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

[Dan O.]

The truth is they are two murderers. If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion - during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is. Just my opinion, btw.

* this answer is an exception to my previous forecast

Remember Meredith. This is what her supporters have done to truth.

 

[RandyN]

No, there's nothing special about those years. You're just cherry picking.


snip

Not just that but you both are not considering the actual charts that list violations for all signatures of the ECOHR.

The site has blocked this chart for some reason but I have it copied from before they did that. Hope it is readable...pg 6 and 7 tells you the story about how bad Italy actually is.

 

[Annella]

This below is from retired Italian Judge Edoardo Mori. Interesting to note his words on the fact the three accused were not at trial together. The whole article is enlightening, this is only a part of it. Cannot link to all of Mori's very very pertinent articles but I have no doubt most of you have already read them. The one on DNA is particularly relevant.

Google translation.....

"I remember the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia where I had the satisfaction of azzeccarne the underlying problem as early as April 2009. See my page where I referred to the extreme delicacy of the investigations on DNA, has been fully implemented by an appraisal conducted in court of appeal. But it was enough to see the movie in which one of the investigators triumphantly waved the famous bra to understand that the crime scene had intervened the infamous "team destruction of evidence" ! ( Update Note : the two defendants were acquitted by the court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia October 3, 2011 , also in this case the judgment has censored the total inconsistency of the prosecution's plan is not based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, but on a supine acceptance of the thesis of PM and improbable conclusions of the police . Judgment has observed something that should have been clear to everyone from the beginning : that the motive may be assumed at the beginning of the investigation to direct them , but when it comes to process the motive must be proved, not enough to argue that if the defendants had committed the murder, a motive force for bringing this ! in the case of Perugia was then something unusual and never seen that before three defendants in opposition to one another it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. )
This only because , as we shall see , it seems that the investigators do not trust most of the test logic, which instead will always be the most reliable . Statistics show that in almost all cases a crime is trivial and that it is useless to look for solutions to crime novel and which are still valid with the rules established by a medieval philosopher , who was famous for the logical rules called " Occam's Razor" :
- Factors being equal the simplest explanation is to be preferred.
- Do not multiply the elements and subdivisions more than necessary.
- Do not consider the plurality if not necessary.
- It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less.
In other words , there is no reason to complicate what is simple . Inside a reasoning or a demonstration should instead sought the simplicity and conciseness . And unfortunately in many cases the trivial answer is that you just do not know who the author of the crime , and what a find it is foolish to want to force the prison putting the suspects .
What is most striking in all these cases is the total inexperience of the PM that faced with sensitive cases leave get their hands on the first unwary evidence that they operate , then they let the modest laboratory experts of the police to do analysis by university laboratory , technical expertise or that are made ​​from ballistic decisive first scalzacani that advise the secretary them , they do make a forensic autopsies of murder victims that have seen very few . And all the more striking the arrogance with which these investigators insist in not wanting to admit and correct their mistakes early , even before the evidence .

( 'azzerccarne' is a mispelling in first line. Meant to be azzerccane meaning 'guess'. So Mori guessed the underlying problems early on.)

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by the good old boy syndrome as it applies to Italy. I think most involved in the justice system want it to be a good system and work to make it so. Is it perfect? No but I think it is striving and evolving to be so.

As to investigation of Mignini being a non-starter I don't believe that to be true. He has been investigated as have members of the Perugia Police (not for this case specifically but for other instances). So investigation is and can be done against those in the justice system in Italy.

Hi christianahannah, I think there is always a good old boy network. Whether it is in Mobile Alabama, Seattle, Washington or Perugia, Umbria.

While I do agree with you that most of those involved in Italy want their system to be good, I don't agree that they are necessarily working to improve the system and I think Italy system is actually devolving and is so dysfunctional that they need an entire overhaul.

A very large number of Innocent people are incarcerated for years. Their system drags on and on, their virtually is no such thing as a speedy trial. Having judges on the jury leads gives the State too much power. Their system is grossly inefficient Corruption is widespread in Italy and their judiciary is famous for it.

So while I would agree that many people that work in their judiciary work hard to do their jobs well and honestly, their system as a whole is broken.

 

[Mary_H]

Thank you.

I read those links but I was looking for some legal documentation giving specifics of the laws broken by Mignini.

The Supreme Court's ruling that Amanda's statements could not be used because she was questioned outside the presence of a lawyer is documentation that Mignini broke the law.

The transcript of the trial in which he describes the way the crime happened is documentation of him accusing the defendants of criminal acts for which he had no evidence.

 

[RandyN]

I cannot say that I am a guilter or a non-guilter. I do, however, know that if I were accused of a crime and innocent I would have no problem with Mignini as the prosecutor of my case. After all he was the prosecutor when Patrick was first accused and later released.

I do not worship Mignini but I believe him to be fair and just when prosecuting a case. Those are important traits for a prosecutor to have whether one is innocent or guilty of a crime.

Give me a break. Fair and just? That alone points exactly to what camp you live in.

Lumumba was released because a reliable witness, at his own expense, and by his own actions returned to Italy to give Lumumba a rock solid (sort of) alibi. And still Mignini held him for two weeks...but more than that Mignini kept Lumumbas bar closed for months in order to starve him into submission so that he would stop telling about his abuse during his interrogation...the beating, torture, etc...and so that he would get on board with Migninis case. And sure enough...soon Lumumba was lying in the press and in court about Knox...saying he fired her when he in fact did no such thing. But forget Lumumba...

Do you consider Mignini denying the defendants lawyers during interrogation to be fair and just? How about when he denied them lawyers for additional days and ordered them kept in solitary...which in fact is illegal to do to a girl in Italy???? Fair and just?

How about when Mignini questioned Knox at 5:45 AM? Just a notary right?

How about when he failed to investigate the defendants complaint that she was struck by police during her interrogation? He clearly has a duty to do that and yet even after his office was questioned about this by a reporter he brushed off that duty and he never bothered to investigate anything...he simply filed additional charges against Knox and later against her parents. You call that fair and just? I call your claim insane!

 

[Mary_H]

Hi christianahannah, I think there is always a good old boy network. Whether it is in Mobile Alabama, Seattle, Washington or Perugia, Umbria.

While I do agree with you that most of those involved in Italy want their system to be good, I don't agree that they are necessarily working to improve the system and I think Italy system is actually devolving and is so dysfunctional that they need an entire overhaul.

A very large number of Innocent people are incarcerated for years. Their system drags on and on, their virtually is no such thing as a speedy trial. Having judges on the jury leads gives the State too much power. Their system is grossly inefficient Corruption is widespread in Italy and their judiciary is famous for it.

So while I would agree that many people that work in their judiciary work hard to do their jobs well and honestly, their system as a whole is broken.

I agree, acbytesla. For one thing, their legal system seems to be a huge industry upon which many people rely for income, often at the expense of the taxpayers. In that sense, it is not looked upon as something to be turned to when other means have failed, but rather as something to be used routinely and as often as possible.

For another thing, the Italian legal system, like the Catholic Church, is infused with an authoritarian tradition that feeds the attitude that the institution must be preserved at the cost of the individual. This is how they reach their thinking that wiretaps and violations of suspects' rights are okay. This is where we get Comodi(?) saying things like, "Who cares how they caught the whore, the important thing is they caught the whore."

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree, acbytesla. For one thing, their legal system seems to be a huge industry upon which many people rely for income, often at the expense of the taxpayers. In that sense, it is not looked upon as something to be turned to when other means have failed, but rather as something to be used routinely and as often as possible.

For another thing, the Italian legal system, like the Catholic Church, is infused with an authoritarian tradition that feeds the attitude that the institution must be preserved at the cost of the individual. This is how they reach their thinking that wiretaps and violations of suspects' rights are okay. This is where we get Comodi(?) saying things like, "Who cares how they caught the whore, the important thing is they caught the whore."

Even Mexico is light years beyond Comodi and Italy. The Mexican Supreme Court let Cyndy Vanier go because her rights were violated at arrest. The Mexican Supreme Court thought it better to let go a potentially guilty person because it's worse to have rights violations done by authorities. Starting with the slaps to the head all the way through to the HIV test, how many times did Raffaele and Amanda have their rights violated?

 

[RandyN]

This below is from retired Italian Judge Edoardo Mori. Interesting to note his words on the fact the three accused were not at trial together. The whole article is enlightening, this is only a part of it. Cannot link to all of Mori's very very pertinent articles but I have no doubt most of you have already read them. The one on DNA is particularly relevant.

Google translation.....

"I remember the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia where I had the satisfaction of azzeccarne the underlying problem as early as April 2009. See my page where I referred to the extreme delicacy of the investigations on DNA, has been fully implemented by an appraisal conducted in court of appeal. But it was enough to see the movie in which one of the investigators triumphantly waved the famous bra to understand that the crime scene had intervened the infamous "team destruction of evidence" ! ( Update Note : the two defendants were acquitted by the court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia October 3, 2011 , also in this case the judgment has censored the total inconsistency of the prosecution's plan is not based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, but on a supine acceptance of the thesis of PM and improbable conclusions of the police . Judgment has observed something that should have been clear to everyone from the beginning : that the motive may be assumed at the beginning of the investigation to direct them , but when it comes to process the motive must be proved, not enough to argue that if the defendants had committed the murder, a motive force for bringing this ! in the case of Perugia was then something unusual and never seen that before three defendants in opposition to one another it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. )
This only because , as we shall see , it seems that the investigators do not trust most of the test logic, which instead will always be the most reliable . Statistics show that in almost all cases a crime is trivial and that it is useless to look for solutions to crime novel and which are still valid with the rules established by a medieval philosopher , who was famous for the logical rules called " Occam's Razor" :
- Factors being equal the simplest explanation is to be preferred.
- Do not multiply the elements and subdivisions more than necessary.
- Do not consider the plurality if not necessary.
- It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less.
In other words , there is no reason to complicate what is simple . Inside a reasoning or a demonstration should instead sought the simplicity and conciseness . And unfortunately in many cases the trivial answer is that you just do not know who the author of the crime , and what a find it is foolish to want to force the prison putting the suspects .
What is most striking in all these cases is the total inexperience of the PM that faced with sensitive cases leave get their hands on the first unwary evidence that they operate , then they let the modest laboratory experts of the police to do analysis by university laboratory , technical expertise or that are made ​​from ballistic decisive first scalzacani that advise the secretary them , they do make a forensic autopsies of murder victims that have seen very few . And all the more striking the arrogance with which these investigators insist in not wanting to admit and correct their mistakes early , even before the evidence .

( 'azzerccarne' is a mispelling in first line. Meant to be azzerccane meaning 'guess'. So Mori guessed the underlying problems early on.)

Thanks Annella...

Welcome to JREF.
It seems like I know you from somewhere else during this case...perhaps I am wrong.

Aren't you a native Italian speaker? If so could you please translate this. Google translate is OK but it almost requires a translation of the translation.

Is this the judge who is famous for quitting in disgust at the complete corruption of the Italian judiciary?

What is the problem linking these articles...is it the stupid rule that you have to make so many posts first? Just post one word 25 times or whatever the limit is ...I forget. I think the original intent was to dissuade trolls from linking crap...seems like there should be a better way to do that...but what do I know?

Anyway I would be interested to read articles written by Italians that understand what a travesty is going on here. I am certain not every person in Italy can be like the sheep we see here and at other sites...arguing that the illogical is in fact logical. That the law and police are always correct. That a fact can be imagined. The a witness can lie to police and come into court (Quintinvale) with a completely different story a year later and the courts allow this mockery against justice to simply go ahead unchallenged and unpunished. The Italian courts dont seem to care that these prosecutors are making a mockery of the judicial system. There is no rule of law...only rule of prosecutor.

 

[JREF2010]

Even if you don't believe they were involved there is nothing wrong with that time frame which fits with when Curatolo said he saw them.

You said your thought is ToD was early, 10:15 , I agree it was earlier +/-15min. Thats what Hellman stated too. It's much more supported than the prosecutions 11-11:30.

I agree, all things are open between 9:10pm Raffaeles last pc activity, and 10:13pm. Sure, if you choose Toto as being credible it does align better than the muck Migninni seemed to spew.

The earlier ToD makes the screams irrelevant even more, at 11 or 11:30... it doesn't matter. The "blind witnesses" saw nothing, and didn't know when they heard anything. And footsteps on the iron stairs means nothing as its so common.

Raffaele has only a 9:10pm pc activity alibi and thanks to the bumbling polizia, critical evidence was destroyed. What if there were pc activity at 9:28, 10:14, etc..etc.. would that have been enough?

Disturbing is the same polizia Monica Napoleoni, was recently suspended for dishonest associated to computer illegality's in Perugia....Migninni being convicted in Florence, for abuse of power, wire taps, breaking the law...a few others were involved in the recent computer foul play of the Questura.....many things seem foul in this Questura that has no budget to record Interrogations, but can record everything else whenever they want, even 10,000 phone calls...

Could it be that's why they didn't do DNA on the semen looking stain, in a rape murder, from a item in the murder scene, because of the budget issues?

 

[Caper]

This stupid article was actually linked on CNN.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15586679-amanda-knox-taunts-victims-family

 

[Antony]

The truth is they are two murderers.

That is a disgusting libel for which you have no valid evidence whatsoever.

If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion

The court reached the obvious conclusion in October 2011. Your precious Supreme Court judges, without considering any of the evidence and without identifying any breaches of law by the lower court, decided they didn't like the conclusion and illegally ordered another throw at the coconut shy for the prosecution.

- during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is.

That is just sick. AK and RS were illegally arrested, illegally charged and illegally condemned in the court of first instance. Hellman put that right, except for the illegal conviction of Amanda over coerced statements attributed to her during an illegal interrogation. The system rubber-stamped the illegal conviction and demands another attempt at further illegal convictions.

Just my opinion, btw.

You have no facts and no legal substance to support your opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

This below is from retired Italian Judge Edoardo Mori. Interesting to note his words on the fact the three accused were not at trial together. The whole article is enlightening, this is only a part of it. Cannot link to all of Mori's very very pertinent articles but I have no doubt most of you have already read them. The one on DNA is particularly relevant.

Google translation.....

"I remember the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia where I had the satisfaction of azzeccarne the underlying problem as early as April 2009. See my page where I referred to the extreme delicacy of the investigations on DNA, has been fully implemented by an appraisal conducted in court of appeal. But it was enough to see the movie in which one of the investigators triumphantly waved the famous bra to understand that the crime scene had intervened the infamous "team destruction of evidence" ! ( Update Note : the two defendants were acquitted by the court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia October 3, 2011 , also in this case the judgment has censored the total inconsistency of the prosecution's plan is not based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, but on a supine acceptance of the thesis of PM and improbable conclusions of the police . Judgment has observed something that should have been clear to everyone from the beginning : that the motive may be assumed at the beginning of the investigation to direct them , but when it comes to process the motive must be proved, not enough to argue that if the defendants had committed the murder, a motive force for bringing this ! in the case of Perugia was then something unusual and never seen that before three defendants in opposition to one another it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. )
This only because , as we shall see , it seems that the investigators do not trust most of the test logic, which instead will always be the most reliable . Statistics show that in almost all cases a crime is trivial and that it is useless to look for solutions to crime novel and which are still valid with the rules established by a medieval philosopher , who was famous for the logical rules called " Occam's Razor" :
- Factors being equal the simplest explanation is to be preferred.
- Do not multiply the elements and subdivisions more than necessary.
- Do not consider the plurality if not necessary.
- It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less.
In other words , there is no reason to complicate what is simple . Inside a reasoning or a demonstration should instead sought the simplicity and conciseness . And unfortunately in many cases the trivial answer is that you just do not know who the author of the crime , and what a find it is foolish to want to force the prison putting the suspects .
What is most striking in all these cases is the total inexperience of the PM that faced with sensitive cases leave get their hands on the first unwary evidence that they operate , then they let the modest laboratory experts of the police to do analysis by university laboratory , technical expertise or that are made ​​from ballistic decisive first scalzacani that advise the secretary them , they do make a forensic autopsies of murder victims that have seen very few . And all the more striking the arrogance with which these investigators insist in not wanting to admit and correct their mistakes early , even before the evidence .

( 'azzerccarne' is a mispelling in first line. Meant to be azzerccane meaning 'guess'. So Mori guessed the underlying problems early on.)

The separation of Guede's trial process from Knox's/Sollecito's was not wrong in principle, but the mechanisms employed in this case (and presumably in Italian criminal justice in general) were grossly unjust and unfair. I have long believed that this point in itself is grounds for a potential successful ruling at the ECHR.

Here's why: firstly, while it absolutely WAS Guede's right to demand a separate and fast-track trial, this should have been held entirely in camera, and its outcome should not have been disclosed pending the trial process of Knox/Sollecito. Secondly, none of the elements of the ruling in Guede's trial process should ever have carried any weight in the Knox/Sollecito trial process - the court in the Knox/Sollecito trials should have had to re-examine from scratch all the necessary elements of the crime (including, of course, the now-notorious issue of how many assailants there were).

It's far from unusual in, for example, the UK or US for the trial process of multiple defendants accused of acting in concert to be split and separated. For example, one or more of the defendants may plead guilty before the trial (while the others plead not guilty and go to trial), or (in the US) one or more of the defendants cuts a deal before the trial. In such cases, details of any guilty pleas or plea bargains are kept secret and sub judice until the culmination of the trials of all the other co-accused.

If Knox and Sollecito end up convicted of the murders, I am confident that the way in which the Guede trial process impacted upon their trial process will constitute clear grounds for a directed reversal from the ECHR. In my opinion, this is a clear violation to their right to a fair trial. There are other potential grounds for appeal to the ECHR, but to my mind this one stands out as the most egregious and obvious error and injustice.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's funny how, no matter what angle you come at this case from, you find something that stinks. Whether it's non-existent bleach receipts, fried computers, luminol misinformation, low copy number DNA, lost/never made recordings, dodgy witnesses with evolving memories etc.

The latest is the 'I was there' statement about which I formerly knew nothing. It turns out, when you drill down, that Mignini disreputably ambushed Amanda with it at the crucial Riciarelli hearing to keep her in custody for the next 4 years but that even hanging judge Micheli (he of the fatuous 'moving the body' theory) chucked it out less than a year later. No worries! it did the job! Despite that, 5 years later, apparently intelligent people are still parroting it like the pigs in Animal Farm as if it proved something and falsely claiming, just like Mignini did, that it was regarded by all judges except Hellman and Zanetti as proving something.

The truth is: Micheli chucked it out and no subsequent judge took it as meaning anything. Not even Galati ran it before the ISC. What's the next myth awaiting demolition?

 

[Mary_H]

This stupid article was actually linked on CNN.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15586679-amanda-knox-taunts-victims-family

Disgusting, written by a dunce.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is a disgusting libel for which you have no valid evidence whatsoever.

It's not a libel, since the two current stand provisionally guilty of the murder. It therefore passes the "justification" test.

However...... I immediately baulk at the sort of declarative sentence that purports to state "the truth" in this way. To me, it's a clear indication that the author of the sentence is not capable of objective, logical analysis - rather that (s)he is over-invested in a dogmatic belief*.

Instead, it would be acceptable (but incorrect, in my opinion) to state something along the lines of: "In my view, there exists more than enough evidence to find Knox/Sollecito guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder", or even something shorter like: "In my view, they are murderers".


* Note that in my view this would also apply to anyone other than Knox or Sollecito (or Guede) making statements to the effect of: "The truth is that they are innocent of the murder".

 

[LondonJohn]

Disgusting, written by a dunce.

Hoffman's "articles" on this case are not worthy of being called journalism: they are partisan waffle (it would be massively over-crediting them to call them op-ed pieces), written by someone who has a clear ulterior motive and a fixation on disparaging Amanda Knox.

Oh, and they're really dreadfully written as well. I think we can all be pretty certain that this woman won't be appearing in mainstream print anytime soon...

 

[Mary_H]

Hoffman's "articles" on this case are not worthy of being called journalism: they are partisan waffle (it would be massively over-crediting them to call them op-ed pieces), written by someone who has a clear ulterior motive and a fixation on disparaging Amanda Knox.

That's what I meant by disgusting.

Oh, and they're really dreadfully written as well. I think we can all be pretty certain that this woman won't be appearing in mainstream print anytime soon...

That's what I meant by dunce.



ETA: This was my favorite line, exhibiting her impeccable logic. She reports that Amanda wants to visit Meredith's grave and then writes, "If Amanda Knox killed Meredith Kercher, what reason could she possibly have to visit the woman's grave?"

 

[LondonJohn]

It's funny how, no matter what angle you come at this case from, you find something that stinks. Whether it's non-existent bleach receipts, fried computers, luminol misinformation, low copy number DNA, lost/never made recordings, dodgy witnesses with evolving memories etc.

The latest is the 'I was there' statement about which I formerly knew nothing. It turns out, when you drill down, that Mignini disreputably ambushed Amanda with it at the crucial Riciarelli hearing to keep her in custody for the next 4 years but that even hanging judge Micheli (he of the fatuous 'moving the body' theory) chucked it out less than a year later. No worries! it did the job! Despite that, 5 years later, apparently intelligent people are still parroting it like the pigs in Animal Farm as if it proved something and falsely claiming, just like Mignini did, that it was regarded by all judges except Hellman and Zanetti as proving something.

The truth is: Micheli chucked it out and no subsequent judge took it as meaning anything. Not even Galati ran it before the ISC. What's the next myth awaiting demolition?

In my view, the whole arraignment and pre-trial process in Italy also has fundamental structural flaws, most of which are the direct result of the conflict between the former PM-led inquisitorial system and the present (supposedly) adversarial system.

In the latter system, PMs should be understood to be arguing the prosecution position - there should be no semblance of (or pretence of) objectivity. It is up to the pre-trial courts to hear the prosecution arguments on issues such as prima facie evidence and pre-trial detention, but to then weigh and balance this partisan position against that of the equally-partisan defence team. The court should then issue balanced rulings on these matters accordingly.

Instead, I believe that the legacies of the old inquisitorial system still permeate deep into the fabric of the reactionary Italian judiciary. I think that judges are still heavily inclined to implicitly view the PM's position as the "objective, disinterested, investigative" position, and therefore to take it at something far to close to face value.

And I think that this is exactly what happened in the pre-trial courts in the Knox/Sollecito trials: I think that Riciarelli, Matteini and Micheli all kow-towed to Mignini and Comodi far too readily: "if this is the PM's opinion, then that's good enough for me". It appears that the defence had nary a look-in at these hearings, and that the defence arguments were accorded far, far less weight than those of the PM.

 

[MDDVS]

The truth is they are two murderers. If courts will take 8+ years to reach the obvious conclusion - during which most of this time the defendants will be free - this only shows how cautious and pro-defendant the system is. Just my opinion, btw.

* this answer is an exception to my previous forecast

No, it shows how the system doesn't give a **** about systematic violations of human rights (as you admitted to previously).