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

[Diocletus]

Re: sequestered juries.

I don't know if sequestered juries are common in Europe.

In the US, they are not very common.

One could argue that the Amanda Knox trial was so high profile that it deserved a sequestered jury, but after 6 years I can't imagine anyone who has not read about the case. The fact that the Knox trial was not televised also helps.

"Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore. The current thinking is that isolating a jury causes more problems than it solves. For one, it can increase juror dropouts. Those with family responsibilities can't stomach more than a few nights away from home, and they often end up leaving midcase due to "personal circumstances." The departures, in turn, increase the likelihood of a mistrial. And there are serious concerns that the eagerness of jurors to return home could compel them to deliberate hastily.

When a judge does decide to sequester a jury, it's often because there's a critical piece of inadmissible material being discussed in the press—for example, a suppressed confession. Or there may be the threat of harassment from reporters, protesters, or the defendant's criminal associates. Less frequent nowadays is a sequestration based solely on the high-profile nature of a case; such reasoning became less popular after the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, which featured a long sequestration that some legal observers regarded as counterproductive. In the Muhammad case, the fact that the trial is not being televised probably helped the judge decide against sequestration. When the jurors return home at night, under strict instructions not to view or read press accounts of the trial, it's obviously easier without the day's testimony plastered all over the TV.

There are a few states that have mandatory sequestration laws for the most serious criminal cases. Missouri, for example, requires that juries in death-penalty cases be sequestered. But in general, the decision is left solely to the trial judge. Either the prosecution or the defense can request a sequestration, but such motions are usually denied. There are no nationwide figures on the percentage of juries that are sequestered, but it's certainly tiny."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2003/11/when_do_judges_sequester_juries.html

It's difficult to imagine how this could even work in Italy, since the courts only seem to convene a couple of times a month and the trials span months.

That said, Nencini's comments seem to prove that something should have been done about this issue in his trial, since his jurors, who basically heard zero relevant witnesses, seem to have gotten most of their information from their family members and TV.

If they're going to go this route, maybe they should just do away with jury trials and let people online cast votes.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

What makes any piece of evidence more significant is when it fits together with other pieces of evidence to form a consistent picture. The DNA on the clasp hook is an outlier where the only picture it fits is one that is completely fabricated by the prosecution. In fact, other evidence such as how the clasp was torn from the bra, blood splatter showing that the bra was removed while Meredith was still alive, Rudy Guede's DNA on the bra itself all form a compleatly different picture that is incompatible with the clasp hook being touched at the time of the murder.

The elements you mention cast suspiscion on the validity of the evidence itself.

-

Exactly, which was my point.

If there was more DNA of Raffaele's on the bra and in Meredith's room, that would make it more significant,

d

-

 

[Mary_H]

Re: sequestered juries.

I don't know if sequestered juries are common in Europe.

In the US, they are not very common.

One could argue that the Amanda Knox trial was so high profile that it deserved a sequestered jury, but after 6 years I can't imagine anyone who has not read about the case. The fact that the Knox trial was not televised also helps.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2003/11/when_do_judges_sequester_juries.html

In the long-running debate about the case, the term sequestered has been misused. When people refer to sequestering, what they intend to talk about is the proscription against jurors allowing themselves to be exposed to discussion, coverage or research about the case they are judging. That is not a requirement in Italy.

 

[Grinder]

That is a generally encouraging document. I spotted this in para. 4 though:

[qimg]http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy57/cwismayer/ScreenShot2014-02-07at091823_zpsaaf08cc7.png[/qimg]

Note the words in brackets, which are expressed as an alternative to having to show probable cause. I wonder what defences to extradition there are? We have right now an extradition battle between South Africa and UK citizen Shrien Dewani, wanted for 'the honeymoon murder' of his wife Anni. Unlike Amanda, he has not been convicted but our treaty with SA does not require them to make out any case at all. Consequently his defence has been thrown back on a bunch of grounds for resisting extradition such as abuse of process and (un)fitness to plead. These defences to extradition do not address the (highly suspect) merits of the case at all which is what he, and Amanda in her case, would want. But is it possible?

I have not heard of or found a case where extradition was fought on the grounds of lack of evidence. That does not mean it doesn't happen but it certainly isn't common.

 

[Mary_H]

I wish I were better at using the search function.

If you click on "advanced search" (at the bottom of this page) you can search by posters' names in addition to key words.

 

[acbytesla]

So your original question was rhetorical and we agree that media and internet coverage have influenced the judges. Originally I thought you were trying to say the opposite -- that English-speaking criticism has no effect.

You, Nencini, Mignini, Costagliola and anyone who has complained about the pro-innocence "PR Supertanker" are admitting that the Italian judges are influenced by public opinion, a reality PIP have relied on since the beginning. Judges are not supposed to be politicians; they should be immune to anything that is not going on in the case file and the courtroom. The prosecution's exploitation of press coverage, however, showed us that public opinion mattered very much as far as how this case would go.

When people do bad things, and then use the excuse that other people's reactions to their behavior gives them the right to do more bad things, well, that is bullying. It leaves critics' hands tied. Bullies take all the power when they pretend their behavior depends on how other people behave. Then they go ahead and do whatever they want to anyway. There is no good faith.

You can say that critics had better be quiet or the judges will find for guilt, but that's like saying no one should criticize North Korea or Iran because of what they might do in response. Rational adults should not react emotionally to other people's criticism by deliberately retaliating in ways designed only to hurt the critics instead of examining what is being criticized. Is that really the way Italy wants to be seen?

Very well said Mary. This is the damned if you do, damned if you don't. position. Italy's judicial system needs reform and everything that have been doing to Amanda and Raffaele are proof of that. Are Amanda and Raffaele and their supporters supposed to ignore this and "just hope that they will stop?

 

[lane99]

Shooting blanks

He almost never refuses. What he does is just ignore.

So be it. In the absence of any corroboration, the default position is Machievelli's comment is nothing more than the tinfoiled conspiracist bluster it appears to be.
.
.

 

[Vibio]

That is not a requirement in Italy.

Could you please cite sources about this.

Thanks.

 

[Mary_H]

Could you please cite sources about this.

Thanks.

I can't cite a source for something that doesn't exist. It is common knowledge that judge-jurors in Italian trials are allowed to look at media about the case. As Judge Nencini recently said,

".....And then, I must be honest, the media overexposure of this case, that did not help. Jurors returned home and were bombarded by information. And when we saw each other, they wanted to know: "President, but on TV they said in another way. How did it really?"

 

[Diocletus]

I have not heard of or found a case where extradition was fought on the grounds of lack of evidence. That does not mean it doesn't happen but it certainly isn't common.

I have a feeling that a big extradition battle occurs within Italy and/or the ECtHR before any request is even transmitted to the US. I think that this would involve an examination of the fairness of the underlying proceeding.

I could see Knox filing something in Italy, to block Italy from proceeding for extradition, on grounds of ECHR violations. Of course, this would be denied. Then on to the ECHR with the hopes that it would enter a status quo order, and eventual favorable judgment. This could take years to sort out.

 

[Kestrel]

Very well said Mary. This is the damned if you do, damned if you don't. position. Italy's judicial system needs reform and everything that have been doing to Amanda and Raffaele are proof of that. Are Amanda and Raffaele and their supporters supposed to ignore this and "just hope that they will stop?

The pro guilt side worships the Italian legal system. As if Jesus himself has been guiding the prosecution on the true path to justice.

 

[Mary_H]

Very well said Mary. This is the damned if you do, damned if you don't. position. Italy's judicial system needs reform and everything that have been doing to Amanda and Raffaele are proof of that. Are Amanda and Raffaele and their supporters supposed to ignore this and "just hope that they will stop?

Thanks, tesla. Yes, this is the abuser's approach: "I wouldn't have to hit you if you would just do as I ask." The fact that it extends to the highest level of the judiciary (if what Coulsdon claims is true) suggests it is a cultural characteristic commonly at play among the magistrates and police, too, as we have seen.

 

[Dan O.]

If you click on "advanced search" (at the bottom of this page) you can search by posters' names in addition to key words.

There is also "Search this Thread" at the top of the page. But both are weak, slow and over burden the already struggling server. A better alternative is to use Google's search and include the term "site:forums.randi.org".

 

[Vibio]

I can't cite a source...

In the US, how are non sequestered jurors stopped from watching the news when they go home after a trial?

 

[Desert Fox]

I was saying that the prosecutions narrative was fabricated. How Stefanoni managed to come up with her results is an enigma. The clasp itself could even have been taken out of the cottage and returned before the December visit. You have to wonder who left that front door unlocked before the morning of November 14 and who subsequently locked it and applied the extra tape to the seal afterwards. Why is this significant breach of the crime scene security ignored and even lied about in the trial?

Every prosecutor narrative is an educated guess however

 

[Mary_H]

In the US, how are non sequestered jurors stopped from watching the news when they go home after a trial?

It's on the honor system. They are instructed to avoid any publicity about the case, and they are expected to follow the instructions. When the lawyers pick the jurors, they ask them if they have ever heard about the case; if they have, then they are not picked for the jury.

Most cases are insignificant enough that the prospective jurors haven't heard about them. In high profile cases, the trial may be moved to a jurisdiction where prospective jurors are less likely to have been exposed to publicity about the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Invalid and illogical, eh? Have you been reading too many Cassazione judgments, Mach? Not every argument rests on validity or logic. Some things are just matters of life experience. Burglars sometimes do this, thieves sometimes do that. Not all their actions (and not all ours) are valid, logical or the opposite.

(...)

You have shown nothing and it is only unproven because no one tried to prove it and no one tried to prove it because no one wanted to prove it and no one wanted to prove it because proving it would have proved at the same time that those proving it were dopes when they had set about trying prove something wildly different.

If it were a crime to place a bloody foot on a bathmat but perfectly legal to murder someone, I could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Guede's print is on that mat. It is all a question of focus.

A big round turn, to show that you can't get around the point: there is a motive if the phones are tossed by RS and AK as part of a staging, while there is no motive if it's done by RG or by a thief.

If it's a stager, and if the stager is a roommate, taking the phones and toss them immediately is logical. If it's an intruder and a tieve it's not logical; it would be a sequence of illogical and unexplained actions.
It is possible. But given than one is logical, consistent, while the other is not, the non-logical option is weaker then the logical one.
And you can't get around this.

Certainly, you may decide to believe that there is a good argument based on life experience, and that you could find a proof anyway. But it's your burden to prove it. You say there is no proof because there is no focus? Then focus on it and prove it - onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit. I say there is no argument instead, and I say there would no reasonable way to convct Rudy Guede for taking of the phone, unless a judge decides to make up an unproven scenario out of his mind, without neeeding to write any logical motivation. But I think the Cassazione would crush such a conviction, given there there is no factual evidence and it's based on the logically weaker explanation.

 

[Vibio]

It's on the honor system. .

Yes, that's what I thought.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have not heard of or found a case where extradition was fought on the grounds of lack of evidence. That does not mean it doesn't happen but it certainly isn't common.

Has there even been a trial as blatantly bad as this one with an extradition request?

 

[Diocletus]

The pro guilt side worships the Italian legal system. As if Jesus himself has been guiding the prosecution on the true path to justice.

Why yes, this sounds familiar:

The Romans came forward and began to ask him to do for them as was accustomed. 15:9 The courts answered, “Do you want me to release Amanda and Raffaelle?” 15:10 For it knew that it was out of pride and selfishness that Mignini had arrested them. 15:11 But the magistrates stirred up the crowd to have them release Rudy for them instead. 15:12 The courts again said to them in reply, “Then what (do you want) me to do with Amanda and Raffaelle?” 15:13 They shouted again, “Crucify them. “ 15:14 Hellmann said to them, “Why? What evil have they done?” They only shouted the louder, “Crucify them.” 15:15 So the Supreme Court, wishing to satisfy the Romans, released Rudy to them and, after it had Amanda and Raffaelle scourged, handed them over to be crucified.

(in the style of MARK 15:8)