Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Vixens starting position was that the receipts proved bleach was purchased and that Richard Owen's article was proof of their existence. Now she seems (without explicit acknowledgement so far as I can see) to have accepted no receipts were found but continues to believe in the purchase anyway. In other words, her position is not dependent on or related to the evidence in any way. She could have saved us all a lot of trouble by coming out and saying so right off.

I could have told her where to find those receipts. Michael at dot net has them.

 

[Kauffer]

That is the context we were discussing here. It's no good changing the subject and hoping no-one notices.

No it wasn't. You stated that plea bargaining was illegal in Italy. I educated you. Then, you tried to define what a plea bargain is and got it wrong.

 

[davefoc]

Patteggiamento:
"With regard to the Application of punishment upon request of the parties (the so-called patteggiamento), it is an original form of negotiated justice. During preliminary investigations (CPP Article 447) or at the preliminary hearing (Article 446) or at the first hearing before a single judge (Articles 555-556), the Public Prosecutor and the accused person may request the judge to apply a sentence they have agreed on....The negotiated judgment issued upon request of the parties shall be considered equivalent to a conviction. No appellate remedy may be invoked against the negotiated judgment, but an appeal in Cassation is always admissible."

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation. Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federika Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia, (c) 2014, p 44-45

Note that the patteggiamento is different from the fast-track trial procedure (called guidizio abbreviato), although in both cases the judge must (at least in theory) verify that the person is not actually innocent and that the criminal act has been identified by the correct legally-defined criminal charge.

The patteggiamento is indeed the closest Italian equivalent of the US plea bargain; it is indeed a negotiated conviction.

...

As I recall Machiavelli repeatedly claimed that plea bargains were illegal in Italy. At the time, I don't recall that he was challenged on that. Although I and. perhaps. others said something to the effect that regardless of whether the practice was not allowed, in practice some form of plea bargaining would exist in any legal system because without it there wouldn't be enough capacity to provide a full trial for every defendant that would opt for one and prosecutors would not have a powerful tool for gaining convictions, getting conspirators to flip on their buddies in return for reduced sentences.

Your post suggests that Machiavelli was not just wrong in some sense of his claim, his claim was categorically wrong. Is that a fair characterization of the situation or was there some legitimate basis for Machiavelli's claim?

 

[Kauffer]

As I recall Machiavelli repeatedly claimed that plea bargains were illegal in Italy. At the time, I don't recall that he was challenged on that. Although I and. perhaps. others said something to the effect that regardless of whether the practice was not allowed, in practice some form of plea bargaining would exist in any legal system because without it there wouldn't be enough capacity to provide a full trial for every defendant that would opt for one and prosecutors would not have a powerful tool for gaining convictions, getting conspirators to flip on their buddies in return for reduced sentences.

Your post suggests that Machiavelli was not just wrong in some sense of his claim, his claim was categorically wrong. Is that a fair characterization of the situation or was there some legitimate basis for Machiavelli's claim?

It's only for sentences less than five years - so not available in murder cases. The problem is that the pro guilt people don't really know what they're talking about most of the time. Machiavelli is a study in confirmation bias and suspect centred thinking.

 

[Numbers]

As I recall Machiavelli repeatedly claimed that plea bargains were illegal in Italy. At the time, I don't recall that he was challenged on that. Although I and. perhaps. others said something to the effect that regardless of whether the practice was not allowed, in practice some form of plea bargaining would exist in any legal system because without it there wouldn't be enough capacity to provide a full trial for every defendant that would opt for one and prosecutors would not have a powerful tool for gaining convictions, getting conspirators to flip on their buddies in return for reduced sentences.

Your post suggests that Machiavelli was not just wrong in some sense of his claim, his claim was categorically wrong. Is that a fair characterization of the situation or was there some legitimate basis for Machiavelli's claim?

It's only for sentences less than five years - so not available in murder cases. The problem is that the pro guilt people don't really know what they're talking about most of the time. Machiavelli is a study in confirmation bias and suspect centred thinking.

The so-called patteggiamento is defined legally in CPP Article 444. The formal title is translated as "Application of punishment upon request" and not as "plea bargain". It may only be applied to crimes where, after all circumstances are considered and after the one-third reduction is applied, the prison sentence does not exceed 5 years, or 5 years plus financial penalty.

Thus, it cannot apply legally to a conviction for murder, unless somehow the sentence could be reduced by application of circumstances and the one-third reduction to 5 years. Such reduction for murder is highly unlikely and perhaps impossible under Italian legal practice.

Guilter statements tend to be unreliable or not fully accurate and should be evaluated carefully against actual official documents or other reliable sources.

 

[davefoc]

...

Guilter statements tend to be unreliable or not fully accurate and should be evaluated carefully against actual official documents or other reliable sources.

It seems like Machiavelli was about right here in the context of the discussion since the underlying issue of the thread involves a murder. I still think it is likely that something akin to plea bargaining goes on in most cases even if it is not explicitly written in to law. In some form it seems to have gone on in this case.

 

[acbytesla]

Watches don't have the intent to deceive.

Why do the guilters and her need to misrepresent the facts if they are trying to present the truth? Why do they have to make up lies, like mixed blood, bleach receipts etc.

Vixen continues to cite as evidence newpaper articles. These in her mind represent the most compelling of arguments. When asked why this information was not brought forth in the trial her answer usually amounts to that the prosecutors just chose not to. But that doesn't make the info less valid. This baffles me.

She thinks I have a crush on Amanda. While I think Amanda is attractive, that is not enough to hand her or anyone a free pass to kill. If I actually thought that Amanda was guilty of this crime, I wouldn't care if they put her in prison forever. I want justice to be done. But punishing innocent people is not justice, it's just sick.

Where is the evidence? Vixen's explanation is that the cops and prosecutors and forensic techs thinks there is evidence. Talk about sucking up to authority. I was taught to use my own mind.

Why is it that people like Vixen think that 3 people that altogether knew each other for less than 2 weeks. (IIRC) Two of which didn't know each other at all. Without ever calling texting or emailing each other got together to murder the roommate of one of them? Particularly when one of them was supposed to work that night? And then why would they cover for each other? Oh, I forgot, they could hardly communicate with each other?

Frankly, I think this is not just deranged it is flat out stupid. I'll grant anyone that strange things do happen. But you HAVE TO PROVE THEM!. Which hasn't been close to have done. While the evidence to exonerate them is not perfect, its pretty damn good. And the evidence to convict is not only weak it's suspect as hell. Vixen and Machiavelli defend Mignini and Stefanoni as if the fact that they must be reliable since they have positions of authority.

But this is really dumb as there are people like them all over the world. Nifong for example comes to mind.

There is one reason and one reason only that Amanda and Raffaele were finally declared innocent. And that is they were innocent and the whole world knew it. (Morons excepted)

 

[Mr Fied]

Poor logic. The police are forever searching for murder weapons, but rarely find them. Does that mean the murder never happened?

No, you are showing poor logic. The fact that a murder has been discovered means that a murder happened, whether or not the murder weapon was found does not change this.

Just to remind you, Meredith Kercher was murdered. That is a fact even though the murder weapon has never been found.

The fact that there is no proof that bleach was purchased that morning means there is no proof that bleach was purchased that morning.

 

[acbytesla]

No, sex is not immoral, sexual immorality is.

What constitutes sexual immorality? Are you the arbiter of what that is?

Is it premarital sex?
Oral sex?
Anal sex?
Is it only sex in the missionary position with the the lights off? Should we avoid seeing each other in the flesh to save our eyes from burning out of our sockets?

Tell us oh wise one. What kinds of sex are ok and what kinds of sex are forbidden so we can go forth and not be immoral any longer.

 

[Bill Williams]

What constitutes sexual immorality? Are you the arbiter of what that is?

Is it premarital sex?
Oral sex?
Anal sex?
Is it only sex in the missionary position with the the lights off? Should we avoid seeing each other in the flesh to save our eyes from burning out of our sockets?

Tell us oh wise one. What kinds of sex are ok and what kinds of sex are forbidden so we can go forth and not be immoral any longer.

One kind of sexual immorality is slut-shaming. Review Vixen's posts and do the math.

 

[Strozzi]

Well if you believe that Knox bought bleach that morning, on the way from Sollecito's to her flat, to use it to clean the crime scene, then the bleach would have been used that morning. If you believe the postal police arrived unexpectedly they presumably interrupted cleaning. You previously said you thought Knox was found with a mop in her hand by the postal police. So on this train of thought the bleach would be fresh. Not only would Sollecito / Knox have to make a series of phone calls but also get rid of all the cleaning materials without the police noticing, or subsequently Filomena and friends.

My point is none of this makes sense.

Since A and R were accused of wiping away all traces of their participation in a violent and gory murder, they would have had to use the bleach in thorough cleaning of select areas of the house - Victim's floor, walls, door, baseboards, hallway tiles, doorknobs, etc. Bleach stains (discolors) clothes. If the defendants cleaned so much surface area with bleach they surely got some of it on their clothes.

Why were their clothes in good, unstained, unsplashed condition? Why were the police or forensic police so lax in not collecting Amanda's blue jacket or other clothes for weeks after the crime when the prosecutor claimed that the defendants selectively cleaned the crime scene of their prints while leaving Rudi's?

 

[sept79]

Since A and R were accused of wiping away all traces of their participation in a violent and gory murder, they would have had to use the bleach in thorough cleaning of select areas of the house - Victim's floor, walls, door, baseboards, hallway tiles, doorknobs, etc. Bleach stains (discolors) clothes. If the defendants cleaned so much surface area with bleach they surely got some of it on their clothes.

Why were their clothes in good, unstained, unsplashed condition? Why were the police or forensic police so lax in not collecting Amanda's blue jacket or other clothes for weeks after the crime when the prosecutor claimed that the defendants selectively cleaned the crime scene of their prints while leaving Rudi's?

Why were the prosecution and the Italian judges duped down this road?

 

[davefoc]

Why were the prosecution and the Italian judges duped down this road?

That is a key question. My sense of it is that the judges identified with Mignini and felt it was their duty and in their interest to go along with the state prosecutor. Based on a very limited reading of their reports it seems like they may not have been all that bright. I think Hellman got crap not because the judges thought he was actually wrong about the innocence of AK/RS. I think he got crap because he acted like he wasn't part of the system that allowed a prosecutor to convict the people he wanted to convict.

Despite all the apparent problems with the Italian legal system, I wonder how it stacks up against the American system statistically. How does the conviction rate of actually guilty people in Italy compare with the conviction rate of actually guilty people in the US and how does the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in Italy compare with the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in the US?

Based on the AK/RS case and Mignini's MoF case one would think the false conviction rate in Italy is fairly high. But is that true? Presumably a very high percentage of the time the people convicted are actually guilty.

 

[Methos]

The only thing I've come across regarding cash registers were to do with Lumumba's pub and a certain Alfredo Costarelli. I dunno who he was, Methos might know.

They haven't been translated yet either.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co.../2007-11-07-Witness-deposition-Costarelli.pdf

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-co...n-Costarelli-Lumumba-cash-register-report.pdf

Costarelli is a technician for a firm called H PIERRE SAS. He was called as a consultant for the PM to perform a check on Lumumba's cash register:
OCR of Deposition #2:

QUESTURA DI PERUGIA
SQUADRA MOBILE
OGGETTO:Verbale delle operazioni svolte in merito alla verifica dei dati contenuti all'interno del registratore di cassa matr.EU84 202266.
Il sottoscritto COSTARELLI Alfredo, nato a Perugia il 09.10.1967 residente ad Uinbestide (PG) in Via Pitulo n°29 tel. 3481338294, tecnico della ditta 'HPIERRE sas, incaricato con nomina di ausiliario di P.G. in data odierna, alle ore 20.00 dalla Squadra Mobile della Questura di Perugia, dà atto di avere iniziato le operazioni tecniche sull'apparecchio misuratore fiscale di cui all'oggetto alle ore 20'20 del 7 novembre 2007 presso gli uffici della Squadra Mobile della Questura di Perugia, alla presenza degli Ufficiali di Polizia Giudiziaria V.Q.re Agg. Dott. Chiacchiera Marco, Isp.ri Capo Antonio FACCHINI e FICARRA Rita, e degli Avv.ti Giuseppe Sereni e Carlo Pacelli, nonche della Sig.ra Aleksandra Kania.-----
Alle ore 20.20 quindi viene inserita la spina che accende la macchina e dopo averla accesa, la macchina non risulta programmata per avere l'ora sul display in automatico. Pertanto per farla comparire sul display è necessario pigiare il tasto "funzioni data -ora". Il tasto viene pigiato una volta e compare la data del 7.11.07; Il tasto viene pigiato una seconda volta ed appare così l'ora : " 21 24 59 '"che risulta essere l'ora solare. L'orario viene confrontato con quello del sito www.ien.it\stittime_i.shtml risultando come di seguito indicato : quello deI sito "20.29.15", contemporaneamente quello del registratore di cassa risulta "20.31.00".-----
Do atto altresì che per rimettere l'orario nel misuratore fiscale è necessario compiere un'operazione manuale dopo la chiusura giornaliera e che il misuratore fiscale non registra la data di accensione e spegnimento dello stesso.-----
Ho battuto uno scontrino da 1 (uno) euro digitando il tasto "1", il tasto "virgola" e 2 volte il tasto "0" poi il tasto "rep 5" ed il tasto denominato "totale". La macchina emette lo scontrino corretto e pigiando nuovamente per due volte il tasto finzione "data ora" accertiamo che l'ora che compare nello scontrino è corrispondente con l'orario che compare sul display. All'apertura del cassetto noto che all'interno ci sono monete cosi suddivise : 4 monete da euro 2,00, 44 monete da un euro, 5 monete da 20 centesimi, 1 moneta da 50 centesimi e 2 da 10 centesimi. Ho alzato il cassetto portamonete e do atto che vi è contenuta la somma di 18 monete da 1 centesimo e 4 da 2 centesimi. Noto altri biglietti numerati di colore verde e 2 fogli di carta bianca con degli appunti contenenti da un lato conteggi numerici dall'altro conteggi ed appunti irrilevanti. L'altro foglio è un volantino pubblicitario del locale "le chic" con dietro annotate due somme. Dichiaro inoltre che tutte le monete contenute nel misuratore di cassa viene consegnato, concordemente agli avvocati ed Uff.li di P.G. presenti, alla signora Aleksandra Kania.-----
Do atto quindi di aprire il vano porta carta, ove, al suo interno trovo il giornale di fondo del misuratore fiscale. Do atto, che il primo scontrino riportata l'importo di 5 euro ed è stato eseguito alle ore 02.55 del 28.10.2007; riporta inoltre il numero di scontrino "45" e la matricola del misuratore fiscale stesso che è EU 84202266. Prendo atto che l'ultimo scontrino, escluso quello di prova effettuato in serata odierna, è l'azzeramento fiscale del 4.11.2007 emesso alle ore 03.07, riportante sempre il numero di matricola EU84202266 -----
Le operazioni sopra descritte sono terminate alle ore 21.05 con lo spegnimento della macchina ----
Letto, confermato e sottoscritto da tutti gli intervenuti alle operazioni

Google translation of OCR:

POLICE HEADQUARTERS OF PERUGIA
MOBILE TEAM
SUBJECT: Minutes of the operations performed on the verification of the data contained within the cash register matr.EU84 202266.
The undersigned COSTARELLI Alfredo, born in Perugia on 10/09/1967 resident to Uinbestide (PG) in Via Pitulo No. 29 tel. 3481338294, company engineer 'HPIERRE sas, charged with appointing auxiliary PG today at 20.00 from the Flying Squad of the Police Headquarters in Perugia, is acknowledged to have started the technical operations on the unit of the cash register which object to 20'20 hours of 7 November 2007 at the offices of the Flying Squad of the Police Headquarters Perugia, in the presence of officers of the Judicial Police VQre Agg. Dr. Mark Chatting, Isp.ri Cape Antonio FACCHINI FICARRA and Rita, and Avv.ti Giuseppe Sereni, Carlo Pacelli, as well as Ms. Aleksandra Kania .---------------- -----------------
At 20:20 so that the plug is inserted and turn on the machine after turning it on, the machine is not programmed to have the clock display automatically. Therefore to make it appear on the display you must press the button "date functions -now". The button is pressed once and appears dated 11/07/07; The button is pressed a second time and looks like this time: "21 24 59 '" which happens to be the time of day. The time is compared with that of the site www.ien.it \ stittime_i.shtml resulting as follows: the site of "20:29:15", while that of the cash register is "20:31:00" .---- -
Do note also that to put the time in the cash register is necessary to perform a manual operation after the end of day and that the cash register does not record the date on and off the same .----------- ---------------------
I beat a ticket from one (1) euro by dialing "1" key, the "comma" and 2 times the key "0" then the button "Rep 5" and the button called "total". The machine emits a receipt properly and pressing it again to key twice fiction "date time" make certain that the time that appears on the receipt corresponds with the time that appears on the display. Opening the drawer known that inside there are coins so divided: 4 coins € 2.00, 44 coins of one euro, 5 coins from 20 cents, 50 cents coin 1 and 2 by 10 cents. I raised the cash register drawer and do note that they contain the sum of 18 coins from 1 cent to 2 cents and 4. Noto other tickets numbered green and two sheets of paper with notes containing one hand counts numerical calculations and other notes irrelevant. The other sheet is a flyer advertising the local "the chic" with behind annotated two sums. I also certify that all the coins contained in the meter box is delivered, unanimously lawyers and Uff.li PG present, Mrs. Aleksandra Kania .----
Do note then open the paper compartment, where, inside I find the paper to the bottom of the cash register. Do note, that the first receipt shows the amount of 5 Euros and was executed at 02:55 of 28.10.2007; also reports the ticket number "45" and the serial number of the cash register which is the same EU 84202266. I note that the last bill, excluding the test carried out in the evening today, is the elimination of tax 11.04.2007 issued at 3:07, showing always the serial number EU84202266 ----------------------------------------- ------------------
The above transactions were completed at 05.21 with power cycle ----
Read, confirmed and signed by all participants to transactions

The first document is about his nomination as a technical consultant.
It's interesting, that two of Lumumba's lawyers and his wife Ms Kania were present...

 

[bagels]

That is a key question. My sense of it is that the judges identified with Mignini and felt it was their duty and in their interest to go along with the state prosecutor. Based on a very limited reading of their reports it seems like they may not have been all that bright. I think Hellman got crap not because the judges thought he was actually wrong about the innocence of AK/RS. I think he got crap because he acted like he wasn't part of the system that allowed a prosecutor to convict the people he wanted to convict.

Despite all the apparent problems with the Italian legal system, I wonder how it fairs against the American system statistically. How does the conviction rate of actually guilty people in Italy compare with the conviction rate of actually guilty people in the US and how does the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in Italy compare with the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in the US?

Based on the AK/RS case and Mignini's MoF case one would think the false conviction rate in Italy is fairly high. But is that true? Presumably a very high percentage of the time the people convicted are actually guilty.

This is why I like the Matteini report because it shows the workings of an Italian judge against a factually innocent person that even PGP agree was obviously innocent.

Matteini pointing out Patrick Lumumba trying to weasel away his lack of alibi:

"when the Court addressed this objection to the suspect, he remained silent for some minutes, trying to justify this “void” with the supposition that the till receipts are not issued at the time the order is made but when the customer leaves the pub.

This explanation does not hold up either in that it does not explain why there are no till receipts from 18:00 to 22:29, and why these start to be issued with increasing regularity from 22:29 up until closing."

Support of a bogus witness with obviously false testimony:

"Further confirmation that the pub was closed before the above-mentioned time can be found in the statements from one of the regular customers, Vulcano Gerardo Pasquale, who was heard [13] on 7/11/2007. He stated he had noted that the pub was closed at about 19:00 on the 1st November, and that he had also noticed the same thing later on when he returned from the pizzeria."

Then the invention of a motive and plot out of thin air:

"It is likely that Patrick had actually intended not to open the pub, thinking that he would be able to spend the night with Meredith; then, given the way events unfolded, he considered it advantageous to open the pub specifically to create an alibi."

This kind of theatrical performance from the judges is repeated almost verbatim with Knox and Sollecito, but the guilters don't bat an eye.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is why I like the Matteini report because it shows the workings of an Italian judge against a factually innocent person that even PGP agree was obviously innocent.
Matteini pointing out Patrick Lumumba trying to weasel away his lack of alibi:

"when the Court addressed this objection to the suspect, he remained silent for some minutes, trying to justify this “void” with the supposition that the till receipts are not issued at the time the order is made but when the customer leaves the pub.

This explanation does not hold up either in that it does not explain why there are no till receipts from 18:00 to 22:29, and why these start to be issued with increasing regularity from 22:29 up until closing."

Support of a bogus witness with obviously false testimony:

"Further confirmation that the pub was closed before the above-mentioned time can be found in the statements from one of the regular customers, Vulcano Gerardo Pasquale, who was heard [13] on 7/11/2007. He stated he had noted that the pub was closed at about 19:00 on the 1st November, and that he had also noticed the same thing later on when he returned from the pizzeria."

Then the invention of a motive and plot out of thin air:

"It is likely that Patrick had actually intended not to open the pub, thinking that he would be able to spend the night with Meredith; then, given the way events unfolded, he considered it advantageous to open the pub specifically to create an alibi."

This kind of theatrical performance from the judges is repeated almost verbatim with Knox and Sollecito, but the guilters don't bat an eye.

That's the thing, isn't it. One of the few things that everyone can agree upon is that Lumumba is innocent and factually innocent.

Acc. to John Follain, the reason Lumumba was arrested was because as Mignini was quoted as saying, "Amanda accused him". Just two pages prior, though, Mignini is quoted as offering the opinion that, "Amanda is a liar and an actress."

Putting those two things together is a headscratcher.

Yet, as you point out, Matteini can riff off of this with impunity, saying all sorts of things and drawing all sorts of conclusions - about an obviously innocent Lumumba - with no reference back to Knox at all.

And it's no good blaming Knox for Matteini's conclusions; regardless of where you stand on calunnia. Matteini now even knows why Lumumba both closed and then opened his pub!!!

 

[Ken Dine]

That is a key question. My sense of it is that the judges identified with Mignini and felt it was their duty and in their interest to go along with the state prosecutor. Based on a very limited reading of their reports it seems like they may not have been all that bright.

I think Hellman got crap not because the judges thought he was actually wrong about the innocence of AK/RS. I think he got crap because he acted like he wasn't part of the system that allowed a prosecutor to convict the people he wanted to convict.

There was the problem that the prosecutor, Mignini, was also considered to be a fellow judge.

Despite all the apparent problems with the Italian legal system, I wonder how it stacks up against the American system statistically. How does the conviction rate of actually guilty people in Italy compare with the conviction rate of actually guilty people in the US and how does the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in Italy compare with the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in the US?

Since many innocent people convicted of crimes serve out their sentences (or are executed) without an exoneration, in America that would be difficult to determine.

Since I suspect that the burden-of-proof standard is higher in America than it is in Italy, and with better rules regarding the admissibility of evidence (and fairness in general), likely more innocent people (as well as more guilty people) are exonerated at the trial level here.

However, once an innocent person is wrongly convicted here, then un-ringing that bell is very difficult to do in America.

Based on the AK/RS case and Mignini's MoF case one would think the false conviction rate in Italy is fairly high. But is that true? Presumably a very high percentage of the time the people convicted are actually guilty.

The vast majority of people convicted of crimes are at least guilty of something (if not the crime they were actually convicted of), but in any system it is the innocent people convicted of crimes which is a big concern.

In America, as in Italy, I suspect that most wrongful convictions are the result of unethical prosecutors, as well as sloppy judges who may allow prosecutorial nonsense.


EDIT: to add, STOOPID jurors!

Not sure about how it is in Italy, but here in America the average person appears to be a CLUCK!

Jay Leno (before he retired) used to have 'Jay Walking' where he would stop and ask random people on the street simple questions that few of them could answer. Jimmy Kimmel also does that today, as does Jesse Watters on Faux News, with the same sorry results.

SHOCKING the thought of being tried by a jury of your (IGNORANT) peers!

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
Jay Leno (before he retired) used to have 'Jay Walking' where he would stop and ask random people on the street simple questions that few of them could answer. Jimmy Kimmel also does that today, as does Jesse Watters on Faux News, with the same sorry results.

SHOCKING the thought of being tried by a jury of your (IGNORANT) peers!

Does this suggest that rulings on the efficacy of scientific evidence (such as the infamous knife/bra clasp) should be made by an independent panel instead of a jury of 'clucks' and/or Italian judges?

 

[LondonJohn]

That is a key question. My sense of it is that the judges identified with Mignini and felt it was their duty and in their interest to go along with the state prosecutor. Based on a very limited reading of their reports it seems like they may not have been all that bright. I think Hellman got crap not because the judges thought he was actually wrong about the innocence of AK/RS. I think he got crap because he acted like he wasn't part of the system that allowed a prosecutor to convict the people he wanted to convict.

Despite all the apparent problems with the Italian legal system, I wonder how it stacks up against the American system statistically. How does the conviction rate of actually guilty people in Italy compare with the conviction rate of actually guilty people in the US and how does the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in Italy compare with the false conviction rate of actually innocent people in the US?

Based on the AK/RS case and Mignini's MoF case one would think the false conviction rate in Italy is fairly high. But is that true? Presumably a very high percentage of the time the people convicted are actually guilty.

Others have addressed this very well before me, but I wanted to weigh in because I think this is absolutely central to the whole problem, and it's perhaps the genesis of all that is fundamentally wrong and unfit-for-purpose in Italian criminal justice.

I believe that, owing to the particular history of Italy and of its inquisitorial system, judges/courts are improperly prone to taking the prosecutors' position as a starting point, and expecting the defence team to have to demolished the prosecution position before acquitting. In other words, exactly the opposite of the way it ought to be: innocent until proven guilty, with innocence taken as the starting point and the entire burden upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond doubt.

It's clear to me that criminal courts in Italy still very often operate on the following (improper and unjust) principle: "The Prosecuting Magistrate is a non-partisan public official who is solely concerned with seeking justice; therefore if the PM is presenting the case for guilt, we should implicitly trust him/her to be fair, unbiassed and accurate. The defence teams, on the other hand, are partisan shills for the defendant, and their position should therefore be automatically hugely discounted relative to the PM's position."


I think we saw exactly this playing out in several of the Knox/Sollecito judicial hearings and trials. And as has been pointed out, the way that Matteini acquiesced so horrifically to Mignini over Lumumba was a perfect illustration, given that Lumumba is unimpeachably innocent. Similarly, the ways in which Matteini, Micheli and Massei handled proceedings against Knox and Sollecito leaves me in little doubt that a similar phenomenon of improper deference to the prosecution was going on in spades.

And I and others have also commented many times on the fundamental structural problem in respect of judicial panels in Italy. It should be obvious that the two professional judges on the judicial panel can and will - both explicitly and subconsciously - influence the six lay judges such that the overall majority decision is almost always that of the two professional judges (In other words, I'd contend that if the two professional judges vote for (say) guilt, it's rare to the point of unheard-of for six, five or even four of the lay jurors to vote for acquittal). I believe that the Italian judicial panel in its current form was introduced to give the veneer of popular justice, but with the knowledge that in practice the decisions remained in the hands of the judges alone.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
I think we saw exactly this playing out in several of the Knox/Sollecito judicial hearings and trials. And as has been pointed out, the way that Matteini acquiesced so horrifically to Mignini over Lumumba was a perfect illustration, given that Lumumba is unimpeachably innocent. Similarly, the ways in which Matteini, Micheli and Massei handled proceedings against Knox and Sollecito leaves me in little doubt that a similar phenomenon of improper deference to the prosecution was going on in spades.
.
.
.

Observers in Massei's court room strongly suggested that the proceedings were tinged with an atmosphere of 'guilt' way before the conclusion of the trial.