally believable theories."

Should Knox and Sollecito not opt for the fast-track trial like Guede, the judge must decide whether they should be indicted or released.

Rudy's defence strategy is clear. It is to separate him from Raffaele and Amanda in the hopes that all the pooh sticks to the latter two people.

In the face of this, Massei's court rules on Rudy's participation in this crime - and it is Rudy's and Rudy's alone motive, within which Raffaele and Amanda (acc. to Massei) simply made a brief and tragic "choice for evil", and an uncharacteristic one at that.

To me, it cannot be any clearer that the battleground is over Rudy's participation in this - him breaking in to Filomena's room (or not) becomes the judicial battleground.

But it cannot be clearer - the strategy is to stick as much pooh as possible on Amanda and Raffaele, all to lessen or eliminate Rudy's culpability - a culpability which is blatantly obvious - even Massei ruled that way.

If the Florence court wishes to untie this knot at all, they must complete the work that Massei started - yes I said that.

The motive was Rudy's.
There was no mixed blood of Amanda's and Meredith's.
Amanda and Meredith were on good terms, despite the prosecution (at Massei's trial) calling witnesses to suggest otherwise.
There was no forensic presence of Amanda in the murder room.​

And to top all this off, even the author MOST friendly to the prosecution, John Follain, admits in his book that Patrizia Stefanoni cannot be sure she did not contaminate the bra-clasp, as the Scientific Police's own video of its collection demonstrates.

Patrizia. Cannot. Rule. Out. Contamination. Under. Oath. She. Said. That. At least acc. to the author most sympathetic to Mignini's case.

Is anyone scandalized yet?

 

[Bill Williams]

There are several reasons. The main reason is that unlike a book that comes out years after the fact, it is far easier for someone to correct the record when quotes are reported at the time. Often quotes are given at the same time through press conferences and releases to many reporters and therefore a misquote will be caught by another writer and the paper can make corrections.

The quotes that I object to the most are ones that may never have occurred and if they did occur, were in private.

One of the ones I objected to the most was what the police were saying to each other in the station before and during the arrest of Amanda and Raf. There is no way that Follain heard those exchanges and the only way he could have really been given them was by the cops themselves and most likely some time after they had time to craft them.

In principle I agree. And I'm not saying that just to seem friendly towards you, as a welcoming gesture.

Yet it does not phase you that the one author MOST sympathetic to the prosecution's case provides dialogue, invented or not, which is damning to the prosecutor's case?

That's my thing.

 

[Grinder]

In principle I agree.

Yet it does not phase you that the one author MOST sympathetic to the prosecution's case provides dialogue, invented or not, which is damning to the prosecutor's case?

Since you ask directly, no it doesn't. I think that Follain's focus was and is to sell books and make money. I don't think that he really gives a hoot one way or the other. The dialogue may be damning using your optics, but no so much for others.

There are others just as sympathetic. ETA - Garofano.

 

[Bill Williams]

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perugiatoday.it%2Fcronaca%2Fomicidio-meredith-amanda-knox-non-partecipa-processo-firenze.html%23

It seems that Italy IS catching on. One commenter in the comments section here laments that Perugia is becoming the laughing stock of the world.

Dare I hope that the tide is turning, even in Italy? On the basis of that comment alone I am revising my prediction about the Florence Trial. I now say there is a 60% chance they'll do the right thing and acquit Raffaele and Amanda.

 

[Bill Williams]

Since you ask directly, no it doesn't. I think that Follain's focus was and is to sell books and make money. I don't think that he really gives a hoot one way or the other. The dialogue may be damning using your optics, but no so much for others.

There are others just as sympathetic. ETA - Garofano.

You have powerful friends on your side. The New York Books reviewer of "Waiting to be Heard" assesses Nick Pisa much the same.... see:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/aug/15/amanda-knox-in-wonderland/

This is describing Nick Pisa during the height of the tabloid frenzy....

Over dinner the British journalist explained to me how he did his job. He had no contract with any newspaper, but auctioned each story to the highest bidder. If a competing reporter offered a more dramatic story to editors, or one that could be written faster, he would be passed over. He was under significant pressure to sell stories, for he had to pay his own way to Perugia, and stayed at a cheap hotel in order to keep expenses down. He also admitted to me that he had no idea whether Knox was guilty and didn’t care one way or another.

In some ways it is refreshing that Pisa had no preconceived notions. Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau couldn't keep their own baises far from the surface?

Yet it is clear that Pisa was feeding the beast of the Tabloids, rather than even trying to be a journalist. Shades of Sharon Feinstein.