[Continuation] The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

Interesting, but the picture from PMF you claim


actually shows dottore Sollecito leaving the courthouse in Perugia on "10 novembre 2007". The source for the picture is either this article:
«Papà mi devi credere, sono innocente» or this one: «Il coltello? Ognuno ha i suoi hobby» from the "Corriere della Sera"

Here is the Matrice di Grumo Matrice Appula Church from wikimedia. Note the doors.

View attachment 57745


Note Mr Francesco Sollecito, father of Raffaele, who also comes from Puglia (Bari) at the church door on the date the news of Rocco's private mass service took place.

The photo of Dr. Sollecito does not appear in your La Stampa article yet you falsely claim it shows him "at the church door on the date the news of Rocco's private mass service took place."

View attachment 57746

Source: Perugia Murder File

From La Stampa 26 Dec 2016




As you may recall Rocco Sollecito, head of mafia in Montreal was assassinated in his car in the previous May.

The man behind Dr. Sollecito is Raffaele's lawyer, Delfo Berretti. Are you now going to claim that Raffaele's lawyer attended the Dec. 27, 2016 mass of a mobster along with Dr. Sollecito almost 2 years after RS was definitively acquitted on March 27, 2015? As Methos has kindly supplied, that is Dr. Sollecito and lawyer Berretti coming out of the courthouse in Perugia 6 years earlier. This was already proved to you the first time you pulled this nonsense.

 

[Stacyhs]

I got a good laugh today from another of Quennell's unsupported, insane claims that "Amanda Knox Said To Be Almost Certain To Face Murder Retrial Now": "That's straight reporting from Washington. The whole world is waking up to who is sick."

 

[Vixen]

Interesting, but the picture from PMF you claim


actually shows dottore Sollecito leaving the courthouse in Perugia on "10 novembre 2007". The source for the picture is either this article:
«Papà mi devi credere, sono innocente» or this one: «Il coltello? Ognuno ha i suoi hobby» from the "Corriere della Sera"

Thanks for the head's up. Yes, it is dated 2007 when the mass for Rocco was quite a few years later.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, will you now stop claiming that Dr. Sollecito attended Rocco's mass ?

And we're still waiting for any evidence...not mere speculation or photos of him vacationing in the DR...that Raffaele is connected to the mafia in any way. But we both know you have none, don't we?

 

[TomG]

Who is the guy behind Francesco Sollecito in the image?

 

[Vixen]

Who is the guy behind Francesco Sollecito in the image?

The clue is in Methos' post, above.

 

[TomG]

Yes, I see it in Stacy's post. I thought it was maybe Tiziano Tedeschi who is mentioned in Raffaele's prison diary as his lawyer at the time of the article. I couldn't find any photograph of Tedeschi, but now I see it looks like Delfo Berretti from his photograph.

 

[Bill Williams]

I got a good laugh today from another of Quennell's unsupported, insane claims that "Amanda Knox Said To Be Almost Certain To Face Murder Retrial Now": "That's straight reporting from Washington. The whole world is waking up to who is sick."

It's been a while, but couldn't pass on this.

Quennell has had at least two correct predictions of reversals. Perhaps the first on most encouraging to him and his ilk was the 2103 ISC reversal of Hellmann's acquittals.

Yet since then, he's made prediction after prediction after prediction of reversals - including that Raffaele was 'soon' going to apologize to Mignini, in exchange for Mignini being routed in court because of his legal action against Sollecito (and Gumbel). That apology, like proof that the dad-Sollecito had attended Rocco's funeral, never materialized. At least now Vixen concedes that.

Okay, now back to lurking and some semblance of life balance!

 

[Stacyhs]

By the way, Vixen, you've repeated the lie often that Sollecito

It's been a while, but couldn't pass on this.

Quennell has had at least two correct predictions of reversals. Perhaps the first on most encouraging to him and his ilk was the 2103 ISC reversal of Hellmann's acquittals.

Yet since then, he's made prediction after prediction after prediction of reversals - including that Raffaele was 'soon' going to apologize to Mignini, in exchange for Mignini being routed in court because of his legal action against Sollecito (and Gumbel). That apology, like proof that the dad-Sollecito had attended Rocco's funeral, never materialized. At least now Vixen concedes that.

Okay, now back to lurking and some semblance of life balance!

Those really weren't predictions as much as along the lines of "even a broken clock is right twice a day". He claims everything and anything that doesn't go his way will be reversed or somehow righted. Hell, he's even claiming Knox is certain to be retried for the murder and that comes "straight from Washington". I do think poor Petey has really lost it.

 

[TomG]

Further to Quennell's claim that Amanda is "Almost certain to face murder retrail now"

Amanda lamented that the Florence slander charge reconviction was fuelled by circular reasoning i.e. that the Marasca-Bruno motivation report used the existing calunnia conviction to place her at VDP7 during the murder, while the Florence court used M/B to help reconfirm her alleged presence at VDP7. In other words the slander conviction may be legally locked in place by M/B, and the only authority that can unlock it is the supreme court.

I don't doubt that Amanda will appeal her reconviction of the calunnia to the supreme court. They could uphold the judgement all the way to the ECHR or they could overturn the slander conviction due to the overarching considerations of the ECHR judgement. If they overturn they may feel that they have to re-open the Marasca-Bruno judgement in order to remedy any implication of Amanda being at VDP7 on the night of the murder. This might result in a revised acquittal according to paragraph 1 of Article 530 in the same way as H/Z.

This is all totally speculative of course as things might resolve differntly; however it's the only way I can see the murder charge reopening.

 

[TruthCalls]

Further to Quennell's claim that Amanda is "Almost certain to face murder retrail now"

Amanda lamented that the Florence slander charge reconviction was fuelled by circular reasoning i.e. that the Marasca-Bruno motivation report used the existing calunnia conviction to place her at VDP7 during the murder, while the Florence court used M/B to help reconfirm her alleged presence at VDP7. In other words the slander conviction may be legally locked in place by M/B, and the only authority that can unlock it is the supreme court.

I don't doubt that Amanda will appeal her reconviction of the calunnia to the supreme court. They could uphold the judgement all the way to the ECHR or they could overturn the slander conviction due to the overarching considerations of the ECHR judgement. If they overturn they may feel that they have to re-open the Marasca-Bruno judgement in order to remedy any implication of Amanda being at VDP7 on the night of the murder. This might result in a revised acquittal according to paragraph 1 of Article 530 in the same way as H/Z.

This is all totally speculative of course as things might resolve differntly; however it's the only way I can see the murder charge reopening.

I'm not sure that would be required. After all, M/B were quite clear when they wrote their MR that it was based on Amanda's interrogation statement, a statement that was deemed inadmissible for the murder trial by the ISC, and inadmissible for anything by the ECHR. In other words, I would imagine the Florence court erred in their reasoning, and the ISC can overturn that without having to re-open the M/B judgement.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not sure that would be required. After all, M/B were quite clear when they wrote their MR that it was based on Amanda's interrogation statement, a statement that was deemed inadmissible for the murder trial by the ISC, and inadmissible for anything by the ECHR. In other words, I would imagine the Florence court erred in their reasoning, and the ISC can overturn that without having to re-open the M/B judgement.

I agree. I think there's a very good chance the SC will find the Florence court erred. Saying that, I also recognize that Italy's courts can be very unpredictable. Nencini's justifications for overturning Hellmann were beyond ludicrous.

I really believe Quennell has mental problems. We already know he has a penchant for making claims that turn out to be entirely in his own demented mind. HIs "The police caught the pair with a mop and bucket" lie is still be repeated.

 

[TomG]

I agree. I think there's a very good chance the SC will find the Florence court erred. Saying that, I also recognize that Italy's courts can be very unpredictable. Nencini's justifications for overturning Hellmann were beyond ludicrous.

I really believe Quennell has mental problems. We already know he has a penchant for making claims that turn out to be entirely in his own demented mind. HIs "The police caught the pair with a mop and bucket" lie is still be repeated.

If that's the case then I can't think of anything else that would prompt PQ to say such a thing. There's no doubt that he's made a considerable personal investment in this case. I don't know how old he is but it may be that he doesn't want to pop his clogs with such a degree of failure. He may just be a bit addled with age. I'm not sure if anyone here cares really.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

I agree. I think there's a very good chance the SC will find the Florence court erred. Saying that, I also recognize that Italy's courts can be very unpredictable. Nencini's justifications for overturning Hellmann were beyond ludicrous.

I really believe Quennell has mental problems. We already know he has a penchant for making claims that turn out to be entirely in his own demented mind. HIs "The police caught the pair with a mop and bucket" lie is still be repeated.

That was Barbie, in her book.

 

[Vixen]

Further to Quennell's claim that Amanda is "Almost certain to face murder retrail now"

Amanda lamented that the Florence slander charge reconviction was fuelled by circular reasoning i.e. that the Marasca-Bruno motivation report used the existing calunnia conviction to place her at VDP7 during the murder, while the Florence court used M/B to help reconfirm her alleged presence at VDP7. In other words the slander conviction may be legally locked in place by M/B, and the only authority that can unlock it is the supreme court.

I don't doubt that Amanda will appeal her reconviction of the calunnia to the supreme court. They could uphold the judgement all the way to the ECHR or they could overturn the slander conviction due to the overarching considerations of the ECHR judgement. If they overturn they may feel that they have to re-open the Marasca-Bruno judgement in order to remedy any implication of Amanda being at VDP7 on the night of the murder. This might result in a revised acquittal according to paragraph 1 of Article 530 in the same way as H/Z.

This is all totally speculative of course as things might resolve differntly; however it's the only way I can see the murder charge reopening.

Oral hearing in January, as requested by Dalla Vedova. Patrick's team also expected to be there.

 

[Stacyhs]

That was Barbie, in her book.

Among the other misinformation in Barbie's book (like the "mixed blood" nonsense), this particular lie was straight from Quennell . Nina Burleigh wrote about it:

"After a month in Italy doing reporting, however, I realized that some of the “facts” on Quennell’s website didn’t seem to be in the police record in Italy. I emailed him to ask where he had found out that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket in hand. That damning incident was nowhere in the record, not even the prosecutor would confirm it, nor had Italy’s Polizia Scientifica ever tested such items, which would surely have offered up some useful DNA evidence, had they been used to clean blood.

"Quennell then accused me by email of being on the Knox family payroll, informed me that his sources in Perugia had seen me consorting with Amanda’s mother (I had in fact met with her once, in a public place, by then) and eventually started writing about how he was going to “train his scope” on my apartment in Manhattan, and closing emails with “how are the kiddies?”


Burleigh was mistaken about the mop not being tested. It was item #168 collected Dec. 18, 2007. It tested negative for human blood and Kercher's DNA.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oral hearing in January, as requested by Dalla Vedova. Patrick's team also expected to be there.

Citation needed. I assume that's referring to the calunnia appeal.

Quennell's claim that Amanda is "almost certain to face murder retrial now" is just his imagination.

 

[Numbers]

Citation needed. I assume that's referring to the calunnia appeal.

Quennell's claim that Amanda is "almost certain to face murder retrial now" is just his imagination.

As has been discussed previously, a final judgment of acquittal cannot be overturned under Italian law (CPP Articles 648 and 649). So as you state, Quennell's claim is an absurd product of his imagination. Posters need not spend too much time being concerned about any reopening of the murder/rape trial.

 

[PitPat]

Isn't it kind of obvious by now?

 

[Stacyhs]

Narcissistic people are unable to admit being wrong once they've taken a stand despite strong contradictory evidence. Narcissism runs deep in Quennell and his few remaining TJMK cronies.

 

[Numbers]

Some posters here sometimes claim that police never frame a person for a crime. Here's a media report about a recently decided federal civil case about a woman previously wrongfully convicted of murder in Las Vegas, Nevada who was fully exonerated after serving 16 years in prison. She was awarded $34 million in damages from the police force and $10,000 each from the two detectives alleged to have framed her:

While interviewing witnesses, the detectives repeatedly paused their tape recorder, attempted to feed questions and destroyed notes that contained exculpatory information, the lawsuit alleged. The detectives allegedly did not follow up when witnesses gave statements and presented phone records establishing Lobato was in Panaca, Nevada, around 200 miles away from Las Vegas, at the time of the murder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/12/15/las-vegas-police-payout-exonerated-murder/

 

[Stacyhs]

Anyone who thinks there aren't police or prosecutors who will frame someone for their own personal/professional reasons is beyond naive.
Sometimes it's for their own career advancement or protection, sometimes they justify what they do because they really think someone is guilty and going to get away with the crime, sometimes they're protecting someone else (maybe a fellow cop or friend), and sometimes they just can't/won't admit they're wrong out of their own egoism.

I think more than one of the above played a part in this case.

 

[ahhell]

Anyone who thinks there aren't police or prosecutors who will frame someone for their own personal/professional reasons is beyond naive.
Sometimes it's for their own career advancement or protection, sometimes they justify what they do because they really think someone is guilty and going to get away with the crime, sometimes they're protecting someone else (maybe a fellow cop or friend), and sometimes they just can't/won't admit they're wrong out of their own egoism.

I think more than one of the above played a part in this case.

I'd bet that about 75% of the time just can't admit they're wrong, even to themselves. 20% they just "know" who did it. 5%, they're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊/need to close a case/bribes.

Not sure who said it about OJ but years ago I heard the line, "Its possible he's guilty and the cops framed him".

 

[pgwenthold]

I'd bet that about 75% of the time just can't admit they're wrong, even to themselves. 20% they just "know" who did it. 5%, they're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊/need to close a case/bribes.

Not sure who said it about OJ but years ago I heard the line, "Its possible he's guilty and the cops framed him".

Yeah, I'm not so sure it's about "framing" someone, as in, "Let's get this guy convicted for murder." It's more about them getting it in their head that this person did it and they are going to find any evidence, even if it means creating some, to put them away.

No one set up OJ to take him down on a murder charge, but when they murders happened, it was clear that the put all their eggs in the OJ basket. Of course, in that case, having Mark Furman do anything didn't help.

Tunnel vision is the problem. "He did it and we are going to find evidence to support it"

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, I'm not so sure it's about "framing" someone, as in, "Let's get this guy convicted for murder." It's more about them getting it in their head that this person did it and they are going to find any evidence, even if it means creating some, to put them away.

No one set up OJ to take him down on a murder charge, but when they murders happened, it was clear that the put all their eggs in the OJ basket. Of course, in that case, having Mark Furman do anything didn't help.

Tunnel vision is the problem. "He did it and we are going to find evidence to support it"

In the Knox case, absolutely! That's why the M-B SC mentioned the police's "investigative amnesia"

 

[Numbers]

Yeah, I'm not so sure it's about "
framing" someone, as in, "Let's get this guy convicted for murder." It's more about them getting it in their head that this person did it and they are going to find any evidence,
even if it means creating some, to put them away.

No one set up OJ to take him down on a murder charge, but when they murders happened, it was clear that the put all their eggs in the OJ basket. Of course, in that case, having Mark Furman do anything didn't help.

Tunnel vision is the problem. "He did it and we are going to
find evidence to support it"

When someone, even a police officer or prosecutor, "creates" (fabricates) evidence, against an individual, that is the act of "framing" that individual. It is irrelevant whether or not the officer or prosecutor believes or "knows" that person is guilty. This is the law in Italy, where under the Italian Constitution, even accused persons are legally to be considered "innocent" until proven guilty by lawfully obtained evidence - not fabricated evidence.

Framing someone by false accusation or fabrication of evidence, in Italy at the relevant time of the Knox - Sollecito case, fell under the Italian crime of calunnia. That is why the police and prosecutor were considered to have been alleged to have been implicitly accused of calunnia in Knox's court testimony, leading to her second trial for calunnia against the police and prosecutor. She was acquitted by the Boninsegna court because the acknowledged events and records of the interrogation showed that Knox's rights under Italian law had been violated and furthermore did not indicate that Knox's statements were false.

Possibly in response to the Knox-Sollecito case or similar cases, several years ago a new Italian law was enacted to specifically make the fabrication of evidence or false statements by authorities to mislead a criminal case a criminal offense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Possibly in response to the Knox-Sollecito case or similar cases, several years ago a new Italian law was enacted to specifically make the fabrication of evidence or false statements by authorities to mislead a criminal case a criminal offense.

In my view this is completely unenforceable, and that is before considering that it mostly belongs to the PM if charges are to be brought, and against whom they are brought.

For instance, Mignini should have brought charges against Ficarra, et al., for the claim that Knox had been slapped at interrogation. Instead, charges were brought against Knox for defamation, or daring to suggest such a thing.

Since it would take some sort of accusation against the cops, that they had with intent lied to a suspect - in the cases where the cops conveniently forget to videotape an interrogation.... I doubt that the new law has any teeth.

 

[Stacyhs]

"in the cases where the cops conveniently forget to videotape an interrogation"

 

[Stacyhs]

in the cases where the cops conveniently forget to videotape an interrogation

Those who claim not recording or even transcribing the interrogations of A and R was due to being "only an interview of a person informed of the facts" and not of a suspect are only trying to justify it to themselves. That is proved a lie by the fact that both were not recorded even AFTER they had implicated themselves with their coerced and false 'confessions'. But the colpevolisti are very good at justifying what the cops and Mignini did.

 

[Numbers]

In my view this is completely unenforceable, and that is before considering that it mostly belongs to the PM if charges are to be brought, and against whom they are brought.

For instance, Mignini should have brought charges against Ficarra, et al., for the claim that Knox had been slapped at interrogation. Instead, charges were brought against Knox for defamation, or daring to suggest such a thing.

Since it would take some sort of accusation against the cops, that they had with intent lied to a suspect - in the cases where the cops conveniently forget to videotape an interrogation.... I doubt that the new law has any teeth.

Your post makes good points while also completely missing the point that in all "fair government under law" countries, the enforcement of the laws depends upon the lawful and properly assertive actions and integrity of the police, prosecutors, and courts. (In contrast, there are unfair governments - for example, dictatorships or tyrannies - in some countries, or "wild west" situations where individuals or groups attempt to right perceived wrongs without the use of "due process" aka fair structured proceedings.)

Fair justice requires sufficiently explicit laws that have been enacted before the commission of an alleged crime. See the ECHR case Contrada v. Italy #3, 66655/13, 14 April 2115. The final conviction of a police officer who served as an informant to a mafia-type criminal organization was unfair under international (CoE) law because there was no Italian law against the alleged criminal act prior to it having been performed. Italy eventually annulled the conviction. See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

 

[Stacyhs]

Your post makes good points while also completely missing the point that in all "fair government under law" countries, the enforcement of the laws depends upon the lawful and properly assertive actions and integrity of the police, prosecutors, and courts. (In contrast, there are unfair governments - for example, dictatorships or tyrannies - in some countries, or "wild west" situations where individuals or groups attempt to right perceived wrongs without the use of "due process" aka fair structured proceedings.)

Fair justice requires sufficiently explicit laws that have been enacted before the commission of an alleged crime. See the ECHR case Contrada v. Italy #3, 66655/13, 14 April 2115. The final conviction of a police officer who served as an informant to a mafia-type criminal organization was unfair under international (CoE) law because there was no Italian law against the alleged criminal act prior to it having been performed. Italy eventually annulled the conviction. See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

I didn't miss you point at all which I understood and agree with. I was simply commenting on one line of your post.

 

[Numbers]

I didn't miss you point at all which I understood and agree with. I was simply commenting on one line of your post.

Yes, but I was responding to a post by Bill Williams, and not to one of yours.

Just to be clear, the relevant Italian law, CP Article 375, as enacted in 2016, after the alleged criminal acts of the police or prosecutor in the Knox case, states, in the most relevant part (Google translation):

(1) Unless the act constitutes a more serious crime, a public official or person in charge of a public service who, in order to prevent, hinder or divert an investigation or a criminal trial:

a) artificially alters the corpus delicti or the state of the places, things or people connected to the crime;

b) requested by the judicial authority or the judicial police to provide information in a criminal proceeding, states something false or denies the truth, or keeps silent, in whole or in part, about what he knows about the facts on which he is being questioned, shall be punished with imprisonment from three to eight years.

If the act is committed through the destruction, suppression, concealment, damage, in whole or in part, or the creation or artificial alteration, in whole or in part, of a document or object to be used as evidence or in any case useful for the discovery of the crime or its ascertainment, the penalty is increased by one third to one half.

Source:

Art. 375 codice penale - Frode in processo penale e depistaggio

Salvo che il fatto costituisca più grave reato, è punito con la reclusione da tre a otto anni il pubblico ufficiale o...

www.brocardi.it

 

[Numbers]

At the risk of being redundant and pedantic, I will repeat that merely because there is a law that states an action must be taken or must not be taken by the authorities, whether in Italy or anywhere else, the authorities may (unlawfully) choose to ignore that law. Indeed, that is what happened with respect to Amanda Knox's repeated complaints, made in court and through appeals, about the alleged mistreatment she received from the police and prosecutor during the interrogation. And that failure of the police and prosecution to independently and effectively investigate her credible complaints of mistreatment led to the serious - not trivial - final judgment by the ECHR that Italy had violated her rights under Convention Article 3 (procedural limb). It is this violation that is listed first in the CoE Execution of ECHR Judgments summary of the case; see:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, but I was responding to a post by Bill Williams, and not to one of yours.

Just to be clear, the relevant Italian law, CP Article 375, as enacted in 2016, after the alleged criminal acts of the police or prosecutor in the Knox case, states, in the most relevant part (Google translation):




Source:

Art. 375 codice penale - Frode in processo penale e depistaggio

Salvo che il fatto costituisca più grave reato, è punito con la reclusione da tre a otto anni il pubblico ufficiale o...

www.brocardi.it

Oops. My bad!

 

[Bill Williams]

At the risk of being redundant and pedantic, I will repeat that merely because there is a law that states an action must be taken or must not be taken by the authorities, whether in Italy or anywhere else, the authorities may (unlawfully) choose to ignore that law. Indeed, that is what happened with respect to Amanda Knox's repeated complaints, made in court and through appeals, about the alleged mistreatment she received from the police and prosecutor during the interrogation. And that failure of the police and prosecution to independently and effectively investigate her credible complaints of mistreatment led to the serious - not trivial - final judgment by the ECHR that Italy had violated her rights under Convention Article 3 (procedural limb). It is this violation that is listed first in the CoE Execution of ECHR Judgments summary of the case; see:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

Is it 'unlawful' to choose not to enforce a law?

In Canada, the charge process used gives the discretion, always, for the requisite authority to choose NOT to enforce a law. In Canada, more specifically, a Crown Council (or in the case of Ontario, the police) face no legal peril of which I'm aware to choose not to enforce a particular section of The Criminal Code.

Indeed, two of the most common reasons not to do so are:

1) where the charging body decides that such a charge is unlikely to result in a conviction.

2) it is not in 'the public interest' to lay a charge.

As you may guess, there is a mountain of precedent which further narrows all that down to something definable, and agreed upon.

But as such, are you sure that it is always unlawful to choose not to enforce a law? In Italy, PM discretion seems like a wide road.

 

[Numbers]

Is it 'unlawful' to choose not to enforce a law?
In Canada, the charge process used gives the discretion, always, for the requisite authority to choose NOT to enforce a law. In Canada, more specifically, a Crown Council (or in the case of Ontario, the police) face no legal peril of which I'm aware to choose not to enforce a particular section of The Criminal Code.

Indeed, two of the most common reasons not to do so are:

1) where the charging body decides that such a charge is unlikely to result in a conviction.

2) it is not in 'the public interest' to lay a charge.

As you may guess, there is a mountain of precedent which further narrows all that down to something definable, and agreed upon.

But as such, are you sure that
it is always unlawful to choose not to enforce a law? In Italy, PM discretion seems like a wide road.

Bill, you are correct that there is "prosecutorial discretion" in some countries. You mention Canada specifically. Another example is the US; it is understood that a prosecutor can choose not to bring a case to trial if it is likely that it would be impossible to secure a conviction due to a lack of evidence or other defect. Prosecutorial discretion is not considered unlawful in the US, but because it may include a subjective evaluation of the likelihood of securing a conviction, it may be criticized in particular cases.

However, contrary to your suggestion that "prosecutorial discretion" exists under Italian law or legal practices,
prosecutors in Italy are bound by the Italian Constitution, Article 112, to an obligation to initiate criminal proceedings.

The relevant Italian Code of Criminal Procedure provisions include, but may not be limited to CPP Articles 326, 358, 389, 385, 386, 390, 391 and 405. Essentially, these laws require the police to arrest a suspect based upon evidence (exempting anyone who might have committed the alleged criminal act as a duty or a legitimate act) and require the prosecutor to bring an accused before the judiciary for a confirmation hearing. If the confirmation hearing and subsequent further investigation does not indicate the criminal charge against the accused must be dropped (for example, because of a lack of evidence or because the suspect had the right to commit the act), the prosecutor must initiate the prosecution before a court.

See:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/pdf/Costituzione_italiana_english_version_ott2023.pdf

Codice di procedura penale 2023

Codice di procedura penale 2023 (D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n. 447)

www.brocardi.it

 

[Stacyhs]

Amanda has another book coming out on March 25 called FREE. My Search for Meaning. Expect the pearl clutching and outrage from the usual colpevolisti because, you know, the guilty ***** should just go away.

Knox is set to release a new book about her experiences, PEOPLE can exclusively reveal. Free: My Search for Meaning will be published in 2025 through Grand Central Publishing, an imprint of Hachette Book Group.

In Free, Knox will recount her experience while incarcerated, as well as the process of reintegrating into society after her exoneration, per the book’s synopsis. The book will also recount untold stories, such as Knox’s return to Italy, as well as the relationship she’s forged with the man who sent her to prison. The book, however, will largely share Knox’s personal growth and “search for meaning and purpose.”

“When my roommate, Meredith, was brutally raped and murdered, I should have been a footnote in her tragic story,” Knox says in a statement shared with PEOPLE. “Instead, at 20 years old, I was accused of a horrific crime I had nothing to do with and catapulted into international infamy. After I was exonerated, I was facing an impossible question: Now what? I could never return to being an anonymous college student. I was the girl accused of murder.”

“I was trapped in that story. I didn’t feel free. It’s taken me over a decade, but I slowly learned to make meaning out of my misfortune,” the author continues. “I created my own freedom. It’s been said that pain is inevitable, but that suffering is a choice. Free is a guide to making that choice and making that choice matter — in my life and in yours. Because my circumstances may be extraordinary, but the challenges I’ve faced are universal.”

 

[Numbers]

Bill, you are correct that there is "prosecutorial discretion" in some countries. You mention Canada specifically. Another example is the US; it is understood that a prosecutor can choose not to bring a case to trial if it is likely that it would be impossible to secure a conviction due to a lack of evidence or other defect. Prosecutorial discretion is not considered unlawful in the US, but because it may include a subjective evaluation of the likelihood of securing a conviction, it may be criticized in particular cases.

However, contrary to your suggestion that "prosecutorial discretion" exists under Italian law or legal practices,
prosecutors in Italy are bound by the Italian Constitution, Article 112, to an obligation to initiate criminal proceedings.

The relevant Italian Code of Criminal Procedure provisions include, but may not be limited to CPP Articles 326, 358, 389, 385, 386, 390, 391 and 405. Essentially, these laws require the police to arrest a suspect based upon evidence (exempting anyone who might have committed the alleged criminal act as a duty or a legitimate act) and require the prosecutor to bring an accused before the judiciary for a confirmation hearing. If the confirmation hearing and subsequent further investigation does not indicate the criminal charge against the accused must be dropped (for example, because of a lack of evidence or because the suspect had the right to commit the act), the prosecutor must initiate the prosecution before a court.

See:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/pdf/Costituzione_italiana_english_version_ott2023.pdf

Codice di procedura penale 2023

Codice di procedura penale 2023 (D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n. 447)

www.brocardi.it

Bill, you are correct that there is "prosecutorial discretion" in some countries. You mention Canada specifically. Another example is the US; it is understood that a prosecutor can choose not to bring a case to trial if it is likely that it would be impossible to secure a conviction due to a lack of evidence or other defect. Prosecutorial discretion is not considered unlawful in the US, but because it may include a subjective evaluation of the likelihood of securing a conviction, it may be criticized in particular cases.

However, contrary to your suggestion that "prosecutorial discretion" exists under Italian law or legal practices,
prosecutors in Italy are bound by the Italian Constitution, Article 112, to an obligation to initiate criminal proceedings.

The relevant Italian Code of Criminal Procedure provisions include, but may not be limited to CPP Articles 326, 358, 389, 385, 386, 390, 391 and 405. Essentially, these laws require the police to arrest a suspect based upon evidence (exempting anyone who might have committed the alleged criminal act as a duty or a legitimate act) and require the prosecutor to bring an accused before the judiciary for a confirmation hearing. If the confirmation hearing and subsequent further investigation does not indicate the criminal charge against the accused must be dropped (for example, because of a lack of evidence or because the suspect had the right to commit the act), the prosecutor must initiate the prosecution before a court.

See:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/pdf/Costituzione_italiana_english_version_ott2023.pdf

Codice di procedura penale 2023

Codice di procedura penale 2023 (D.P.R. 22 settembre 1988, n. 447)

www.brocardi.it

For accuracy with respect to reporting on current Italian procedural law, I feel obligated to add that the procedural obligation for the prosecutor to prosecute is now (as of 2022*) to be found in CPP Article 407 bis, leaving CPP Article 405 containing essentially only the nominal statutory time limit of 1 year from the naming of a suspect/accused for the completion of the preliminary investigation. Note that there are several CPP articles that allow for that nominal time limit to be extended under certain circumstances.

The prosecutor may drop a case after beginning the preliminary investigation only with the written permission of a judge and only for certain legally permissible reasons, which are provided in CPP Articles 408 and 411. However, a case dropped at this stage of the proceedings (investigation) may be resumed as provided in CPP Articles 410 bis and 414.

See: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/12/18/chiusura-delle-indagini-preliminari

* I had been using a 2014 English translation of the CPP. The Altalex text I reference here seems current. The Brocadi text I previously reference is also current, but may require registration or turning off ad blockers.

 

[TomG]

Amanda has another book coming out on March 25 called FREE. My Search for Meaning. Expect the pearl clutching and outrage from the usual colpevolisti because, you know, the guilty ***** should just go away.

Mignini's and Guede's books are just fine though.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mignini's and Guede's books are just fine though.

Along with the myriad others like Nadeau, Follain, and that POS NvderL who wrote books on the case. Everyone other than the people who can tell us how they felt, they thought, and what happened to them from the first-person point of view.