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

[Grinder]

A general response to various posts.

Looking through the lens of the paedophile case and the views many here have of the annulment of Hellmann’s verdict distorts or ignores the work of Supreme Court, in my opinion.

I don’t see a connection, I can’t say based on the paedophile case what the verdict of Raffaele and Amanda appeal will be.

I'm really surprised by your response and lack of addressing questions.

Do you believe there is any way that the feelings of an 11 year old girl should ever be considered in this sort of case?

Do you not see that this ruling, at a minimum, gives the impression that the judges live in a atmosphere that is not the same as the rest of the world?

Does it not trouble you that the ISC would require the defense of Amanda and Raf to explain who the accomplices of Rudy were?

Do you not understand that when any evidence and in particular LCN DNA is used to convict someone that the authorities must show that the evidence was handled in such a way that contamination or other mistakes can't happen rather than the other way around?

What sort of ruling from the ISC would cause you pause?

 

[Bill Williams]

A general response to various posts.

Looking through the lens of the paedophile case and the views many here have of the annulment of Hellmann’s verdict distorts or ignores the work of Supreme Court, in my opinion.

I don’t see a connection, I can’t say based on the paedophile case what the verdict of Raffaele and Amanda appeal will be.

Me neither. Nencini will either take a fresh look at all the evidence and acquit, or actually agree with the "osmotic" view of the case that 1o0s of assertions equals an "osmotic" case. But based on the paedophile case at Cassazione, it's not clear what Nencini (et al.) will do.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am curious whether anyone here can see the slightest connection between this case involving 60 year old and Raffaele and Amanda’s ongoing appeal?

Are you being serious? Seriously?

 

[bri1]

A general response to various posts.

Looking through the lens of the paedophile case and the views many here have of the annulment of Hellmann’s verdict distorts or ignores the work of Supreme Court, in my opinion.

I don’t see a connection, I can’t say based on the paedophile case what the verdict of Raffaele and Amanda appeal will be.

It wasn't necessarily a predictive connection.

Do you not think the court has, in both instances, ignored or wilfully misinterpreted the statutes?
There is presumably a law which says it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent, regardless of any 'relationship' between the victim and abuser. There is definitely a law ( CPP article 192) which clearly states the standards that evidence must meet before it is considered in conjunction with other evidence. Cassazione ignored this law when it dictated to the Florence court that it should consider the evidence 'osmotically'.

 

[LondonJohn]

You can say what veredict the supreme court wants: a conviction based on the idea that there was a "sex game gone wrong".

It's the same court who wants the acquittal of a 60 years old paedophile because the lower court didn't consider the "amorous relationship" between him and an 11 year old child.

The same supreme court who considers that it is impossible to rape a woman wearing pants.

The ever-growing body of evidence is suggesting that the Italian Supreme Court is incapable of dispensing or administering criminal justice at the highest level in Italy. Simple as that, really.

When the highest court in a country is issuing rulings such as these, it's far more than a pause for thought. If I were an Italian journalist of any repute, I would be shouting very loudly at legislators to overhaul the whole system of judiciary. It's very clearly horribly broken, unaccountable, and unfit for purpose.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am curious whether anyone here can see the slightest connection between a case involving 60 year old and Raffaele and Amanda’s ongoing appeal?

Really, Coulsdon, really?! You can't see any connection at all?!?

I'll explain it then.
Both cases show that members of Cassazione are unable to grasp major psychological concepts such as coercion and psychological manipulation.
In Pietro Lamberti's case, the judges are unable to see the power authority figures can exert, how someone (especially children and young people) could be manipulated into having certain mental states (in this case feelings) or making certain statements (eg I love him).
In AK's case, the judges are unable to see the power authority figures can exert, how someone (especially children and young people) could be manipulated into having certain mental states (in this case memories) or making certain statements (eg I was there and Patrick did it).
See?

There's also the mandate that the ISC is not supposed to be ruling on the weight a lower court put on various elements of evidence. Unless there's some misapplication of Italian law that says that an evidentary court shall not consider a 60 year old having sex with an 11 year old without the proper application of mitigating circumstances, the ISC (one would think) cannot simply disagree with the application of mitigating circumstances.

The ISC should not, it seems, be allowed to venture an opinion on evidence and whether its believable or not. Yet it does time after time. The connection, CoulsdonUK, is that the ISC is interfering, with no judicial oversight (except perhaps for the ECHR).

Most ISC hearings last an hour or so - designed, presumably, so as to go through a checklist of the application of applicable law. To many, it seems that the ISC actually retries the case, making rulings on the content of evidence as if they'd heard the witnesses and examined the exhibits and heard the crossexamination.

Is the ISC set up for that? For instance, for those who say (like Andrea Vogt) that AK and RS were essentially convicted at Rudy's trial - one would think the ISC would look into the constitutionality of people getting convicted at trials they had no representation at!!!!!

That sort of thing. Yet the ISC seems to be ordering a harmony - that Nencini is locked into convicting the pair, based on the "multiple attacker" finding at Rudy's trial, and that those extra two were AK and RS.

Seriously CoulsdonUK? If you were charged with a crime would you want to be seen as guilty before you'd even seen a courtroom?

 

[LondonJohn]

It wasn't necessarily a predictive connection.

Do you not think the court has, in both instances, ignored or wilfully misinterpreted the statutes?
There is presumably a law which says it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent, regardless of any 'relationship' between the victim and abuser. There is definitely a law ( CPP article 192) which clearly states the standards that evidence must meet before it is considered in conjunction with other evidence. Cassazione ignored this law when it dictated to the Florence court that it should consider the evidence 'osmotically'.

Yep. When the highest court in the land is clearly "freestyling" the legislation, it's time for a root-and-branch overhaul. If I were an Italian citizen, I would currently have almost zero faith in my criminal justice system, since it appears to be rotten from the top down.

And it therefore goes without saying that if I were Knox or Sollecito, this latest horror show from the SC would be making me very nervous to say the least.

 

[bri1]

It wasn't necessarily a predictive connection.

Do you not think the court has, in both instances, ignored or wilfully misinterpreted the statutes?
There is presumably a law which says it is illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent, regardless of any 'relationship' between the victim and abuser. There is definitely a law ( CPP article 192) which clearly states the standards that evidence must meet before it is considered in conjunction with other evidence. Cassazione ignored this law when it dictated to the Florence court that it should consider the evidence 'osmotically'.

Ok, so I did just read a little about Italy's consent laws. It appears that abuse of 10-13 year olds is not illegal there, unless the victim makes a complaint. It is only when the child is under 10 that the abuse is prosecutable without the 'complaint' from the child.
It appears that I am therefore wrong- Cassazione is, in the Lamberti case, following the letter of the law.
Of course, this just makes it a disgusting and indefensible aspect of Italian law, which basically says to paedophiles, as long as you manipulate a 10 year old into thinking they're in love or intimidate them into not making a complaint, then you can abuse them without fear of legal consequences.
Christ almighty.

 

[bri1]

Clarification: if a complaint was brought, Cassazione was off script, technically, but is acting according to the spirit of the law (which is basically that the behavior is wrong only if the victim thinks it is).

 

[RoseMontague]

Ok, so I did just read a little about Italy's consent laws. It appears that abuse of 10-13 year olds is not illegal there, unless the victim makes a complaint. It is only when the child is under 10 that the abuse is prosecutable without the 'complaint' from the child.
It appears that I am therefore wrong- Cassazione is, in the Lamberti case, following the letter of the law.
Of course, this just makes it a disgusting and indefensible aspect of Italian law, which basically says to paedophiles, as long as you manipulate a 10 year old into thinking they're in love or intimidate them into not making a complaint, then you can abuse them without fear of legal consequences.
Christ almighty.

Seriously? That is terrible.

 

[Methos]

Ok, so I did just read a little about Italy's consent laws. It appears that abuse of 10-13 year olds is not illegal there, unless the victim makes a complaint. It is only when the child is under 10 that the abuse is prosecutable without the 'complaint' from the child.
It appears that I am therefore wrong- Cassazione is, in the Lamberti case, following the letter of the law.
Of course, this just makes it a disgusting and indefensible aspect of Italian law, which basically says to paedophiles, as long as you manipulate a 10 year old into thinking they're in love or intimidate them into not making a complaint, then you can abuse them without fear of legal consequences.
Christ almighty.

Where did you read that? I found this one about rape:

Art. 519 C.P. Della violenza carnale.
Chiunque, con violenza o minaccia, costringe taluno a congiunzione carnale è punito con la reclusione da tre a dieci anni. Alla stessa pena soggiace chi si congiunge carnalmente con persona la quale al momento del fatto:
1) non ha compiuto gli anni quattordici;
2) non ha compiuto gli anni sedici, quando il colpevole ne è l'ascendente o il tutore, ovvero è un'altra persona a cui il minore è affidato per ragioni di cura, di educazione, di istruzione, di vigilanza o di custodia;
3) è malata di mente, ovvero non è in grado di resistergli a cagione delle proprie condizioni d'inferiorità psichica o fisica, anche se questa è indipendente dal fatto del colpevole;
4) è stata tratta in inganno, per essersi il colpevole sostituito ad altra persona.

google

Article 519 the rape.
Whoever, by violence or threats, compels someone to carnal shall be punished with imprisonment from three to ten years. The same punishment who joins carnally with a person who at the time of the act: 1) has not reached the age of fourteen; 2) has not reached the age of sixteen, when the culprit is their parent or guardian, or another person who is the child, and for reasons of care, education, instruction, supervision or custody;3) is mentally ill, or is unable to resist them by reason of their mental or physical condition of inferiority, even if this is independent of whether the offender;
4) has been misled, for being the culprit replaced by another person.

I think the motivations can be found here.

 

[Bill Williams]

Clarification: if a complaint was brought, Cassazione was off script, technically, but is acting according to the spirit of the law (which is basically that the behavior is wrong only if the victim thinks it is).

So CoulsdonUK may be correct.

Why, then, do I not feel better?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I'm really surprised by your response and lack of addressing questions.

Do you believe there is any way that the feelings of an 11 year old girl should ever be considered in this sort of case?

Assuming the report is accurate, I regard the man as a paedophile, period.

Do you not see that this ruling, at a minimum, gives the impression that the judges live in a atmosphere that is not the same as the rest of the world?

I am not going to criticise the entire Italian Supreme Court because of this one case.

Does it not trouble you that the ISC would require the defense of Amanda and Raf to explain who the accomplices of Rudy were?

Do you not understand that when any evidence and in particular LCN DNA is used to convict someone that the authorities must show that the evidence was handled in such a way that contamination or other mistakes can't happen rather than the other way around?

So far the Caribinieri have published their results and prosecution and civil parties have laid out their case against Raffaele and Amanda, I have found it difficult to reconcile what folks believe the Supreme Court motivations stated with what is actually taken place in the appeal.

 

[Antony]

A general response to various posts.

Looking through the lens of the paedophile case and the views many here have of the annulment of Hellmann’s verdict distorts or ignores the work of Supreme Court, in my opinion.

You write as though reactions to the ISC decision over the Hellman verdicts were a matter of opinion, rather than measured assessment of the issues.

My "view" (since that's how you describe it) is that the ISC acted illegally in annulling the Hellman acquittals. Would you care to explain how it is possible to have a different "view" - i.e., the legal basis for the annulment - and the upholding of the calunnia conviction, come to that?

I don’t see a connection, I can’t say based on the paedophile case what the verdict of Raffaele and Amanda appeal will be.

It doesn't say anything about how the Nencini court will decide, but it is a further indication that the ISC cannot be trusted to make any rational decision in concluding the case.

 

[bri1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

QUOTE=Methos;9728644]Where did you read that? I found this one about rape:

google


I think the motivations can be found here.[/QUOTE]

I read it on Wikipedia's page on laws around the age of consent:

"*If the minor involved is under the age of 10, the crime can be punished even without a complaint and the punishment is aggravated." (Link above)

I'm pretty certain this implies that a complaint is required age 10 or over...
Thanks for the link to motivations report.

 

[bri1]

Seriously? That is terrible.

It certainly appears that way, although there's always the chance that Wikipedia is inaccurate or that I'm misinterpreting.
It's absolutely terrible. Ugh.

 

[Strozzi]

You can say what veredict the supreme court wants: a conviction based on the idea that there was a "sex game gone wrong".

It's the same court who wants the acquittal of a 60 years old paedophile because the lower court didn't consider the "amorous relationship" between him and an 11 year old child.

The same supreme court who considers that it is impossible to rape a woman wearing pants.

It's the little girl's fault. She should have been wearing bluejeans, then it wouldn't have happened.

 

[katy_did]

I read it on Wikipedia's page on laws around the age of consent:

"*If the minor involved is under the age of 10, the crime can be punished even without a complaint and the punishment is aggravated." (Link above)

I'm pretty certain this implies that a complaint is required age 10 or over...
Thanks for the link to motivations report.

It doesn't imply that the complaint needs to be from the child themselves, though; presumably it can from the child's parent or someone else (as was probably the case here).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

which issues do you mean?

So far the Caribinieri have published their results and prosecution and civil parties have laid out their case against Raffaele and Amanda, I have found it difficult to reconcile what folks believe the Supreme Court motivations stated with what is actually taken place in the appeal.

CoulsdonUK,

Would you please be a little bit more specific? And would you clarify whether or not what "folks believe" about the CSC motivations is what you think the motivations says? Thank you.

 

[Strozzi]

It doesn't imply that the complaint needs to be from the child themselves, though; presumably it can from the child's parent or someone else (as was probably the case here).

I wish I believed in Hell, for it would give me comfort to believe there is a special place there for pedophile predators.