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

[Bill Williams]

The first time?
The problem with premediation is evidence. There is just not enough evidence to conclude that the sexual violence was premeditated, as for Massei.

So it seems that you are more than willing to condemn people on a lack of evidence because on other internet services that is what you (and Yummi) do. You also do not correct the haters on other services when they advance theories of premeditation.

You are not interested in truth. You are interested in vilifying the innocent where by your own admission you say there is no evidence.

It's nice work if you can get it.

 

[acbytesla]

There in't any admissibility rule on any piece of evidence in Italian law, of any kind. There can't be under the procedure code.

When you talk about pieces of evidence, the question whether something is absolutely certain under the scientific point of view, is simply pointless; if something is uncertain, it may well be just probable instead of certain; a piece of evidence might be a proof if it is 100% sceientific and certain, otherwise if it is just probable it will be just a piece of circumstantial evidence. Which might be all what is needed in a trial.

There is a difference between something being "absolutely certain" and evidence being highly questionable. The problem with the testing and collection procedures as well as the unwillingness to disclose is that the Perugian authorities created a situation such that a significant portion of its evidence is highly questionable. There becomes a point that evidence is so questionable that it shouldn't be used at all. Both the knife and the bra clasp fall under this category.

Really, this case should have been thrown out before it ever reach a trial. Perugia also has many members of its judicial system that should be fired. Stefanoni and Mignini should be first. It is time to clean house in Perugia.

 

[Diocletus]

So it seems that you are more than willing to condemn people on a lack of evidence because on other internet services that is what you (and Yummi) do. You also do not correct the haters on other services when they advance theories of premeditation.

You are not interested in truth. You are interested in vilifying the innocent where by your own admission you say there is no evidence.

It's nice work if you can get it.

My assessment is that he is motivated by equal parts of (i) hatred for the US, and (ii) anger that foreigners are criticizing Italian institutions.

First, he's a communist, so of course he was brainwashed into hating the US. To this, I say so what.

Second, he knows very well (just like all other Italians) that the Italian justice system totally FUBAR, precisely as has become evident and led to the outcome in this case. Notwithstanding this knowledge, he despises the fact that outsiders have picked up on this, and that they are so bold as to be critical of the way Italians do things. To this, I say that Italians have had their chance to fix this and they didn't, and they should thus expect criticism when their predatory system goes after innocent outsiders.

 

[Grinder]

This is crap. Unreliable scientific evidence doesn't prove anything.

1000 bogus electropherograms can't make an innocent person guilty.

Well I think this is the heart of one of the big differences between most of the people here and Mach and Italians.

The idea that good science is really good circumstantial evidence and weak science is probable evidence is ridiculous. Really sad that one person would believe that but tragic if it is the judicial system of a country.

Whereas circumstantial evidence is the best evidence when done right this isn't circumstantial at all. It's just crap.

I rarely comment on the culture of Italy or the US regarding this case but if Mach is expressing how it really is in Italy, well...sad very sad that a society could have sunk to this level, truly backwards thinking.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well I think this is the heart of one of the big differences between most of the people here and Mach and Italians.

The idea that good science is really good circumstantial evidence and weak science is probable evidence is ridiculous. Really sad that one person would believe that but tragic if it is the judicial system of a country.

Whereas circumstantial evidence is the best evidence when done right this isn't circumstantial at all. It's just crap.

I rarely comment on the culture of Italy or the US regarding this case but if Mach is expressing how it really is in Italy, well...sad very sad that a society could have sunk to this level, truly backwards thinking.

We all should be taking with a grain of salt ANYTHING Machiavelli posts here. I find him to be provocative and engaging and (eventually) he does get around to addressing issues put his way. He's also often the sole poster from his point of view... which would make it hard for any one person to keep up...

So it is premature, really, to paint the whole country as if Machiavelli represented the whole thing.

He's really representing Mignini. He'll say bad things, when provoked, about anyone except Mignini or Andrea Vogt. He's called Nadeau a liar (an "approximate reporter") and he's called John Kercher "mistaken." He's blamed judges along the way for Mignini's mistakes and wild theories, as well as blamed the judges for not forcing the production of evidence that should have been freely forthcoming from the prosecution following rules of disclosure (which may or may not be relevant anyway in Italy, acc. to, once again, Machiavelli).

Every once in a while he's up front with his bias. It is this:

"My attitude contains an element of provocation that stems from a sense of outrage, actually kind of hostility which you direct against political or religious opponents, to expose the weakness of a dangerous propaganda"

He sees this as a propaganda war..... and as Winston Churchilll said, the first casualty of war is the truth. Machiavelli has demonstrated time and time again that he's not afraid to stray into territory where it's obvious he's, shall we say, stretching things to protect his people - mainly Mignini and Vogt.

The instances he provides are too numerous to mention.

 

[Diocletus]

Italy does have a statute. It's called the penal code. The reference that you give is to the penal code. If those subparagraphs that you cite legitimately give the supreme court the right to revisit any findings of fact, then the supreme court would not have had to cite its own prior opinion to justify its effort to do so. Therefore, they don't permit the Supreme Court to reinvent the facts.

Here is the quote from the Cassation opinion:

It has in fact been underscored how article 606, c 1, letter e of the Criminal Procedure Code precludes the (Supreme Court) judge from reappraisal but does not at all prevent him from verifying whether the appraisal was carried out according to logical criteria “whether, that is, the criteria of inference used by the court judge can be held to be plausible, or whether different ones can be allowed, capable of leading to different solutions [which are] equally plausible” (section IV, 12.11.2009, no 48320).

See how they do that? In the first reference they admit that 606(c)(1)(e) precludes them from disturbing the fact-finding.

Then, in the second reference, they cite their own prior opinion, no. 48320, where they have decided that they don't need to follow this law if they think there is some other "equally plausible" solution, which really is no standard at all. In other words, they can follow any outcome-determinative path they want to.

Total BS. Not rule of law. Not even clever.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is for Machiavelli

CBS in the States is reporting on Monica Napoleoni's legal troubles, an offshoot of her criminal actions related to a nasty custody dispute. In it, we foreigners are being treated to the way things work in Perugia.... which now ensnares Napoleoni herself.

This is from the CBS report... and at the end, Napoleoni complains about her treatment at the hands of a prosecutor in Perugia which is strangely reminiscent of complaints from FOA supporters way, way back in 2007 and 2008.....

If nothing else, karma is a dish best served cold.

In February 2013, Zugarini, Napoleoni, and two other detectives were transferred out of the murder squad as a result of the Perugia prosecutor's investigation into abuse of power allegations. The Perugia prosecutor also entered wiretap evidence into court which revealed one murder squad detective telling Napoleoini that the detective was concerned about potential questions from the prosecutor about "what we did for you."
The judge in the case has ruled there is no evidence against Napoleoni.

But what happened next is, no doubt, a delicious reversal of fortune for Amanda Knox and her supporters to watch.

Instead of dropping the charges against Napoleoni, the Perugia prosecutor appealed the judge's "no evidence" opinion, leaving Napoleoni under a cloud of suspicion to this day. And Napoleoni's reaction? She told the media, it was "unjustified aggression toward me by the prosecutor" and a "totally subjective interpretation of the facts."

Could Napoleoni be right? After her lengthy connection to the Kercher case, who better to know when a prosecutor engages in "unjustified aggression" and "totally subjective interpretation of the facts." The only thing left to wonder is, is there an Italian phrase for "if the shoe fits, wear it'?

 

[MDDVS]

Here is the quote from the Cassation opinion:



See how they do that? In the first reference they admit that 606(c)(1)(e) precludes them from disturbing the fact-finding.

Then, in the second reference, they cite their own prior opinion, no. 48320, where they have decided that they don't need to follow this law if they think there is some other "equally plausible" solution, which really is no standard at all. In other words, they can follow any outcome-determinative path they want to.

Total BS. Not rule of law. Not even clever.

Not only that, but this completely trashes the "innocent ntil proven guilty" concept.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is the quote from the Cassation opinion:

See how they do that? In the first reference they admit that 606(c)(1)(e) precludes them from disturbing the fact-finding.

Then, in the second reference, they cite their own prior opinion, no. 48320, where they have decided that they don't need to follow this law if they think there is some other "equally plausible" solution, which really is no standard at all. In other words, they can follow any outcome-determinative path they want to.

Total BS. Not rule of law. Not even clever.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricorso_per_cassazione_%28ordinamento_penale_italiano%29

Mancata assunzione di una prova decisiva
« d) mancata assunzione di una prova decisiva, quando la parte ne ha fatto richiesta anche nel corso dell'istruzione dibattimentale limitatamente ai casi previsti dall'articolo 495, comma 2; »
(Art.606 comma 1° lettera D)

Insieme alla lettera e) dell'articolo, è una delle due ipotesi in cui la Cassazione entra anche nel merito della vicenda e non solo nelle questioni di diritto. Il potere cognitivo è piuttosto ristretto, in quanto la Suprema Corte deve soltanto compiere un giudizio sull'effettiva decisività della prova, ovvero la sua capacità di incidere sul giudizio finale in modo da poter effettivamente portarlo ad un esito differente. La prova stessa poi, deve essere stata ritualmente richiesta dalla parte, dal 2006 anche nell'istruzione dibattimentale, e non ammessa dall'organo giudicante.
(...)

"Fact-finding" is not at all a 'taboo' to not be ever touched by the Supreme Court, and has never been.
You are wrong and you look presumptuous, because it's apparent that you don't know any other Cassazione ruling.

The Cassation does not focus on doing "fact-finding", because it does not assess the evidence. This means the court avoids doing things that would be an exclusive activity of facts finding, and also avoids to investigate the evidence directly; but it does not equate that they need to to say away from fact-finding in the absolute as if it was a taboo, something that could not suffer any incursion of any kind.
Otherwise, there couldn't be any paragraph d) and e).
They do a limited portion of the fact-finding proces insofar as it is necessary to assess the work of the lower courts.

Facts finding as a whole includes the power of calling witnesses, putting questions, ordering further investigation, hearing cross-questionings. The Supreme Court does not do this direct evidence assessment.
But they decide whether the judgement by the lower courts was done properly. So they can decide whether a reasoning s logical or consistent with the evidence (letter e) or if relevant evidence was not considered (letter d), or if evidence was misrepresented in the motivations repot.
All this is entirely within the law. And it is in line with what the Supreme Court always do.

 

[Machiavelli]

So it seems that you are more than willing to condemn people on a lack of evidence because on other internet services that is what you (and Yummi) do. You also do not correct the haters on other services when they advance theories of premeditation.

You are climbing on glass. My job is not to correct people's opinions, and you know that. Everybody has a right to their opinions. But the question about premeditaion is totally secondary. Whether there is evidence of premeditation or not, is one thing; whether there is evidence of guilt on the charges of sexual violence ans murder, is another thing.
I think there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt.
I'm not sure there is enough evidence of premeditation.
But the two things are separate.

If there is not enough evidence of premeditation, Massei has a duty to offer an alternative non-premeditated scenario, which may be reasonable or possible albeit improbable, and convict the defendants on the non-premeditated variant.

 

[Machiavelli]

My assessment is that he is motivated by equal parts of (i) hatred for the US, and (ii) anger that foreigners are criticizing Italian institutions.

First, he's a communist, so of course he was brainwashed into hating the US. To this, I say so what.

Actually I' not a communist, btw (never ben a member of a communist party, and always been a member of the European Greens). And I don't hate the US. But I'm not willing to accept their lies, racism and arrogance neither.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't know anything about this autopsy, but if what you say is true, then why the cop's interest in the Vaseline? This suggests that they were looking for something to explain lack of bruising.

If you want to know that, the cops were interested in vaseline because of the anomalous anus dilatation, and because of the stains which Stefanoni attributed to probable semen, while cops suspected were vaseline.

 

[Diocletus]

I just noticed that 606(d), which was one of the grounds for the appeal, appears to provide that there is a right to appeal when there has been a failure to take evidence, and that evidence is "decisive." Isn't that interesting. So, the supreme court determined that 36i and Aviello are "decisive." Interesting.

 

[Dan O.]

Briefly, Stefanoni "found" something in a tiny crevice on the knife blade. She had already at that point tested the knife for blood and that test had come up negative. She took this tiny amount of matter and ran it through the testing machine but the results came up "too low" so she kept amplifying the matter until she was able to get a reading which she interpreted to Meredith's DNA. (That was a lay description and I concede that the scientists here may well correct details but I believe what I've written describes the process fairly).

What you miss is that Stefanoni never saw anything on the knife. There wasn't even a spec until she postulated where the machine's result might have come from.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have never agreed with the motive, background etc. part of the PIP arguments but disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.

This is quite obvious for what concerns all innocentisti. Otherwise they would be guilters.

I alkso disagree with your approach to transparency. Whether the defense asked for file at one point or another there is no reason not to release them.

It's not my approach to transparency. To me, it is just an approach to the truth.
If they were offered access to evidence under all law provisions for nine months and didn't request them for two years, they can't say they were denied.
If the request was made orally in sept 2009, and if it was a judge who declared the request inadmissible, you can't say the prosecution refused to release data.
If the request was then not forwarded not even at the Supreme Court, and not even in the reasons for appeal, and not even at the Hellmann trial (where there was even another prosecution), and if even the Nencini court in Florence dropped the request (and there is another prosecution office again), you can't blame the prosecution nor Stefanoni for not releasing things.
If you think the system is not transparent enough, well this is a matter of legislation. You should forward your opinion to the parliament, not try to use it in a personal case.

The prosecution spent huge amounts of money on this case and the additional costs of releasing the file wouldn't be a reason not to do it.

No, in fact. I don't believe there is a reason, except that a request made now is not considered admissible nor relevant by a court.

If you haven't responded to the questions about Frank, please do.

I don't think there is much to answer about Frank, actually. You may just happen to know that he is a man who does nothing for free. Taking money from people and living as a parasite has always been his distinctive trait, over his personal history. You are free to believe him as a source if you want; I've never been interested in discussing about him.

 

[Diocletus]

"Fact-finding" is not at all a 'taboo' to not be ever touched by the Supreme Court, and has never been.

So this is just a lie: "It has in fact been underscored how article 606, c 1, letter e of the Criminal Procedure Code precludes the (Supreme Court) judge from reappraisal"

And indeed, a reappraisal, poorly disguised as an exercise in "logic" is exactly what has happened here. In effect, Hellman has said: "the sky is blue," and the Supreme Court has said "no its not: we want the lower court to review this because we think it's green."

 

[Machiavelli]

I just noticed that 606(d), which was one of the grounds for the appeal, appears to provide that there is a right to appeal when there has been a failure to take evidence, and that evidence is "decisive." Isn't that interesting. So, the supreme court determined that 36i and Aviello are "decisive." Interesting.

It was Hellmann-Zanetti foremost who considered further confirmatory DNA tests on knife and Aviello's testimony as "decisive".
I interpret this as that this evidence could have been "decisive", within the perspective of Hellmann-Zanetti.

 

[Diocletus]

If the request was then not forwarded not even at the Supreme Court, and not even in the reasons for appeal,

LOL. They were acquitted by a jury. They wouldn't appeal the refusal to turn over the records.

 

[Machiavelli]

So this is just a lie: "It has in fact been underscored how article 606, c 1, letter e of the Criminal Procedure Code precludes the (Supreme Court) judge from reappraisal"

And indeed, a reappraisal, poorly disguised as an exercise in "logic" is exactly what has happened here. In effect, Hellman has said: "the sky is blue," and the Supreme Court has said "no its not: we want the lower court to review this because we think it's green."

If the fact-findings of the lower courts were absolutely untouchable, there could be no paragraphs d) and e).

These paragraphs exist; so the letter c) must not be intended as inclusive of all kind and forms of incursion in fact finding.
The Supreme Court avoids activities of exclusive fact-finding.