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

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,
This doesn't sound like you. You never use the word "also" -- you always use "moreover," among other subtle writing differences. I hope someone hasn't hacked Mach's JREF account.

I do not use "also" ?
Never known that. I really have nothing against "also". I can change word sometimes, I hope.

Do you have for me the document I've been waiting for you to show?

Are you talking about the May 20. 2011 hearing of Vecchiotti and Conti? Or somethign else?

I don't have it yet but I might have it soon, over the next weeks.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is not Italian restraint, it is American laws that prevent, for example, Mignini from suing Steve Shay and the West Seattle Herald. American laws allow the free-for-all that is the debate about this case. Nobody is ever going to get sued here, not even Peter Quennell.

Yes but this "debate" does not take place within the US borders, and there is factually no "free-for-all" rule (however, it is not true that the US has a "free-for-all" rule: people are accountable for what they say). There might be an "American" freedom ruling on Peter Quennell, but not on Mignini. The only possible response on Mignini's part is a criminal lawsuit.

The world is bigger anyway, the "free- for - all" is not the only paradigm, not something that every other society subscribes to on the same terms. Germany has crimonal defamation laws even harsher than Italy for example.

We don't have to influence millions of citizens, we only have to influence judges and legislators. Once a law is enacted, millions of citizens usually follow.

I found this a rather disturbing paradigm. It appears you offer an idea of democracy as a system focused on lobby activities; and I find most disturbing the extpressed intent of "influencing judges".

 

[Supernaut]

Reading all this, I have to wonder how you all stay sane.

Are you?

 

[Mary_H]

Yes but this "debate" does not take place within the US borders, and there is factually no "free-for-all" rule (however, it is not true that the US has a "free-for-all" rule: people are accountable for what they say). There might be an "American" freedom ruling on Peter Quennell, but not on Mignini. The only possible response on Mignini's part is a criminal lawsuit.

Sigh.

I found this a rather disturbing paradigm. It appears you offer an idea of democracy as a system focused on lobby activities; and I find most disturbing the extpressed intent of "influencing judges".

Sigh.

Democracy is a system focused on lobby activities. That is how issues come to people's (voters') attention.

As far as influencing judges, my point is that legal cases decided by judges can and do change laws, for example, laws against discrimination. Once a law against discrimination is enacted or passed, people's behavior follows, and eventually their minds follow their behavior. This is a sociological truth -- it's how culture works. It's basically why you believe your laws are good and we believe our laws are good.

It used to be against the law to have a dog in Iceland. Most Icelanders agreed that was a good law. The same mechanism is at work for the laws we are discussing here.

However, we can get beyond the basics, and discuss things in greater depth. To do that, though, we have to keep open minds, and use a number of approaches. We can't be content to say something like, "We are in disagreement about what is good or bad. Our disagreement will not change my opinion....."

This paragraph you wrote, for example, would make an excellent topic for a more in-depth discussion of cultural and legal differences:

"I think actually [Mignini] is taking responsibility as he should. The difference seems to be that I think that it is good and right on his part to file criminal lawsuits; you seem to think it’s morally bad."

 

[kwill]

In Guede's first instance trial, Bongiorno, Maori, Ghira & Dalla Vedova took part and argued that Guede was the sole perpetrator. Maori & Bongiorno brought up a piece of "evidence" that became rather famous, known as the "Y-shaped glass" theory. They argued there was a small piece of glass that was captured by the alleged burglar's shoe sole and carried along, left prints in blood etc.
But they did not make it, their arguments lost and were dismissed by the judge.
The judge actually was offered ample evidence about the alternative theory.

Thank you for that, I wasn't aware that A & R's lawyers were allowed to speak at the Guede trial. How did that work? Did they question witnesses? Could they call their own own witnesses? How did their evidence make it into the record? What prosecution evidence did they have access to? Italian legal procedures are endlessly surprising.

This occurred on the first instance though, not on Guede's appeal. Actually arguening further evidence on his appeal would have been impossible and illegal: the appeal was launched by Guede alone and meant to focus only on a limited number of points rose by Guede's defence.

Yes, and I see this as a problem. The Guede conviction was for a particular crime (collaborative murder with sexual motive). Are you saying that that conviction cemented the idea that this collaborative murder with sexual motive had definitely taken place, and there could NEVER be an appeal challenging that fact?

Bear in mind also that Guede's trial was a short track trial. This option legally prevents the prosecution from introducing further pieces of evidence against him. That was uninfluential in this case, but the rule exists. In the US there is plea bargain, which is actually far more baffling and more disruptive to the process of evidence collection, imho.

The plea bargain is widely abused here, I agree, and can lead to innocent people being convicted, as happened in the Kercher case.

It must be anyway clear that the prosecutions - all prosecutions that investigated the case - concluded that the scenario of events had three perpetrators, that is what they found in their evidence. They obviously put forward that scenario, they could not logically prosecute another one incompatible with their case, at the same time.

Their collection of evidence was unprofessional, slipshod, and sometimes laughable. It left a great many questions unanswered. If they had collected evidence properly, their conclusions would absolutely have been different.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes but this "debate" does not take place within the US borders, and there is factually no "free-for-all" rule (however, it is not true that the US has a "free-for-all" rule: people are accountable for what they say). There might be an "American" freedom ruling on Peter Quennell, but not on Mignini. The only possible response on Mignini's part is a criminal lawsuit.

There is a reason that the rest of the Western world is encouraging, even demanding that Italy reform and decriminalize it's defamation laws.

http://www.article19.org/resources..../italy:-urgent-need-to-reform-defamation-laws

Mignini, is the liar not Spezi and Sfarzo. What he and Guttiari did in the MOF case is horrible and was destructive to countless people. Mignini is the one who belongs behind bars not Spezi. But Mignini, being a prosecutor was and remains intoxicated with his own authority and power. Sadly, this has allowed him to wield that stick against anyone who embarrasses the fat disgusting slob.

Hopefully, karma will be the bitch we know she can be and fat ass will find himself in Campanne. Hopefully in Raffaele's old cell. Or maybe it will play out like it did in Shawshank when fat ass couldn't stop crying.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sigh.



Sigh.

Democracy is a system focused on lobby activities. That is how issues come to people's attention.

As far as influencing judges, my point is that legal cases decided by judges can and do change laws, for example, laws against discrimination. Once a law against discrimination is enacted or passed, people's behavior follows, and eventually their minds follow their behavior. This is a sociological truth -- it's how culture works. It's basically why you believe your laws are good and we believe our laws are good.

What Machiavelli is missing is that judges, in the main, WANT to be influenced.... perhaps not from some powerful lobbyist, but by this thing known as public opinion.

Prosecutors here in my country operate on two principles in advancing a case - is there a reasonable chance of conviction, and is it in the public interest to advance the case. This latter criterion requires "the public" to engage in debate, so that prosecutors and judges have something to go one when measuring, "the public interest."

In Machiavelli's world, the prosecutors get to be above all of this. They get to decide what will be asserted at trial, even if the facts don't support it. Apparently, for Machiavelli, prosecutors' assertions replace evidence.

Look what he said about the clean-up as asserted by Massei in 2010. There was only ONE explanation possible for a footprint on the mat and no intervening ones from the bedroom. Everytime someone puts forward an equally (im)probable hypothesis about the footprint on the mat, Machiavelli et al. just wave it away with a flick of the hand.

It's hard to argue with this sort of elitism, esp. when the prosecutors also hold the cards as to who is or isn't investigated. Machiavelli talks as if the prosecutors' automatically investigate ALL allegations of crime - yet when Knox said she was hit at interrogation, all Comodi did was ask Ficarra - did you hit her? When Ficarra said, "no", that ended the investigation!

Me, I'm having trouble keeping up with Machiavelli. He claims something, then the thread descends into dietrology about whether he said what he'd said, or whether some uninitiate understands the nuances of meaning that infect the most simple of allegations!

I am steeling myself for Machiavelli's dietrology about how judges should not be influenced all the while where judges are begging for some sort of feedback from the public as to what "the public good" is. Believe it or not - that's one of the criterion judges use to make decisions.

 

[Bill Williams]

I said I thought it was compatible. I may point out that the Prosecution General of Florence said the same thing.

You're right, Crinii did. Which just prove the axiom that the world has more than one person who has sold his integrity. But Crini is the idiot who came up with the poop theory. So nothing surprises me about that moron. I thought you were better than that.

There's nothing compatable about it. Not even Mignini tried to get away with this....

Yet, this is NOT the reason Crini suddenly decided to make this claim out-of-the-blue, against everything said on the subject for six years up until he said it.

It's a virtual conceding that the DNA evidence no longer supports AK and RS as involved in this crime. Crini HAS to say something to keep that knife in the story.... or else he's conceding that the most important elements of the case against RS and AK have been fiction from the start.

I'm not even sure Crini blushed when he made that claim, but it would make him seem more as a human being when he does so in reaction to telling a whopper!

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for that, I wasn't aware that A & R's lawyers were allowed to speak at the Guede trial. How did that work? Did they question witnesses? Could they call their own own witnesses? How did their evidence make it into the record? What prosecution evidence did they have access to? Italian legal procedures are endlessly surprising.

Well, it's simple: the Guede first instance trial was Knox and Sollecito's preliminary hearing phase. They took part actively to all its hearing sessions.
Yes they could cross-question all the witnesses. They could bring in evidence (they did, as I explained), there are some time limitations due to the fact that it is a short track trial, so they could not present like a long list of witnsses. They called Torre, for example.
They obviously accessed all documentation from the prosecution file that was entered in the trial, from both the investigation and the trial.

Yes, and I see this as a problem. The Guede conviction was for a particular crime (collaborative murder with sexual motive). Are you saying that that conviction cemented the idea that this collaborative murder with sexual motive had definitely taken place, and there could NEVER be an appeal challenging that fact?

I don't understand the question/objection actually. The Guede first instance conviction was an actual conviction. I mean it's not that it "cements an idea", it is a real conviction, a fact finding decision.
Within the proceedings against Guede, the basic setting of charges could not be challenged, that's clear. There was nobody there any more with a specific interest to really challenge the collaborative murder scenario. But that one was an appeal by Guede agaisnt his previous conviction, it's something with a much more limited scope.
However, the appeal judges have a duty to investigate and do fact findings if they think there are unconvincing aspects in the first instance decision. So they theoretically could have challenged the basic setting.
They instead decided to accept it, they maybe even emphasized the minor role of Guede by awarding him generic mitigation.

Their collection of evidence was unprofessional, slipshod, and sometimes laughable. It left a great many questions unanswered. If they had collected evidence properly, their conclusions would absolutely have been different.

This is a very very personal opinion of yours. And in my opinion you come to a totally unfounded conclusion.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's nothing compatable about it. Not even Mignini tried to get away with this....

Yet, this is NOT the reason Crini suddenly decided to make this claim out-of-the-blue, against everything said on the subject for six years up until he said it.

It's a virtual conceding that the DNA evidence no longer supports AK and RS as involved in this crime. (...)

Talking about dietrology.
Linking the unlinked things. By oriented connectors "it's a virtual conceding that....". This is basic dietrology for beginners.

 

[Mary_H]

What Machiavelli is missing is that judges, in the main, WANT to be influenced.... perhaps not from some powerful lobbyist, but by this thing known as public opinion.

Prosecutors here in my country operate on two principles in advancing a case - is there a reasonable chance of conviction, and is it in the public interest to advance the case. This latter criterion requires "the public" to engage in debate, so that prosecutors and judges have something to go one when measuring, "the public interest."

In Machiavelli's world, the prosecutors get to be above all of this. They get to decide what will be asserted at trial, even if the facts don't support it. Apparently, for Machiavelli, prosecutors' assertions replace evidence....

Machiavelli made some excellent points in his earlier post about the Italian legal system. I especially liked these two:

3. there are too many lawyers, they lobby to inflate the number of cases and oppose to incentives that would reduce it, which is the basic reason why the law is designed to produce so many cases (to feed lawyers’ bellies); 4. In the Italian jurisdiction (as in several others) magistrates are compelled to prosecute all crimes, they cannot chose the most important ones and drop the others.

It's obvious the system has become too broad and disorganized, with overlapping and unclear boundaries between criminal and civil cases. It's very confusing and seems to consume a lot of energy and money, unnecessarily.

 

[Supernaut]

Talking about dietrology.
Linking the unlinked things. By oriented connectors "it's a virtual conceding that....". This is basic dietrology for beginners.

"Dietrologica", indeed.

If this is something that Machi and other Italians take seriously, God help them.

But I suspect he's just being (as Americans say) "cute".

 

[moodstream]

Rudy Guede is literate and of above average intelligence, who is trading a few years of his own freedom for a collective 50 years freedom of others with perfect comprehension of what he is doing. This situation is probably unprecedented, he should be considered the most evil person of the century.

I am not so sure about the literate part. Murdering anyone one is despicable, I grant you, but lying to save his butt at the expense of others is a sad but typical part of the human story. I guess I don't find that evil. I don't know if he is intelligent or not, but, I will tell you one thing for sure, if you let only the most intelligent people run the world they will rob you blind. There is a big difference between character and intelligence. Not that Guede has any character.

But I will ask you to consider this. I hope it makes you feel good to be able to declare Guede to be evil, because it doesn't accomplish anything else. And, frankly, I am not so sure that he is more evil than you or me. You don't know what it is like to be him. You don't see the world that he sees. You are not being driven by the same latent inner reality that he is. I think you want good to consist of his overcoming that to be more like you. But he may not have the capacity to do that, and, he may understanding himself, probably correctly, as being different in a way that he cannot help but that always leads him back to needing to steal to survive. A powerful set of internalized forces drove Guede for a long time and led to the circumstance that led to the murder. Can you say a better man would have risen above those forces and circumstances? Okay, fine. Guede was not a better man than his life circumstances. Is that evil, or just unfortunate?

 

[Bill Williams]

There's nothing compatable about it. Not even Mignini tried to get away with this....

Yet, this is NOT the reason Crini suddenly decided to make this claim out-of-the-blue, against everything said on the subject for six years up until he said it.

It's a virtual conceding that the DNA evidence no longer supports AK and RS as involved in this crime. (...)

Talking about dietrology.
Linking the unlinked things. By oriented connectors "it's a virtual conceding that....". This is basic dietrology for beginners.

Huh? I am not operating under some mysterious knowledge only available to some elite or an initiate.... or reading between the lines, or quibbling definitions or nuances....

You can agree or diagree with my supposition, that it your right. But it is not dietrology - it is a straight forward suppositon.

It answers the most obvious of questions - why would Crini claim something that even Mignini was too embarrassed to claim? Mignini claimed a "two knife theory" because it was simply obvious that the Kitchen knife was not even remotely a match for the outline on the sheet.

OIC - it's a playground game of, "I know you are but what am I?" It's not logical to simply assert I'm engaging in what I'm accusing you of, when it is plainly not the case. I could be wrong, but it's patently not the kind of dietrology you engage in.....

Dietrology is suddenly coming out with the assertion, "I only said the kitchen knife was compatible.....", and then we are invited to argue "compatibility." You see? That's how dietrology works. Arguing definitions of words only loosely related to the main claim....

Or is there some nuance to the word "compatible" that I am missing? Ooooops! Now THAT'S an invitation to dietrology to ask!

 

[Machiavelli]

Huh? I am not operating under some mysterious knowledge only available to some elite or an initiate.... or reading between the lines, or quibbling definitions or nuances....

You can agree or diagree with my supposition, that it your right. But it is not dietrology - it is a straight forward suppositon.

It reminds me of Paolo Franceschetti, a lawyer who is used to make reasoning like this one:

The Red Brigdes had a pentacle as their simbol. The Italian Republic also has a pentacle as a symbol. The pentacle is an ancient exoteric and masonic symbol. So, to conclude, there is an implicit admission that the Red Brigades and the Italian State are the same entity and they act on behalf of the same organization inspired by masonic values....

I think this straight forward supposition is called dietrology, at least. Actually it can be called conspiracy theory paradigm.

 

[Bill Williams]

It reminds me of Paolo Franceschetti, a lawyer who is used to make reasoning like this one:

The Red Brigdes had a pentacle as their simbol. The Italian Republic also has a pentacle as a symbol. The pentacle is an ancient exoteric and masonic symbol. So, to conclude, there is an implicit admission that the Red Brigades and the Italian State are the same entity and they act on behalf of the same organization inspired by masonic values....

I think this straight forward supposition is called dietrology, at least. Actually it can be called conspiracy theory paradigm.

Huh?

Ok... thanks for telling us what you think.... I think.

 

[acbytesla]

There's nothing compatible about it. Not even Mignini tried to get away with this....

Yet, this is NOT the reason Crini suddenly decided to make this claim out-of-the-blue, against everything said on the subject for six years up until he said it.

It's a virtual conceding that the DNA evidence no longer supports AK and RS as involved in this crime. Crini HAS to say something to keep that knife in the story.... or else he's conceding that the most important elements of the case against RS and AK have been fiction from the start.

I'm not even sure Crini blushed when he made that claim, but it would make him seem more as a human being when he does so in reaction to telling a whopper!

I can't say I agree with this analysis Bill. I think Crini is a moron and is throwing everything into his argument including the kitchen sink.
He hasn't abandoned the DNA, he has just abandoned the value of any expert testimony including the RIS.

To even hint that the knife actually made the knife stain is to argue that jury should ignore their own eyes and instead by swayed be the melodic tones of the PM instead.

Crini is actually telling the judge and jury to ignore the evidence, ignore expert opinion, ignore their own eyes, ignore logic and just fall for the bs.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's nothing compatible about it. Not even Mignini tried to get away with this....

Yet, this is NOT the reason Crini suddenly decided to make this claim out-of-the-blue, against everything said on the subject for six years up until he said it.

It's a virtual conceding that the DNA evidence no longer supports AK and RS as involved in this crime. Crini HAS to say something to keep that knife in the story.... or else he's conceding that the most important elements of the case against RS and AK have been fiction from the start.

I'm not even sure Crini blushed when he made that claim, but it would make him seem more as a human being when he does so in reaction to telling a whopper!

I can't say I agree with this analysis Bill. I think Crini is a moron and is throwing everything into his argument including the kitchen sink.
He hasn't abandoned the DNA, he has just abandoned the value of any expert testimony including the RIS.

To even hint that the knife actually made the knife stain is to argue that jury should ignore their own eyes and instead by swayed be the melodic tones of the PM instead.

Crini is actually telling the judge and jury to ignore the evidence, ignore expert opinion, ignore their own eyes, ignore logic and just fall for the bs.

You'd better be careful, acbytesla. You may be sharing a cell with Machiavelli who's claimed that Hellmann is corrupt, and even claims to know how many Euros it took (passed to him by The Masons) to purposely throw the verdict!

Now you're calling Crini a moron.

Ok... which one of us likes Crini best? Me, I think he's in an untenable position. But then again he could win this. I mean, this IS Italy!

Your position is different: Crini is taking the position of, "Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying eyes?"

I think my position is better - he knows the DNA evidence is lost, and if that is lost then the Italian judiciary has been keeping that ridiculous knife in play for 6 years for no reason.

Me; I'd like Machiavelli to at least agree that no one has been embarrassed enough to have claimed a "compatibility" between the knife and bedsheet outline until now, whatever the definition of "dietrology" is. Not even Mignini, and Mignini told some whoppers... just not this one.

So between you and me Crini is either a desperate prosecutor being tossed an untenable case, or he's a moron!

I suddenly feel for the Kerchers. They deserve justice here, and neither Crini nor Machiavelli is giving it to them.

 

[RandyN]

Actually there is a bunch of them, my point is that if Machiavelli can subscribe to the insane belief that a physically and psychologically implausible chain of events occurred, then maybe Mignini can too.Rudy on the other hand has perfect unambiguous knowledge of what occurred, that he killed alone, so he has top ranking in my view.

Ya...NO. The thing is Mignini, against anything in Italian precedent begged to be kept on during the appeal trial of RS and AK. It's very complicated he claimed. And yet the real unquestionable killer Rudy Guede was ignored by Mignini after his initial conviction. He didn't ask to be part of Guedes appeal because somehow that must have not been complicated (sure its not complicated when you (Mignini) have already made the sweetheart deal with Guede). And so no prosecution appeal against Guede during his appeal trial...thus life reduced to 30 and then further reduced to 16 which will be further reduced because the murderer made a deal with Mignini...errr is subject to good behavior release. And so soon Perugia will release a murderer back onto its streets. Perfect I say. After all, they could have stopped this murder by simply arresting and charging him with breaking and entering with a deadly weapon and in possession of stolen property....but no...someone in Perugia or Milan released Guede which allowed him the freedom to rob, rape and murder Meridith Kercher. That is blindly obvious. Why the world allows Italy to continue this farce in order to cover up their deadly blunder is beyond me.

Where are the investigative reporters? Where are the internal controls that should be in place for any police force? In Italy??? The police and judiciary operate with the moral authority of the mafia...maybe even less morals...

 

[Poppy1016]

It appears that there is still confusion elsewhere about the problems surrounding Gubbiotti and his handling of the knife. Therefore, I would like to return to these problems one more time. First, I cannot think of any reason for anyone to unpackage and then repackage the knife. Once the forensic team has sealed it up, it should go straight to the laboratory.

Second, it is undisputed that Officer Gubbiotti was at the women’s cottage prior to his repackaging of the knife. I read one comment to the effect that he was there to catalog Meredith's belongings, but I don't have a citation for that. Reporting on the Patrick Waring case Estelle Blackburn wrote, “In court, police conceded they had not followed best practice in the case. Various officers said that the Central Park scene was left unguarded from 1.25am on the night, it was a week before it was searched, and the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence.” If anyone were going to handle the knife, it should not have been Gubbiotti. What is not best practice in Perth is not best practice in Perugia.

Third, I offered the following scenario as no more than one of at least several plausible routes of contamination: Airborne DNA perhaps from Meredith’s dried blood, to Officer Gubbiotti’s clothing, to his gloves, to the knife. Let us break this down step by step. There is an unpublished study that shows that dried blood is a bigger DNA contamination risk that wet blood. Airborne DNA is a well-recognized problem in DNA forensics. DNA has been found on examination gloves handling a very soiled dress. Clothing sometimes has DNA that is not from either the wearer or his/her immediate family. Some of it may come from the air. Arguments from personal incredulity about a particular route are not very convincing when it comes to something as easily transferred as DNA; they are even less convicing when that person is ill-informed.

Four many other routes are possible. Proving which route it was would be difficult under the best of circumstances. However, now that Amanda’s DNA was shown to be on the blade, it is even more likely that Meredith’s profile is the result of some form of contamination. How could anyone remove blood from the knife without removing starch in at least one place and DNA in two places? It is absurd.

Thank you for this post. It certainly helps my understanding this issue much better.