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

[moije2]

Originally Posted by moije2 View Post
I would rather let Bubba in jail have a go at me than to live with this injustice.

No, you wouldn't.

Speak for yourself.

I consider this drawn out public raping of both Amanda and Raffaele to be a greater trauma than an individual finite assault. Psychological and physical trauma would be immense, but one can at least attempt to get on with one's life. Whereas the current predicament they are in is that they have suffered an immense trauma and now have to keep fighting against a big amorphous cloud of accusations that goes on and on and on. With no end in sight. And is taking down their families with them.

So if I were given the choice between the two paths, I would take Bubba and get it over with. Good for you if you have more stamina than me.

Keep in mind that compounding the trauma is that they are under attack by the system. By society's institution of justice. Few would withhold sympathy for being attacked by a bad apple. Witness the Kercher family. They have sympathy from all quarters for their loss. This prosecution under color of law is the enormous human rights violation.

 

[Vibio]

a juror is basically asking, in my mind, how she should vote.

Yes, in your mind.

 

[Diocletus]

Part III

"The enormous prison population in the United States partly reflects harsh sentencing practices contrary to international law, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2013. The sentencing practices include disproportionately long prison terms, mandatory sentencing without parole, and treating youth offenders as adults. The US maintains the world’s largest incarcerated population, at 1.6 million, and its highest per capita incarceration rate.

Human Rights Watch research in 2012 found that the massive overincarceration includes a growing number of elderly people whom prisons are ill-equipped to handle, and an estimated 93,000 youth under age 18 in adult jails and another 2,200 in adult prisons. Hundreds of children are subjected to solitary confinement. Racial and ethnic minorities remain disproportionately represented in the prison population.

"The United States has shown little interest in tackling abusive practices that have contributed to the country’s huge prison population,” said Maria McFarland, deputy US program director at Human Rights Watch. "Unfortunately, it is society’s most vulnerable – racial and ethnic minorities, low-income people, immigrants, children, and the elderly – who are most likely to suffer from injustices in the criminal justice system."


http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/31/us-injustices-filling-prisons

Interesting, but none of it has to do with what my post said.

 

[Vibio]

And what does the US get out of it's abusive draconian justice system?

One of the Western World's highest crime rates!

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

 

[Diocletus]

You mean the part where it says: " but overall that system is much better."

Oh my sides! (Part II)

Really?. It's only a four line post and you missed the relevant part.

 

[Wildhorses]

NO!

Italians own the ISC. Italians are guilty of accepting a 60 year old pervert for raping a 11 year old. But please feel free to present a case for Italians ignoring this abhorrent behavior.

News articles? Mass protests in the streets? Anything?

Look when pigs pretend to be human and you wish to defend their right to do so...feel free. Silently pretending that unacceptable behavior is not happening is not a correct response at this point.

ISC hell...what about Mattini, Massei...even Hellmanns perverted convolution?

Sure lots of evil in the world...no matter. To not place blame where it belongs (that would be the silent sheeple of Italy BTW) is shortsighted and apologetic much like Englands Chamberlain hope that Hitler was going to keep his promises..."Peace in Our Time"

Really? Sorry....wake up! Its been 6 years. 6 years of abusive process and a country that seems to be ignorant or uncaring about truth or honesty or even the morals about sex with a 11 year old. Why would you wish to to speak out against this? ( or rather remain silent which seems to be your point)

Please I'm confused. In fact any partner of Italy should also suffer the consequences of the foolishness and corrupt acts of the law of the land in Italy. I disagree that attacking Italy is pointless. Rather there is no point hiding their behavior or pretending it is acceptable.

Its shameful and there are numerous examples of a disinterested low principled rot in the whole society. I defend my position by the lack of protest of a 60 year old being given consideration for love in regards to the rape of a 11 year old girl. Please feel free to defends the Italian reaction.

I say they are morally deficient.

Now list the cases where a whole country like OZ or USA etc get behind a farce as clear as the two I have laid out...RS/Ak and 60 yr old pervert? We can ignore the Scazzi, earthquake scientists, and that clumsy ship captain.

Cite the politicians demanding investigations. The newspapers doing an investigation (really how hard would that be in this matter...be honest) Anything?

How quickly did the 60 year old disappear from the news? Huh? Oh OK. Justin Beaver was a distraction in the news.

Randy, I deplore what's going on in the handful of Italian legal cases I'm familiar with. I am aware Italy has the worst human rights record in Western Europe.

And I'm no expert on the American legal system.

I do, however, think there should be more sensitivity to racist/borderline racist comments.

You keep asking why Italians aren't marching in the streets over the Knox case. How many people are marching in the streets of the U.S. over abuses of the legal system? Answer: few. Do you think that means we don't have our share of abuses?

Innocent people have been detained at Guantanomo for over a decade. Many were by no means enemy combatants: they were captured by bounty hunters who sold them to the U.S. A couple dozen were under 18. These people have been tortured, denied protection under the Geneva Convention, forbidden to practice their religion. There are no plans to release them.

Are you marching in the street?

Take a look at the Innocence Project web site. The U.S. has its share of wrongful convictions. We have executed innocent people. BTW, much of the world finds the death penalty barbaric. BTW, our prisons are full of human rights abuses.

Read the New Yorker article on how our legal system handled the Thomas Drake case. He blew the whistle on waste and corruption at the NSA -- and we threw the book at him, raided his home at gun-point, indicted him for espionage and other obviously trumped up charges. He's been exonerated... it took seven years.

American injustices don't make Italy less wrong. But you're mistaken if don't know we have Amanda Knox cases in our own backyard. If you're honest, you'll admit we live quite complacently with the fact that race and income have a HUGE impact on justice in America. I agree the cases of all those poor black guys in the south aren't nearly as fascinating as the Knox case. Doesn't mean they're less immoral. Or that we don't have our own pigs. Or that we don't silently pretend it's not happening.

The ISC child molestation is sickening. These days American courts are pretty good about rape and molestation cases. But they weren't always. And not that long ago we had the opposite problem. Sexual abuse hysteria put Paul Ingram, the McMartins, and George Franklin in prison on the basis of NO material evidence -- just "recovered memories," harmful child interviewing techniques, and imaginations more than equal to Migninis.

Twenty years ago we had a football hero with a record of wife beating brutally murder two people in cold blood. The best lawyers in the country defended him and he went free. Sickening. Guantanomo is sickening. The fact a poor black man is something like 16 times more likely to be incarcerated than a middle class white man who commits the same crime is sickening. It's not geography or nationality. It's humans. It's systems. It's prejudice -- and that great human tendency to focus on the wrongs others do and ignore our own.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, but the problem is the way they wrote the law. In my opinion it is another symptom of a culture with unhealthy views towards sex and women. If they wanted to distinguish the Ttwo cases, they could have considered the use of violence as an agravating circunstance instead of considering "love" as a mitigation. It's not the same thing...

Absolutely. It seems people here were criticizing the ISC and NOT the law per se. If it is the law that mitigation MUST be considered then the ISC didn't do something bizarre in upholding the defenses appeal.

The consideration of the mitigation could be denied by the lower court if I understand the ruling.

 

[Bill Williams]

a juror is basically asking, in my mind, how she should vote.

Yes, in your mind.

Yes, it's the only one I have. When I use the idiom, "I have changed my mind," I actually do not mean that literally.

But thanks for the ad hominem anyway. Read back to Caper's observation that guilters tend to throw things, and rarely present reasonable counter arguments.

So I'm interested - what did you make of Nencini's post-conviction comments, esp where a lay-judge came to him saying that she was confused, mainly because of all the stuff she was being bombarded with on TV?

 

[syllogism]

I’ve been reading Steve Moore’s article on double jeopardy. It raised a few question in my mind.

If double jeopardy exists as he says it does then surely Amanda is clearly feeling it’s effects right at this moment. In fact surely the double jeopardy came into play as soon as the recent trial was endorsed by the Italian Supreme Court in March 2013. Since she has now been found guilty then surely the double jeopardy is more clearly defined.

The point that I am trying to make is that the US government should not wait until Italy applies for extradition to make a judgement on whether double jeopardy is an issue or not. They need to make it clear where they stand regarding the double jeopardy laws in Amanda’s case simply because she is feeling that threat and jeopardy right at this present time, therefore if the laws exist to protect her she should be informed of this by the action of her lawyers! Any delay in this matter exacerbates the jeopardy and puts her under needless fear!

I’m a Brit so I am not sure how these thing work over there but surely the relevant government department can be lobbied to take urgent steps to safeguard the rights of one of its own citizens! Not to do so may imply that the double jeopardy laws do not apply in this case inviting more negative comment and speculation. On the other hand if the double jeopardy laws do not offer her protection, she has the right to know promptly so that her lawyers can prepare her for the possibility of extradition regardless of how tough that will be. Waiting only prolongs the agony in this case. Your government needs to be decisive one way or the other!

Hoots!

The double jeopardy doctrine is just understood differently in civil law countries. In this sense the Italian system is not unique at all - e.g. in Scandinavian countries it is possible for the Supreme court to send the case back to the lower courts for a new hearing (or "trial"), albeit this is understandably done only in exceptional cases. Once the judgement is final, as in it has the "force of law", then the double jeopardy doctrine protects the accused. Furthermore, the extradition process is not understood as a criminal process. That means constitutional protections that are relevant to criminal process do not apply. You can see how this makes sense when you think about other procedural rights granted by the US constitution: it would never be possible to extradite someone to a country that doesn't have a trial by jury as that, too, is a right guaranteed by the US constitution. These procedural protections could have relevance when assessing whether the trial was fair, but they can not be applied strictly and would be part of a broader argument. Considering the Italian understanding of double jeopardy is not unique to just them, but rather much of Europe and ECHR, it is hard to see how that could be used to justify the refusal to extradite. It is much better to point at other issues in the process.

That is to say double jeopardy, as understood in the US, is not relevant and it should be up to her lawyers to explain her that. It's baffling how some legal commentators cited in many articles are confused by the issue as based on my understanding it should not be a topic of contention.

 

[Grinder]

So why didn't she have a lawyer to advise her given she was informally strongly suspected of these extremely serious offences?

Added to that how could they "know" before her statement that she and Patrick were involved in the crime and not consider her a suspect? The police chief's statement absolutely shows she was more than just a suspect, she was the perp. I would love a concise, straightforward explanation of how his statement can be reconciled as not being a suspect BEFORE the interrogation.

 

[Grinder]

After another Knox conviction (and sentencing) are the delusional leaders of the FOA so frantic that they are now reduced to quibbling over senseless semantics ?
Pardon me, but I find this about as logical as Bill Clinton's quibbling about the definition of the word is when he needed to distract attention from his sexual abuse of an intern.

Surely you recall that one of Knox's main justification for her multi and varied and conflicting alibis was that she was under the influence of heavy drug use

To paraphrase another Clinton, '...What difference does it make...?'
What difference does it make if Knox was stoned on MJ or drunk on alcohol

What difference does it make ?????............ unless you simply cannot accept fact that Knox is a twice convicted murderer:(

Why not say she was high on heroin or meth? Hell just fill in the blank. Why not say she speaking in tongues at the satanic rite she had organized.

If the highlighted sentence is correct, then you are claiming double jeopardy?

And no I can't accept that a jury found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even though I'm not FOA.

 

[Kestrel]

Even more reason to advocate for reform and innocence. Presently I am following two cases in the US, two in Italy, and one in Canada which I am convinced the accused are innocent. It is one thing to point out problems and another to join in an effort to do something about those problems.

Public preasure for a conviction drives many of these cases. Along with systems that reward prosecutors for successful convictions and look the other way when shortcuts are taken. Here in the US, being a prosecutor for the state is a well trodden path to higher political offices. The pressure to get convictions trumps the search for the truth or justice.

The public believes the system almost always gets it right, but that isn't really the case. Miscarriages of justice are far more common than we like to admit.

What makes the Knox case interesting is that it combines so many of the errors that can lead to a miscarriage of justice. A forced confession, contamination of evidence, investigator tunnel vision, defamation of the defendants by the police and prosecution, forensic pseudo science, tampered witnesses, and intimidation of critics.

 

[Grinder]

I agree that what appears to be the "optional" nature of presenting evidence is extremely frustrating, but the apparent restrictions against asking questions is what allows such bogus evidence to stand.

It may be incorrect but it seems the questions can't or aren't asked because the answer that it is only compatible doesn't bother the Italians. Read Mach's replies on this and it is clear that he believes that compatibles add up to certainty.

They have a distinctly different way of thinking.

 

[acbytesla]

Is Nencini referring to the failure to testify in the Massei trial? I understood that Mignini declined to schedule him for cross and Bongiorno launched a broadside at Mig about that in her closing submissions before Hellman. There are a bunch of things that puzzle me about this:

1 why didn't Mig want to question Raffaele?
2 why didn't Raffaele's lawyers put him up anyway?
3 why didn't Raffaele override their advice and put himself up? - ultimately the client makes these decisions, not the lawyer

To draw adverse inferences from the exercise of a right to silence in a jurisdiction in which defendants are permitted (some say expected) to lie is utterly bizarre.

In the US, that alone would be cause for throwing the case out Anglo. Judges actually instruct jurors not to read anything into a defendant NOT testifying. For a judge in italy to do so is shameful.

 

[acbytesla]

I found this post of mine while looking for my list of potential grounds for complaint to the ECHR. This one sets out ECHR guidance on the 'fundamental' right to a lawyer:


Use of the word 'demonstrated' shows the burden will be on Italy to explain why they were denied legal assistance. Mach admits she, at least, was strongly suspected of an array of very serious offences (but not 'formally' as if the ECHR will give a crap about that ) and I am unaware of anything remotely amounting to 'compelling reasons' (such as membership of a criminal organisation, imminent terrorist threat etc) so why is this not a slam dunk?

I think also the fact that Amanda was not a native Italian speaker will certainly come into the ECHR's issue with what happened in this case. Amanda above almost anyone REQUIRED an attorney that spoke the language and was familiar with not only the law but the culture. The police basically admit from day one that Amanda was a suspect and they interviewed her over and over and over again skirting the regulation,

 

[andreajo]

Seriously, Vibio. What is your opinion about allowing people who have a monetary interest in a guilty finding to participate in the part of the legal proceedings where guilt is decided? Do you think that this could interfere with a defendant's right to a fair trial?

Okay, Vibio. If you don't like that question, how about this one? Do you think that the ability of the Italian police to slap criminal calunnia charges on anyone who publicly claims police and judicial incompetence, malfeasance, or corruption is a bar to rooting out incompetence, malfeasance, and corruption in the police and judiciary?

 

[acbytesla]

It makes a huge difference.

After another Knox conviction (and sentencing) are the delusional leaders of the FOA so frantic that they are now reduced to quibbling over senseless semantics ?
Pardon me, but I find this about as logical as Bill Clinton's quibbling about the definition of the word is when he needed to distract attention from his sexual abuse of an intern.

Surely you recall that one of Knox's main justification for her multi and varied and conflicting alibis was that she was under the influence of heavy drug use

To paraphrase another Clinton, '...What difference does it make...?'
What difference does it make if Knox was stoned on MJ or drunk on alcohol

What difference does it make ?????............
(

There is a huge difference between someone intoxicated and someone "stoned" (under the influence of cannabis). Drunks are often violent. Ask any experienced police officer or even a bar tender. As someone who ran a bar for years in my early twenties, I regularly called for the police to break up fights or deal with an unruly drunk.

The same is not true with individuals heavily influenced by cannabis. In fact the opposite is true for people under the influence of cannabis. Those individuals are much more likely to be MORE PASSIVE than the general population. Usually the only thing in danger from someone stoned is the bag of Doritios.


So to repeat my answer to your question. It makes ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE.

 

[Wattson]

Does anyone have the list of experts that testified to the number of attackers the wounds indicated?

 

[Vibio]

Do you think that the ability of the Italian police to slap criminal calunnia charges on anyone who publicly claims police and judicial incompetence, malfeasance, or corruption is a bar to rooting out incompetence, malfeasance, and corruption in the police and judiciary?

Oh boy.... I love the way you've worded that.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand the calunnia laws in Italy nor in other countries of Europe.

Mach has done a very good job of addressing this issue a number of times on this thread.

 

[Grinder]

Okay, Vibio. If you don't like that question, how about this one? Do you think that the ability of the Italian police to slap criminal calunnia charges on anyone who publicly claims police and judicial incompetence, malfeasance, or corruption is a bar to rooting out incompetence, malfeasance, and corruption in the police and judiciary?

The police in Italy DO NOT SLAP!!!!! You will be charged forthwith.