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

[acbytesla]

I think there aren't.

But in Italy there are no juries.
There are only judges. Even lay members on panels are called judges. But professional judges are believed to be the backbone of the system on any decision and through the whole proceedings.
Judges mostly base their decision on documents and case files they have already read before a trial actually taks place. So in fact, all judges sitting on a panel already "know" the case file in its details before the trial starts.

A jury is in reality is a panel of judges. They are judging the defendant.

A rose by any other name would still smell sweet.

The point of the difference Mach is that in a jury trial, the judge who has no say to the guilt or innocence of the defendant can exclude prejudicial evidence or testimony from the eyes and ears of those people actually deciding the fate of the defendants. In Italy, the prosecution can poison the well.

 

[Kaosium]

Arapi was not convicted, he was arrested then released some weeks later like Lumumba. The real murderer was a man who had stolen his ID document.

But I point out that Alessi was called by the defence to tell what Guede told him about what happened. He should testify about something by saying what someone else said to him. This hearsay too.

According to the article he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years:

Yet when he was arrested in June last year he was told not only that he was suspected of the killing, but that his guilt had already been established in court. In Italy, he had been tried and convicted in his absence, and sentenced to 16 years in jail.

Eventually they did sort it out, but not before he'd been convicted and spent six weeks in jail, which is how long it took them to realize his fingerprints didn't match but Braka's did.

Had there not been protest in the UK over the extradition he might well be in an Italian prison now.

Regarding Alessi and the two others who testified that Guede told them Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved, it was a fat drunk guy who fled to England, perhaps were they testifying against Rudy (or the fat drunk guy) there might be a problem with that evidence, but they were just testifying to what Rudy said to them about Amanda and Raffaele with everyone knowing they couldn't possibly know the truth of the matter, but they can report what Rudy said and the jury/judges panel can determine for themselves if they think Alessi and the others were lying regarding what Rudy said about Amanda and Raffaele, or if Rudy was lying to them, it was never going to be used against Rudy or the fat drunk guy.

 

[Dan O.]

Actually this only shows how specious and twisted your arguments are.

Look in the mirror o' anonymous one that won't supply evidence to back claims.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And that's one more illustration of the deficiency of the inquisitorial system. The judge in an adversarial common-law system plays a vital role in being a highly-qualified - but totally disinterested - referee and "guide" for everyone in the court: defendant(s), lawyers for all sides, witnesses, observers, and - perhaps most crucially - jury.

In my opinion (and the opinion of most experts in jurisprudence and the application of criminal justice), this leads to a far, far higher chance of a fair trial, in which the defendant is afforded his full rights and obligations, and where the verdict is reached in a fair, reasoned manner.

I despair in contemplating the chance of fairness in any high-profile case in which the official story is largely accepted by the public. The trial will be fair enough if the defendant is in fact guilty. If the cops are wrong, travesty almost always ensues. Dreyfus, Lindy Chamberlain, the Birmingham Six, the West Memphis Three... they eventually got reprieve because someone actually cared. Chris Tapp, Billy Wayne Cope, and countless others languish behind bars even though any rational look at the case facts shows they are innocent. The public doesn't know about them.

 

[Diocletus]

Judges mostly base their decision on documents and case files they have already read before a trial actually taks place. So in fact, all judges sitting on a panel already "know" the case file in its details before the trial starts.

Oh, well then why bother with testimony and evidence and all of that stuff. You could have a trial without it--just like Nencini's trial.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Look in the mirror o' anonymous one that won't supply evidence to back claims.

Heh. I was struck by this, considering that your "specious and twisted" argument consisted of nothing more than a court transcript confirming exactly what you said.

This is why I don't waste much time on this guy any more. He gets under my skin with his malicious personal comments about Amanda. As for the case itself, he will simply deny any facts that don't suit his beliefs, and there's no point trying to discuss anything with someone who does that.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

LOL. What, he was so fearful of the cross-examination that he killed himself? And then some court decided that the guy was credible and convicted the defendant on these basis of his words?

I call BS on this. I think he just gave information to the cops.

Here's an interesting US case involving a suicide note used as trial evidence:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/loca...an-view-portions-of-hirschfield-suicide-note/

 

[Diocletus]

Here's an interesting US case involving a suicide note used as trial evidence:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/loca...an-view-portions-of-hirschfield-suicide-note/

Hm. So, they admitted the part of a dead guy's statement where he admits committing the crime. Seems like it could be helpful to the defense, especially since the guy has the same DNA as the defendant.

 

[Strozzi]

I think there aren't.

But in Italy there are no juries.
There are only judges. Even lay members on panels are called judges. But professional judges are believed to be the backbone of the system on any decision and through the whole proceedings.
Judges mostly base their decision on documents and case files they have already read before a trial actually taks place. So in fact, all judges sitting on a panel already "know" the case file in its details before the trial starts.

Machiavelli, thank you for clarifying how the Italian judicial system functions. It is very helpful to me as I try to understand the trials.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hm. So, they admitted the part of a dead guy's statement where he admits committing the crime. Seems like it could be helpful to the defense, especially since the guy has the same DNA as the defendant.

No, they're not twins.

This is an interesting case. The murders happened in 1980. The cops had no clue who did it, so they did their utmost to railroad a couple of guys who had nothing to do with it. They had a wild-ass, purely speculative conspiracy theory involving a notorious sex killer who knew the guys they were trying to railroad.

Then, about 10 years ago they got a DNA match to a guy who was locked up for another sex crime. That led to an investigation in which they talked to the guy's brother. He killed himself the next day because he knew the whole story and at the very least was present when the crime took place.

48 Hours did a segment about this case recently.

 

[Strozzi]

It could have been planted in the usual incompetent PLE fashion containing multiple profiles.

Grinder, I believe your statement above is what in fact occurred. The DNA was planted on the bra clasp hook by Stefanoni so she could get lab results she needed. I don't believe she went from Rome to Perugia on an evidence collection mission - specifically to collect the bra clasp on Dec 18 and mug for the camera, and handle it, pass it around, and place it on the floor in it's approximate location where it was 6 weeks earlier for the camera - and did that on the oft-chance that it might - just might - contain Raffaele's DNA. Stefanoni's purpose in making the trip was to obtain physical evidence to support the police and prosecution's failing shoe / footprint claim which the police and prosecution knew was about to be exposed as false by Raffaele's father.

What Stefanoni did not count on was finding DNA traces of several other males on the bra clasp. So she has withheld details on that and deliberately immersed the clasp in a liquid filled storage container to shield it from further analysis.

Stefanoni already demonstrated her willingness to fabricate evidence by the way she processed (too low, too low) the matter alleged to be on the knife blade and then analyzed the results, lowering her RFU threshold to 50 RFU, and then selectively claiming that certain data points match Meredith's DNA, and omitting other data points, so as to be able to falsely pronounce that it is exactly Meredith's DNA on the knife blade.

 

[Antony]

Grinder, I believe your statement above is what in fact occurred. The DNA was planted on the bra clasp hook by Stefanoni so she could get lab results she needed. I don't believe she went from Rome to Perugia on an evidence collection mission - specifically to collect the bra clasp on Dec 18 and mug for the camera, and handle it, pass it around, and place it on the floor in it's approximate location where it was 6 weeks earlier for the camera - and did that on the oft-chance that it might - just might - contain Raffaele's DNA. Stefanoni's purpose in making the trip was to obtain physical evidence to support the police and prosecution's failing shoe / footprint claim which the police and prosecution knew was about to be exposed as false by Raffaele's father.

What Stefanoni did not count on was finding DNA traces of several other males on the bra clasp. So she has withheld details on that and deliberately immersed the clasp in a liquid filled storage container to shield it from further analysis.

Stefanoni already demonstrated her willingness to fabricate evidence by the way she processed (too low, too low) the matter alleged to be on the knife blade and then analyzed the results, lowering her RFU threshold to 50 RFU, and then selectively claiming that certain data points match Meredith's DNA, and omitting other data points, so as to be able to falsely pronounce that it is exactly Meredith's DNA on the knife blade.

The fact that both these crucial pieces of "evidence" were produced in ways resembling conjuring tricks tells us all we need to know about the investigation.

 

[kwill]

But in Italy there are no juries.
There are only judges. Even lay members on panels are called judges. But professional judges are believed to be the backbone of the system on any decision and through the whole proceedings.
Judges mostly base their decision on documents and case files they have already read before a trial actually taks place. So in fact, all judges sitting on a panel already "know" the case file in its details before the trial starts.

How often do the lay judges disagree with the professional judges, and what happens if there is no consensus?

I've been on American juries, where we are strictly forbidden to see any information at all about the case as it's being tried, and also forbidden to discuss it with each other (or anyone else) until the closing arguments are over and the judge gives us the case.

It's a very interesting moment, the first time all the jurors go back to the jury room where they can at last say what they've been thinking.

The other curious thing is why it takes a whole year to try a case if the judges are going to base their decision "mostly" on the documents and files they've already read. Do the lay judges also have access to this material before the trial begins?

One case I was on lasted for two and a half months, including the jury deliberations -- and it was a very complex tax fraud conspiracy with nine defendants. It turned out that three of them were already in prison on different charges during that trial, but we weren't allowed to know that until after we'd given our verdicts, because it would have been prejudicial. Anyway, 10 weeks is a really long trial here.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Grinder, I believe your statement above is what in fact occurred. The DNA was planted on the bra clasp hook by Stefanoni so she could get lab results she needed.

I doubt very much if Stefanoni did it. She could have rigged any piece of evidence without ever leaving the lab.

But someone in Napoleoni's crew of neanderthal cops... very plausible.

 

[Strozzi]

It's not true. This is another baseless smear tossed out by the cops, like the non-existent scissors attack and the non-existent bleach receipts.



The "knife collection" consisted of two pocket knives plus cutlery provided by the landlord. The "sadistic porn" consisted of a single comic book written for Japanese teenagers.

There is no probative significance that a man of about 24 who began carrying a pocketknife as a 13 year old schoolboy in Bari (where most boys in his social circle also carried a knife) still routinely carried a pocketknife at age 24. Nor is there criminal meaning in having a trophy fighting knife hanging on his wall.

I worked as an intern to a European anthropologist when I was right out if college. He expressed interest and amusement in American cartoon heroes such as superman, batman, et al. I was surprised and dismissive of them and he explained to me that he, an anthropologist, found value in them as expressions of American adolescent culture. I was naive and ignorant of my own culture. He was wiser. Raffaele's casual interest in Japanese comics - even those involving monsters or erotica - is nothing derogatory except in the mind of his accusers.

 

[moije2]

Grinder, I believe your statement above is what in fact occurred. The DNA was planted on the bra clasp hook by Stefanoni so she could get lab results she needed. I don't believe she went from Rome to Perugia on an evidence collection mission - specifically to collect the bra clasp on Dec 18 and mug for the camera, and handle it, pass it around, and place it on the floor in it's approximate location where it was 6 weeks earlier for the camera - and did that on the oft-chance that it might - just might - contain Raffaele's DNA. Stefanoni's purpose in making the trip was to obtain physical evidence to support the police and prosecution's failing shoe / footprint claim which the police and prosecution knew was about to be exposed as false by Raffaele's father.

What Stefanoni did not count on was finding DNA traces of several other males on the bra clasp. So she has withheld details on that and deliberately immersed the clasp in a liquid filled storage container to shield it from further analysis.

Stefanoni already demonstrated her willingness to fabricate evidence by the way she processed (too low, too low) the matter alleged to be on the knife blade and then analyzed the results, lowering her RFU threshold to 50 RFU, and then selectively claiming that certain data points match Meredith's DNA, and omitting other data points, so as to be able to falsely pronounce that it is exactly Meredith's DNA on the knife blade.

This is very interesting and gives a reasonable explanation for the bra-clasp-in-water destruction of evidence.

There was a big discussion not long ago about the doctor in Dr Stefanoni, and I would think at any level of lab training they should have known that that was improper at would lead to loss of that clasp. And leads me to entertain your explanation as a possibility. Also, one has to wonder if others in her lab had to be complicit with that happening. Did no one there realize that error as it was being made? Or was Stefanoni able to handle and manage such property with chain of custody requirements all by herself?

 

[moije2]

I doubt very much if Stefanoni did it. She could have rigged any piece of evidence without ever leaving the lab.
But someone in Napoleoni's crew of neanderthal cops... very plausible.

To the high lighted part: Not if in the preceding 46 days there was too much of a paper trail in her lab with evidence already collected. Thus a need for new evidence.

 

[Strozzi]

I doubt very much if Stefanoni did it. She could have rigged any piece of evidence without ever leaving the lab.

But someone in Napoleoni's crew of neanderthal cops... very plausible.

The particular item, being a bra clasp, has special value as a sensational piece of evidence when the incriminating shoe / shoe print match was about to be revealed as bogus. Stefanoni could have wiped any item with Raffaelle's DNA - a sock, for example - but that bra clasp has special intimate meaning that makes it sensational physical evidence. Furthermore, going to Perugia and collecting the clasp on camera let's her grandstand on camera as she picks up THE key item to nail the murderer. Doing it in person enables her to demonstrate to herself and her patrons in Perugia - Mignini and Napoleoni's team - that Stefanoni is one of them, with them, important, and a hero.

 

[moije2]

The particular item, being a bra clasp, has special value as a sensational piece of evidence when the incriminating shoe / shoe print match was about to be revealed as bogus. Stefanoni could have wiped any item with Raffaelle's DNA - a sock, for example - but that bra clasp has special intimate meaning that makes it sensational physical evidence. Furthermore, going to Perugia and collecting the clasp on camera let's her grandstand on camera as she picks up THE key item to nail the murderer. Doing it in person enables her to demonstrate to herself and her patrons in Perugia - Mignini and Napoleoni's team - that Stefanoni is one of them, with them, important, and a hero.

I find this theory believable. Especially when you consider that in one fell swoop they could get DNA on intimate apparel of Meredith that would cinch the case for them. And almost did.

There certainly is a lot of supposition, but at minimum a discussion of "compatibility" could be had!

 

[Machiavelli]

A jury is in reality is a panel of judges. They are judging the defendant.

A rose by any other name would still smell sweet.

The point of the difference Mach is that in a jury trial, the judge who has no say to the guilt or innocence of the defendant can exclude prejudicial evidence or testimony from the eyes and ears of those people actually deciding the fate of the defendants. In Italy, the prosecution can poison the well.

But "judgeing" means something else.
And there may be a very different concept of justice beyond.
The job of panel of judges is not to answer a question about the guilt of the defendant put by the prosecution. Judges in Italy do not issue a verdict, but a sentence. And what we call "sentence" is not the decision about guilt or innocence or and the issue of penalty, this is something that we call purview (dispositivo); what we consider as "the sentence" is the report, the motivations report itself. That is actually what in the Italian system legally equates to the "verdict". It is not a decision on a question about charges, it is a decision about facts, and about law; the decision about charges is only a consequence of that.

The panel of judges also works "allo stato degli atti" - that is "on papers". They incorporate in their decision a big load of material which is not from the trial discussion. The judges read the case file previously to that, they already have seen a large amount of evidence (for example all photos including the pink bathroom photo) basically they have already seen all the stuff like pictures or reports that newspapers may publish.
Yes it could happen in some cases that the press puts in the open some really meaningful information that could influence opinions about the trial which the judges didn't see, but it's extremely rare, and didn't happen in this case.

In the Italian trial, the defendant is also granted very wide rights to offer his own "prejudicial" evidence to the judges, he can make declarations whenever he wants without being questioned about them, he can question witnesses, he can refuse single questions or thread of questions about any topic, he can lie.

The concept of justice may also be different from jury sistem in that there is no concept of "jury of peers". The judges are seen as superior in rank, not as peers of the defentant, and they are investigators; they are expected to perform a kind of sohisticated job, they don't expect to be explained or shown "simple" or "safe" evidence or to be shown "smoking guns".
What matters in fact is the reasoning of the professional judges; the set of lay members is only a counter-check to the professionals' work.