Thursday, February 24, 2011

Supreme Court Confirms the Collective Crime

But Who Are They?

The motivations of the ruling with which the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of Rudi Guede to 16 years, have just been deposited.
The writing judge Enzo Iannelli describes Guede’s contribution as part of a collective assault aimed to realize an orgiastic will and give vent on the victim of the most pervert criminal instincts.
The number of wounds and their nature, Iannelli explains, excludes the surprise attack by a single perpetrator described by Guede, and reveals a prolonged and crescent constraining action, focused on the sexual assault.
For Iannelli, the version Rudi provided is totally far-fetched. Not credible is the story of the kiss with Meredith the previous evening and the appointment for the next day. Not credible is that he and Meredith had been intimate in her room. The assertion itself that he knew Meredith is objectively denied by all testimonies.

Finally, even the judicial system seem to have started considering the hypothesis of the crime that doesn’t necessary include Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The document stressed that the Supreme Court had only been called to assess the guilt of Guede.
Iannelli, though, confirms the collective assault, but the description he provides, all focuses on sexual purpose perpetrated with extreme cruelty. All this that suggested the actions of accomplished criminals, rather than two lovebirds who had just finished watching Amelie. His analysis seems to exclude any female psychology as part of the crime, even more so as its mastermind.

Wigs, Makeup and Flaws
Family Asks Three Million Euro

American masquerade
With complimentary flaw
2.8 million tuned in to view, according to Nielsen. Not bad. However, it’s worthy to note, that with all the controversy that preceded the airing of the Amanda Knox telepic, and with all the free advertising we provided, much more was expected.
Considering that The Craiglist Killer brought in 5.4 million viewers in early January, we have to admit it was almost a debacle.
Many Americans probably figured out that the Lifetime telepic had nothing to teach them about the case, and preferred to watch something else (like I did).


So, the telepic had no claims of making revelations, not even of rendering the known facts in a faithful way, it seems.
The hunting game for factual mistakes, indeed, started immediately. At first, someone noted that Meredith wasn’t drinking coffee in real life, as it instead appeared in the telepic. Then the game continued on to Facebook where everyone seemed to know by heart the many important factual misrepresentations, that are now listed in the reviews made by Nikki Battiste, Candace Dempsey, and Doug Longhini.

The filmmakers even managed to lay a red carpet at the court entrance, confusing it with a Grammy Award or the Oscars.
I had written about a red carpet during the first hearings, but obviously it was a metaphor to mean the minor celebrity status that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudi were acquiring. It’s not that there really was a red carpet leading into the courthouse!

The many mistakes that the viewers have spotted out are unavoidable when you got the story from books, articles, court transcripts... You certainly don’t find in public transcripts the secrets
of the case...

'Il Mostro di Firenze'


Unlike real movies, a telepic never made particular revelations, never made the history before, and it seems that it didn’t happen last Monday for the first time. Not exactly a bombshell, no particular emotions referred by viewers, the TV-movie passed like an innocuous entertainment, a TV show like many others (just like The Monster of Florence in Italy).
A TV show of bad taste, less we could say, towards Meredith.
And towards Amanda and Raffaele? Imagine how you would you feel if you were in jail, already with a huge weight over your shoulders, unable to have your voice heard, and others would show to four million people a masquerade of you killing your housemate, with the understanding that it may even be the truth...

The only concrete effect from the masterpiece, besides the millions going to Lifetime, seems to be the civil lawsuit Knox’s lawyers initiated against the company, and the three million euro they have already asked for. The Perugia Civil Court will examine the case on March 24. Italian authorities could eventually seize some payments Lifetime could get in Italy, from an Italian channel, for instance (like they did with Diego Maradona, when a 3 million euro check RAI TV owed him was confiscated).


This is for the fiction side. Let’s see, instead, what happens for a non fictional video. The Puglia TV Telenorba, aired on April 2008 the real crime scene video which showed Meredith. The Penal Court will take care of that on March 28. Together with the Telenorba journalists, accused of arbitrary publication of judicial acts is the whole Sollecito family... Just one of the many satellite trials of the case, similar to the one that sees Amanda’s parents on the dock.

Italian masquerade
'Michele Misseri'

Strange Lawsuit

As we know the cops sued Amanda’s parents, who were subsequently charged with defamation through the press for the interview they released to the Times Online. Only Edda and Curt, not the journalist, not the editor-in-chief, as it must be.
So we have to assume that they entered the Times unannounced to anyone, wrote and published the article themselves, and signed it with the pseudonym of John Follain. It must be like this, otherwise people understand that when a medium criticizes the cops (as Telenorba did), he gets prosecuted. When it doesn’t criticize, he’s not prosecuted, even if he hosts a libel (a presumed libel).
Not only the public, but even the CSM (the disciplinary committee) and the court of Florence may understand it this way. And the Perugia case, as we know, it’s already on their table. They may spot out new clues of abuse of office and omission of office. Especially if prompted by American and Italian authorities, who, after the strange lawsuit, are actually starting to follow the case for real.

Neapolitan masquerade
Dress your kid as Michele Misseri for Carnival, 70 €
With complimentary rope..
Three already sold

America Striking Back

The Lifetime telepic, as all telepics, needed to be neutral and say nothing striking about the case. But it’s still an American production, and there are things America can’t accept.
As Maurizio Molinari (next to be sued?), pointed out from New York, at least the TV-movie denounced the evident violation of rights the girl underwent in the police station.
This is just the beginning. America is starting to understand what happened there. Things are starting to move on the political and diplomatic side and everyday more people are getting in contact...

In those days they were telling us all those things, and we believed them (the worst of it is that they were saying the same things to the prosecutor...). We had no reason to doubt. Why should they make things up, we thought. Why should they lie about the washing machine, the keys, the sweatshirt, the phone call, the confession, the bleach receipt... if they knew they would have to provide evidence of all this one day.
It’s unbelievable the respect we had for these people; the trust we granted to them. We bought anything they told us. And those words turned to be all lies.

Can you believe that there are still some people looking for them? Every now and then someone still goes to talk to them... strictly off the record. And: they are still bashing the girl like hell! They don’t even care when the journalist they meet is an American, and will not forget those insults.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Trial for Amanda Knox's Parents

Curt and Edda Indicted


The first in depth interview Amanda’s parents released, to the Sunday Times in June 2008, has landed them in trouble.
A judge for preliminary hearing just ordered a trial for defamation through the press against Edda Mellas and Curt Knox.
They risk a minimum of six months and a 516 euro fine for having repeated Amanda’s version about the night at the police station.
Besides the penalty they risk to pay compensation to the cops since five of them, represented by Francesco Maresca, applied as civil parties (they seek damages).

Amanda’s version of the night at the police station actually perfectly matches the one referred to by Patrick Lumumba to the Mail Online. Will they sue Patrick, too? They will have to, if they read the article, unless they got something personal against Amanda.

Let’s see Patrick’s version again as reported in the Mail Online
"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.
"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'
"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that, “still handcuffed and unfed”, he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.

These statements by Patrick are consistent to what Amanda said and also to other cases.
Raniero Busco, for instance, reported that in order to break him, they showed him pictures of the dead girl, exactly like Patrick said they did with him.
For the rape of the Caffarella, they had two Romanians confess to a crime that they didn’t commit, and even garnered the two victims to state they recognized them!
Such facts confirm that the situation of the Italian police went completely out of the control in the realm of law, and some insistence is by now a usual occurrence in police stations. They can even bring people to accuse others, or to accuse themselves, as it happened in the Caffaellla case and many others. They can even kill people with an interrogation, as it happened to Giuseppe Uva, Salvatore Marino and others, up to the historical case of the anarchist Pinelli (1969).

Patrick’s statements are very grave, but very important is the fact that he withdrew them, since it’s typical of mob’s victims to retain the accusations or to withdraw after having launched them. Stefano Cucchi, for instance, when asked where his injuries came from, said that he had fallen from the stairs! Which, far from exonerating the cops, goes today to worsen their position.

His perfect day right there

Fooled by a Girl

So Amanda made a statement (they claim) and they, the great investigators, who are able to tell truth from lies at a glance, believed it! A twenty years old girl pulled their legs by telling them that Patrick was the killer, and the experienced detectives ran to arrest him!

How did they find him? Raping a girl? Sharpening knives? Oiling guns? No: they found him giving milk to his kid. Did the great investigators, at least when they saw him with the kid in his arms, understand that maybe the girl had fooled them? No, not even then!

They arrested him and, all triumphing, they summoned a press conference because the case was, in their opinion, closed! What happened to the investigative intuition they bragged to have had? The same investigative intuition which made them understand that the sms was for an appointment, or which made them understand that Amanda and Raffaele called the 112 after the police arrived, or which made them pick the knife from the drawer and recommend to the lab to test it well.
Everything has to be tested well. Why did they need to remember to test it well? How did they know that something would have been found on that cleaned knife? Investigative intuition? But they are not good at intuition, as facts showed. Then, how did they know?

The Impressive December 18

Rome’s scientific police always went to the cottage with suits and booties. But never suited up as well as they did on December 18 (when they found the bra clasp). On this day, where it wasn’t necessary since the crime scene had already been violated and completely turned upside down by inspections, they went fully covered; even with the hoods perfectly closed in front of their mouth. Not even on November 2 they were suited so perfectly. Why were they so carefully covered on December 18? Why did they need to be so perfect? Did anyone tell them to go like this? And, if yes, why? Someone who had another intuition? That, perhaps, something important would be found?

Interrogations are Recorded

The trial of Curt and Edda is set to start, ironically, on next Independence day. The cops can easily proof that Amanda lied and her parents libeled them. In the police station, indeed, everything is recorded.
Amanda was intercepted in the waiting room. We have video tapes in the waiting rooms for every other case, even in little towns. Video tapes of Erika and Omar in Novi Ligure, video tapes of Filippo Pappalardi in Gravina, tapes of everyone in Avetrana...
Every interrogation is recorded, so what was the most important interrogation of that year in Perugia must have definitely been recorded. Especially considering that it was planned. Amanda, indeed, wasn’t there by chance, as they led her to believe.
Amanda was expected, very expected. As we remember, Edgardo Giobbi revealed, surprising everyone, that he gave the order to bring Amanda and Raffaele in together. Everything was ready for Amanda, he was waiting for her, with his entire visual analysis system.... So there must definitely be a video. It’s unimaginable that there are no video and audio recordings of every second of that night.

All they have to do is to produce complete video and audio tapes of that night at the police station: Amanda will be condemned for slander, her parents for defamation and the cops will make a lot of money.

Doing Something

Shouldn’t they produce the records? The Minister of Interiors Roberto Maroni, who leads the police, should really send an inspection into that police station to attempt to understand what is going on there.
We were hoping, since the justice system manages not to shed light, in a political intervention. And something started to move. The Onorevole Rocco Girlanda, already made an official interrogation to Maroni, signed as well by Onorevole Gabriella Carlucci. The first of long series, hopefully, because things are not clear, things don’t add up. It’s the least we can say.

Something huge happened and, due to this situation that’s completely out of control, if Italy doesn’t manage to do anything America should do something. Americans should write to their President requiring him to summon the Italian Ambassador as to get detailed explanations about what happened and continues to happen in that place. It’s for these things that Presidents exist, yes? To work for their citizens and for human rights. Make him work.

Message to Hellmann from Genova
Luca Delfino Acquitted!

Luciana Biggi, right, with her twin sister

The prosecution had asked 25 years, but the Corte d’Assise of Genova acquitted Luca Delfino for the murder of his then ex-girlfriend Luciana Biggi, occurred in April 2006.

Delfino remains in jail for the murder of his other ex-girlfriend Antonella Multari, occured in August 2007, for which he was condemned to sixteen years plus five of psychiatric hospital. On the knife, indeed, there wasn’t the victim’s DNA: there was her blood.
We find a knife with blood on it, we test the blood and it comes out that it belongs to the victim. That’s how a knife becomes murder weapon...

Luca Delfino

Papers vs Fact

There wasn’t a piece of paper, like for the Marietti knife, saying Here there is (actually there was), the DNA (maybe) of the victim, trust me. There was blood that we could see and we could test again and again, without having to trust anyone’s word. There was a fact, a verifiable fact; not a piece of paper.

Hypothesis vs Proof

There wasn’t a conjecture saying The DNA test must be right, the blood test must be wrong, so this is the murder weapon because they cleaned it, even if we don’t know when and how, even if there’s no sign of cleaning. There was The Proof, the only thing that allows a jury of humans, not of gods, to condemn.

For the murder of the first girlfriend, Luciana, instead, there were lots of clues. Delfino was filmed fighting with her before the crime, and leaving the area after the crime. An anonymous witness confirmed, with a phone call, that Delfino was the murderer, and that he had staged a robbery attack on the woman. The crime was a perfect match with Delfino’s profile, with the same motive and operating technique of the other murder. So, who else could have killed her?
However, there’s no proof.

Antonella Multari
The News We Never Want to Hear

The indignation for yesterday’s sentence is strong.
There is, indeed, little doubt in who killed Luciana Biggi. But there’s no proof.

A court is not a pack of animals, not a horde of lynchers, and is not God. A trial, when legal, is a technical fact. It looks for the proof. A court has to remain in the domain of logic that pertains to man, it doesn't have to try to invade the territory of truth; that belongs to God (so to speak. Or however, to the unknown).

Where Antonella was stabbed to death by Delfino
When Justice can’t be Done

We may even know who the killer is. But when there’s doubt in how the police operated (as for OJ Simpson or for the Perugia case) the court must acquit. When there’s no proof, the judge, if he doesn’t want to violate the law, must acquit. Especially in Italy, where the prosecution can appeal...

These are very obvious concepts, but where the civilization is behind, they seem to be quite hard to follow. And judges judge with their hearth, with their guts; forgetting that the hearth is just a pump and guts are a tube. They condemn by pretending that there is proof, as we have seen for Amanda and Raffaele, and for Raniero Busco.
It’s a matter of culture, as we have seen. Where the culture of lawlessness is weaker, wherein Northern Italy, they have no problem in following the law and, in absence of a proof, acquit. It happened for Alberto Stasi and it happened, with all regrets, for a monster and a convicted killer like Luca Delfino.
There’s nothing to do: when justice can’t be done it can’t be done.

Pratillo Hellmann comes from Northern Italy. He has a chance to give a lesson of civilization to the village of Perugia.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Battle Knox-Panettiere and Life-Time in Jail

‘Just People Dressed like Us’
As Corriere della Sera paid Knox 50,000

Don't watch this trailer (link to
'Based on a true story'
This tape will self-destruct in...

I only know that Knox and Sollecito have been convicted, John Kercher keeps writing around. Yes, but a first degree conviction means nothing. There is the pre-trial, trial, first appeal, second appeal, but in truth, as we have seen, there’s only one trial, and it doesn’t end up with the first or second degree of judgement. It ends up at the Supreme Court.
So, better wait for the final verdict before toasting to someone's conviction.

John lost Meredith, he can say anything he wants, believe anything he wants, and we will always listen to him with attention. But the others should be careful with what they say and do.

Maybe because they don’t know the civil law system, maybe because they see them in jail, many perceive Amanda and Raffaele as established murderers or describe them as such in books and films. They don’t know that Amanda and Raffaele are just in a provisional detention and they, out of the article 27 (nobody can be considered guilty until the final judgement), are still officially innocent (and, with this evidence, I don’t see how their guilt could be ultimately confirmed).

Trailer vs Trial

Lifetime can take your life without asking; your life or your death, actually. Probably they are allowed because of the first amendment, and by the fact that Amanda and Raffaele are involuntary public figures (and Meredith?). They can catch your image like the pool of Narcissus. They can steal your name, your story, your myth, like a fake Anastasia. And all legally. They just bother the people involved since, as we had easily predicted, both sides felt outraged by the media operation.

But playing with other people’s lives is a dangerous game. It’s a risky investment. What if you make a mistake? What if you forget a little detail?

And little details were indeed missed, it seems. According to Knox lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, they sustained the violation of the presumption of innocence (article 27), and the many principles behind article 111 (a trial must be fair). The long, long trial of Amanda and Raffaele is still going on and doesn’t want to be disturbed by a TV film. (It’s the same concept that allowed the court to prohibit the publication of Mignini’s cartoon, or suggested the director of the jail system to preclude interviews with Amanda).

Fought and Paid

Remember that Amanda won a lawsuit in Milan against RCS-Corriere della Sera last March? Sources from the Corriere just revealed that the paper --after having been prompted by Carlo Dalla Vedova-- has already sent to Knox’s lawyers a 40,000 euro check written out to Amanda Knox and another check for the legal expenses.
They announced they were going to appeal but, in the meantime, they paid. And I’ve got the feeling that in the States it would have been much more.

Justice in Milan
by Attilio Selva (red porphyry, marble, ormolu)

The indefatigable Carlo, after having cashed-in from Corriere della Sera, has warned Lifetime and Google/Youtube to cancel the trailer and withdraw the TV-movie. And they took the trailer down from their websites.

And now, what is Lifetime going to do with the film, scheduled for February 21? Are they still going to show it and risk a lawsuit? Too late for changing names. Too much work to re-shoot some parts. Too long to wait for the end of the trial, after which the true story will likely be another story.
Maybe more money will be forthcoming for Amanda; maybe even for Raffaele; and maybe even for Kercher’s lawyer, so that everyone could be more relaxed at the trial...

Those in the Emotions and Those in the Business

I don’t know why everyone is so upset about this TV-movie. It’s just a commercial operation. At best, It’s a shallow attempt looking for the facts of the case. They don’t know that inside this case there’s a story much more compelling, perfect for a movie, a real one.
We’ve heard that Amanda felt sick when she saw the trailer but then, as usual, the most intelligent comment came from her: They are just people dressed like us...

Amanda understood perfectly. Lifetime is a business, a factory. They produce TV-movies like hamburgers. The secret of their art is minimum investment with maximum profit. They tell a story they don’t really know, and that they didn’t try to unravel. It’s more convenient repeating the cliches and closing with a question mark in the last frame, as they announced they will do. They tell a story they didn’t live, didn’t smell, didn’t witness. A faraway story, that they read in books and articles. They don’t have any idea what the Meredith Kercher case is about. So everybody should really take it easy about the forthcoming masterpiece: it’s just a business.

Box Office

It’s an excellent business.
How much could they have invested? Probably about one million for Hayden and two or three for everything else. They shot film for only one month, with their own props, and processing in their own structures. They hired cheap people. They didn’t buy the rights from a book. They didn’t even have to buy and process the celluloid (it’s TV). They didn’t even have to invest in advertising (we all take care of that for them).
They will air it on their own network, and with the sales on that channel they will earn who knows how much. Then there are the sales to the other networks... and it’s raining money. This is art of economics at its best. Shareholders of NYSE: DIS, the parent company, will be really happy.

Sea of Tranquillity

The re-examination of the DNA evidence started today in the forensic department of Rome University, with a tranquil Roman pace. Appointment in court, for them, not exactly in a couple of days, but instead on May 21. Let’s hope Rome will not be flooded by that time, because in the meanwhile glaciers keep melting away. Lifetime makes at least three movies in such time...

Michele Misseri’s Rewind Continues

Goodbye my Darling...

It seems that the medications that were evidently dimming Misseri’s mind are now over at Taranto’s jail. And he’s finally attempting to remedy the nonsense statements that he had previously made and that brought his daughter, Sabrina, to jail, too.

Let’s remember the story: when Sarah was missing the cops were interrogating Michele. He thought they understood that he was responsible for her disappearance. And he confessed to killing her and hiding the body. That’s not what they wanted to hear.
They were suspecting Sabrina, not him (because, of course, girls kill and rape other girls, not men...), and they wanted him to confess that Sabrina was the killer, and that he had just helped her dispose the body.
But he confessed differently to what they wanted to hear. So, instead of accepting the truth that emerged, they, together with his lawyer, and with some chemical help, brought him to remember the right thing (we know this technique, right?).

When they finally left him alone and suspended the pills, Michele noticed what his lawyer were trying to hide from him: to have his daughter sent to jail.
So he wrote letters trying to exonerate Sabrina, as we have seen, in which he explained that he was tricked into accusing her.
He also realized his lawyer, the architect of the disaster that brought his daughter to jail, may have deceived him, and fired him. Along with the consultants the lawyer had hired on his behalf. Including the blond lady of crimes, Roberta Bruzzone, who did not hesitate in supporting the nonsense accusations against Sabrina.

Even after Michele’s multiple retracts, the court still kept Sabrina incarcerated. Judicial troubles happen in a moment, Franco Coppi commented, but then it may take a long time to solve them.
We had noticed.. even three or four years.

Oh no, Bruzzone!
What have they done to you?

'Women are all bad, except me and my mom'
'Roberta Bruzzone'

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Raniero Busco like Knox and Sollecito

'In Dubio Contra Reo'

Simonetta Cesaroni

While in America the Innocence Project continues to free people who have been wrongly convicted, in Italy as well the new advances in science are used to solve cold cases. But, in a different sense...

The murder of Simonetta Cesaroni occurred in Rome in 1990, and the investigation didn’t come up with any leads.
The case was reopened in 2004, thanks to the Italian version of the Innocence Project, which in a system still founded on the presumption of guilt, naturally becomes the Guilt Project...

The new techniques managed to detect the DNA of Raniero Brusco, Simonetta’s boyfriend, on the bra she was wearing when she was killed.
Boyfriend’s DNA on the bra, possible?
Possible. Just like Alberto Stasi’s DNA in Chiara Poggi’s bathroom, and just like Amanda Knox’s DNA in the shared bathroom... both sets of DNA considered to be from the crime, when they could easily come from daily life.
We have learned the secret that allows the Italian justice to be so successful: when there are two options, the one that is viewed to be the truth is always the one against the suspect. It’s like saying In dubio ‘contra’ reo. (instead that In dubio pro reo, which should be judges’ lead principle).

FUNERAL. Raniero Busco, 1990 \ TRIAL. Raniero Busco, Today

Masters of Circularity

In this case as well, the prosecution thought that the boyfriend’s DNA wasn’t left during normal life, but instead was left because he was the one who committed the crime.
They came to this conclusion because Simonetta didn’t see Busco that day, and she must have worn a different bra from the previous day, or she must have washed the bra before wearing it again.
She must. But we don’t know if she really did it. Never mind: In dubio contra reo. They decided that she had changed the bra. And the main piece of evidence against Raniero Busco was served. And, last wednesday, he was condemned to 24 years (but left in freedom).

Busco’s DNA was found on a little print, quite unreadable, that extended on the border of the bra and seemed to continue onto Simonetta’s skin. So really there were two prints, but they considered them as a single one.
The sign, considered as a single print, could have been caused by anything. But, since Busco’s DNA was linked to it, they thought it could haven been a bite he gave to Simonetta while assaulting her. The shape of the print was very vague, but it was compatible with Busco’s lower teeth. And compatibility, as we have also learned from the Meredith case, is enough.
So, even if it was just compatible with Busco’s lower teeth, even if there was no print of the upper teeth: the print was read as a bite because there was DNA; the DNA was read as saliva because there was the bite!...
But the saliva test was negative: their theory should be discarded! Not a problem for the masters of circularity: in dubio contra reo: the two prints are a single print and were left by Busco’s lower teeth! Reminds you something?

Comparative Criminology

We recognize the same recurring patterns.

The compatibility that convicts you. Just like The Knife, that is compatible with one and only one wound in Meredith’s neck (actually it was defined non incompatible by the independent experts... and that speaks volumes).

The prints that convict you. Real Rorschach stains in where everyone sees what they want. Just like the bloody one on the bathroom mat of Via della Pergola.

The DNA that convicts you. Never mind if it doesn’t fit the theory. Chiara’s DNA on Alberto’s pedal (but it wasn’t blood), Meredith’s DNA on Raffaele’s knife (but it wasn’t blood), Raniero’s DNA on Simonetta’s bra (but it’s wasn’t saliva).
How can those DNAs be crime-related if the substance test disproved it? Simple:
the DNA test must be right, the substance test must be wrong: IN DUBIO CONTRA REO.

As we can see, the reasoning is flawed. It follows what we have always called the rule of suspicion (because here we criticize theories, not people. We try to describe a culture, not to insult a judge).
It’s an illegal way of reasoning that’s based on instincts. It’s a simplistic way of reasoning that ignores the methods achieved by science and philosophy. We immediately noticed how this method doesn’t follow the principle of confutation (when a theory is disproved it must be abandoned). It certainly doesn’t follow the principle of the Schrodinger's cat --which, coming from quantum physics, became compulsory for anyone who wants to produce a decent theory in any field. (In a nutshell: if we don’t know if the cat in the box is dead or alive, our theory must consider it to be both dead and alive). But maybe such proceedings are a bit too complicated for professionals who are very good at law, but who know law and only law.
If they don’t respect the basic principles of their own field (presumption of innocence, in dubio pro reo, equality between prosecution and defendant, obligation of proving the accusations, etc.) how could we expect them to follow the last achievements in epistemology, in psychology, in anthropology?
The feeling is that they are overwhelmed by the decadence of their culture. Together with their country, they remained behind, very behind, and they are in a game bigger than themselves.

Building the Guilt

As for the witnesses who gave an alibi to Busco? They must all be wrong. (Just like the impossible eyewitnesses against Amanda and Raffaele, who must both be right...).
Is there blood on the door which is not Raniero’s, not Simonetta’s? Then better not to consider it.
Raniero didn’t show any cuts? Better to forget this detail in the theory (Amanda, as well, had no cuts. But the blood in the bathroom must be hers...).
The investigation discovered the presence of wealthy, elderly people around the office in which Simonetta was killed. A mystery that could have been the key to solve the case. But better not to inquire about it (just like it's better not to inquire about who was in via della Pergola...).

NOISE. The doorman in 1990 \ SILENCE. The doorman in 2010

The doorman Pietrino Vanacore --who knew those éminences gris, and who discovered the crime, but didn’t call the police-- can’t talk anymore. He committed suicide right before testifying. The truth about Simonetta Cesaroni drowned in a little gulf in Puglia.

That Irresistible Longing of a Conviction

And another one was convicted with no proof. Who cares --is the thought at the base of this judicial system-- If he’s innocent he can appeal.
Have you now figured out why the reasonable doubt doesn’t work in Italy? Have you figured out why, effectively, there’s only one trial? Have you figured out the Pilate effect we’ve been describing?
When in doubt: convict, seems to be the principle, even when knowing that there’s no real proof.
A conviction obtained by pretending that there’s valid proof means violating the law.
One may think that they do it with good intentions, as to not let crimes go unpunished. But it’s not necessary since there’s the golden rule: the prosecution can appeal! So, when you feel someone is guilty, but there’s no proof, you can acquit him without any problem, since the prosecution can appeal and is given another chance to find the proof.
So, why do they do it? It must be for the irresistible longing of condemnation (of the others...).

The Lying Squad

Busco has claimed that, in those days after the discovery of Simonetta, he was attacked by the pack and that they tried in many ways to make him confess. They even showed him pictures of Simonetta slaughtered. This matches exactly the treatment claimed by Amanda and by Patrick (who said they showed him pictures of Meredith killed to crack him).
We know: who was it that lied between the cops and Amanda? Amanda, of course. And between the cops and Patrick? Patrick, of course. And between the cops and Raniero? Raniero, of course. The police, indeed, guaranteed they had interrogated him gently and denied to having showed him pictures of the crime scene.
The prosecutor defined Busco’s version about the interrogation the most stupid of all his lies, since the pictures couldn’t have yet been printed.
But a witness just came out: he had seen on the police table pictures of the crime scene before Busco’s interrogation. The cops lied, again.
And now that we have learned their method, who should we believe between Amanda and the cops? Mignini, Matteini, Court of Freedom, Micheli, Massei all believed the cops. You guys are their judge.

Simonetta in via Poma, Rome

News from a Dangerous Country
First Conviction for the Murder of Stefano Cucchi

LIFE. Cucchi before meeting the police \ DEATH. From 'natural causes'. Cucchi's broken spine

The pack that allegedly attacked and killed Stefano Cucchi finally face trial. The preliminary judge remitted to court twelve people among who were cops, doctors and nurses. One police official, who had chosen the fast-track trial, was already condemned.
But the complicity of the system continues. The charge (among several other crimes like abuse of power, omission of help, etc.), was of injuries. Yes, believe it or not, they are being tried for injuries. But Stefano Cucchi is not injured; Stefano Cucchi is dead.

‘It’s a Catastrophe’

What about eco-fur, President?

The annual parade of ermine furs took place through the splendid interiors of Rome’s palace of justice, up to the glowing Salone d’Onore, for the ceremony of the opening of the judicial year.

The justice system is collapsing, the Attorney General said. We were suspecting it. And we have also seen why.
The Italian justice is giving itself a bad reputation to the international community. By which he meant that the problem is with the lengths of the trials. He noticed that... interesting, he’s on a good path. Good, General Attorney, but there’s some other problem, too...

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Cards on the Table on the Knox-Sollecito Trial

The Strange War of Dr. Strangehate

Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti were sworn in today, and were given ninety days to reevaluate the knife and bra clasp. Conti, despite being virtually new in the forensic scene, immediately showed to be most active, asking if he could disassemble the knife. It’s not surprising, males always want to disassemble toys.

The defense should have all interest in not opening the knife, since, if it was the murder weapon, some blood would have necessarily remained between the handle and blade.
But the defense agreed, meaning that they know the Marietti knife is not the murder weapon.

The prosecution should have all interest in opening it, to find the remains of blood.
But the prosecution, believe it or not, opposed such action (Comodi and Maresca literally jumped). It means they also know something: that the Marietti knife is NOT the murder weapon.

See in what unexpected ways players come to put their cards on the table?

Conti & Vecchiotti
Good start, Stefano! But look at the pictures before dismantling it...

Damn Conti. He had barely sat and already had started to break things up. He spoiled the serene climate for the prosecution team: he wants to break the knife... he doesn’t have any respect, not even for a famous relic, venerated in all guilterland more than the lance of Longinus...

By the way, the president recommended refraining from destroying things. Instead he proposed to just start working on the knife and, when it feels necessary to violate the sacred relic by disassembling it, he’ll ask for permission beforehand. And an answer will be given.

As far as I’m concerned breaking the knife is not necessary at all. Why ruin such a fine piece of cutlery?
It’s enough just looking at the scientific pictures of it (below). As we can see the region of the blade, closer to the handle, is dirty.
And that region is The Region, the area where the blood sticks. If it’s dirty, it means that the knife hasn’t been really cleaned. It means, again, that the knife is not The Knife.

Non Smoking Gun
The blade is dirty near the handle = it hasn't been cleaned = the knife is not the muder weapon. There is dirty material between blade and handle, it would have absorbed the blood. So: useless disassembling the knife. If the blood is not outside it can't be inside.

Even on the other side, it's dirty = it's not the murder weapon and, as it was shown today, they know it

But we didn’t need this ulterior argument. We know very well that knife wasn’t taken out of Raffaele’s place that night. Therefore, if Amanda killed Meredith (because, of course, which girl doesn’t kill her housemate over conflicting attitudes on cleaning?), she did it with another knife.

A piece of paper says that there is Meredith’s DNA on the blade. But never mind what a piece of paper says. Meredith’s DNA can’t be there. Logic says that it can’t be there. And logic prevails over science.
Would you have continued using a knife for cooking after you had slashed your friend’s throat with it? If you wouldn’t, neither would Amanda and Raffaele... unless they were monsters. But having two monsters together runs against the laws of probability. Not to mention that they are officially non monsters. At least, if we believe Massei who understood them to be good people, as he stated in the motivations.

Under Siege

I’m sorry for how things are going for Mignini, who usually works with the carabinieri. When he worked with the polizia in Florence, he found himself in trouble for abuse of office.
And as for the first time he worked with the polizia in Perugia, this disaster happened.
I wonder why one chooses to ruin himself all in the name of defending a couple of cops.

On the media side, the armada is capitulating. The positions on the whole world war scenario collapse one after the other. Even England is lost, look at The Independent (finally something original was said). And if England, the family of the victim, gets lost... the end is close. Even Italy is starting to recover by the allied forces, and the Gustav line gets closer and closer.
Mignini and his loyalest are by now barricaded in the bunker, whose walls are Nazione dell’Umbria, Giornale dell’Umbria, Corriere dell’Umbria... anything dell’Umbria... (Even cops dell’Umbria, tramps dell’Umbria, pushers dell’Umbria...).

Remember when we were arguing the reasons why Amanda and Raffaele were innocent? Since then it has been ages. It was interesting doing it mainly in the days of blame; the darkest days of the yelling prosecutors. When Amanda was depicted as the fiercest of criminals and people looked at her with disgust. Then it became too easy and not that amusing anymore... Nowadays, as you can see, everyday, a new Frank Sfarzo comes out. Destroying the motivations became the readers’ favorite sport. Everybody now, understands that a piece of paper with a DNA profile written on it means nothing. It’s just a piece of paper, and the perception of a huge miscarriage of justice spreads around the world.
Instead, we are on another stage, and are now reasoning on how this disaster was created. We wait for the predestined first judge, the one who will take the glory, and put an end to this.
That piece of paper actually does mean something. It’s really a grave indication of guilt... but for the ones who produced it.

Logic says that DNA can’t be on the knife and can’t be on the bra clasp. If there is, it must be a lab mistake, a contamination in the machine. Or a contamination in the room for the bra clasp, where, for 46 days, it was overlooked. These were the things we were saying when we were playing dumb, when we were pretending not to understand. If, instead, it’s not a lab mistake and contamination, there’s only one other possible option...

No contamination in the machine occurred, they guaranteed us. And Stefanoni confirmed: No DNA remained in the machine, the consumables get changed all the time. I didn’t change the settings. I did make the zero test.
And, for the bra clasp: DNA doesn’t fly, they lectured. And it’s true: DNA doesn’t fly.

The results of Conti & Vecchiotti on Stefanoni's tests will be provided and discussed in court on May 21. I root for Stefanoni. I’d pay fortunes to see those tests confirmed, because then someone will have to explain what DNA is doing where it can’t be.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

'Amanda Knox was having Sex with a Guy'

Keep on Believing Them, Giuliano

So, Antonio Toto Curatolo was charged for dealing heroin. Strange that it didn’t happen before, since organizing the drug traffic in the square appears to be his usual occupation. Even though, for what I know, he’s not a user. He organizes the traffic; he takes a tip, a commission, for connecting buyers and sellers. Just like E-Bay.
The demon of drug and folly, emphatically I have defined him as such... Now you know why.

Nothing new from my side: I always said Curatolo was not credible.
I remember President Massei’s reaction to Toto’s delusional deposition. At the end of the questioning, things didn’t add up. Saying Amanda and Raffaele arrived between 9 and 11 was a bit vague. President Massei asked him if he could narrow in the time a bit. And Toto narrowed the time: They arrived between 9:27 and 9:28, he promptly said.
He changed his testimony from two hours to a two minutes range, just because he was asked to narrow the time!
I read the President’s thought in that moment, it was unequivocal: This guy is crazy. And just like that he dismissed him.
But he needed Curatolo and Quintavalle since the Knife, the bra clasp, and the other evidence wasn’t enough proof against the pair. Adding the two eyewitnesses along with the scientific evidence, the proof was served. And Amanda and Raffaele would be convicted.

Same Element, Opposite Value

It’s interesting that in the testimonies of Curatolo and Nara Capezzali, the same linking time frame became important, but it was used in an opposite way.
Nara, indeed, reported hearing the scream that evening. She also claimed to have seen the next morning’s newspaper’s posters about Meredith’s crime. This wouldn’t be possible, since the news couldn’t have been in print yet. It was an inconsistency in her testimony. However, Massei thought that this inconsistency wasn’t important. She must have confused the day in which the news appeared, and the testimony she gave was valid anyway.

Toto said to have seen Amanda and Raffaele in the evening, and the cops investigating the crime the next morning. His testimony was very confused but the only consistent thing was the time reference about the cops. In this case Massei thought that this was important; he mustn't have confused the day. And having seen the cops the next day meant that the evening in which he saw Amanda and Raffaele was really the evening of the crime.
So, the time link to next morning was considered not important, indeed it didn’t invalidate Capezzali (when in actuality it was wrong).
But in a specular situation, the time link to next morning was considered very important, and it was decisive to validate Curatolo...

Not really a consistent reasoning, it seems. The truth is that nothing could stop Massei from believing Toto’s crazy testimony, and I don’t think the news about the drug would have changed his mind.
Same for the actual judge. If he wanted to believe Toto, he would still validate his testimony even after the drug charge. And if he didn’t want to believe him, he wouldn’t need this drug charge to dismiss his version. Even though it would certainly help.

A judge maybe doesn’t need a drug charge to invalidate a witness but after the news that tarnished the image of their super witness, the basic accusers of the lovebirds appeared panicking.
What could they expect from Toto?

An Eye for an Eye

It must have been a big punch for them, and immediately the answer arrived. A police report according to which Amanda was buying cocaine from a pusher and having sex with him. So now she’s depicted as this cocaine user. And again, just like in the old times, she’s accused of the biggest crime: sex.

Coincidentally, the answer was released from the Giornale dell’Umbria, which is just the local paper that had provided Curatolo. The police report ended up just in the hands of my friend, Giuseppe Castellini, and his reporters, Francesca Bene, Antiolo Foris, Antonio Maiorca. The proud anti-Amanda and Raffaele journalists par excellence, who brag to have provided both Curatolo and Quintavalle. The paper had the honor of throwing some more mud on the Seattle girl, right after that the credibility of their own star witness and gold mine was questioned.

(From: Luis Bunuel's Belle de Jour, 1967)

The Giornale explains that the cops had followed one of the guys --whose name was in Amanda’s phone, and who had been exchanging calls with her around the days of Meredith death-- and found that he was into cocaine. That investigation, which started from the investigation for Meredith, lead to the conviction of the guy and two more people.

Their usual zeal suggested them to inform the court, with a report, of the conclusions they arrived to: that the guy was selling cocaine to Amanda. And that he was also presumably having sex with her. In other words: She’s a bitch.

So, that’s the police function: we pay them to tell us who has sex with whom. And they don’t even tell us for certain. Presumably it’s all they managed to come up with after two years of investigations and a fortune spent in phone wiretapping. Next time we can hire the journalists of Chi, main gossip tabloid, they would certainly do a better job.

Join the 'Dream Team'

What importance could this report have? Technically none at all, since Amanda basically tested negative for drugs (only low traces of cannabis), therefore, didn’t need rehab therapy in jail. So useless you’re trying to say that she was a drug addict when it’s already acknowledged she was not.
And then the sex: not a crime. So why was it important for the police (not for a tabloid) to state she had sex with this guy? She presumably had sex, they wrote. Did she have sex with this guy or not? They seem to care a lot about this topic. But they don’t know, they can only presume, and try to vilify. We pay them to vilify people.
This is the quality, this is the professionalism, this is the cultural level of the ones who had Amanda to confess. If you guys are fascinated by these people go for it, raise your hands and scream I'm with you!, write an article in praise of them (before it’s too late, actually...). Have the privilege to join such a dream team of great investigators, right-thinking people, bums and sinister merchants.

Can you believe that Mignini, Micheli, Massei have been trusting these people? Can you believe that they believed these people and they didn’t believe Amanda? Can you believe that they ignored the advise of important personalities who had their saying about the case --such judge Michael Heavey, who wrote to Mignini, the entrepreneur Donald Trump and many others-- because they preferred to trust these people?

Gossiping Squad

From any angle we take the report: there’s nothing technical in it, there’s nothing professional. It’s just muck and mire, a modern day lynching, a pure defamation; it’s still the female hate, which is at the source of this dirty story, that keeps on feeding the transparent character assassination of a girl.

It would be interesting to know how they came to know, if true, that this guy was selling cocaine to Amanda.
Did they hear it in an intercepted call? Another intercepted call like the notorious I was there? (Which could only mean, of course, Meredith’s room, killing her...).
Or was it another spontaneous confession they obtained, with one of their group interrogations, with no lawyer and no judge, and of which the tape, then, disappears?

What is this new report? Just like the fax that arrived on November 6, that assured that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito called the police after the postal police arrived? (Which was revealed a lie. We pay them to lie against us).
This lie was at the base of the whole case against Amanda and Raffaele. Because if the lovebirds had called the police before the postal police arrived, which in fact they did, they couldn’t, as we shall see in details, be responsible for the murder, and the case against them couldn’t have even started. And, as we shall see, when this lie is discovered the whole case against Amanda and Raffaele, in fact, collapses.
That lie, which was initiated, coincidentally, just after the arrests -- and was believed by Mignini, Matteini, Micheli, Court of Freedom, even the Supreme Court-- was defended by them at the trial, using other lies, until the last day. That lie caused a little disaster it seems, don’t you think?

Why would we believe them again?

Mignini believed the cops when they told him that Knox and Sollecito had called 112 after the postal police arrived; that Amanda spontaneously named Patrick and that she had an appointment with him; that there was a strong bleach smell; that Raffaele went to sterilize his shirt; that he was cutting girls back in Puglia, and so many other truths...
So, Mignini knows who he can thank if he becomes the most unpopular judge in the world. Keep on believing them, Giuliano. Don’t investigate them. Don’t ask yourself why the November 6 fax was sent. Don’t ask yourself where the DNA comes from. Don’t ask yourself what was the lamp doing there, stuck under Meredith's door. Keep on believing them, Perugia.

Berlusconi like Amanda
The Strategy of the Mud

Home of the Sin
Berlusconi’s Villa in Arcore, Milan

Silvio Berlusconi found out to be under investigation again by the woman who looks like have become his own private prosecutor, the Milan judge Ilda Boccassini.
In the opinion of the rigorous judge, if young girls go visit a man at his place the state has to go ask those girls What have you done with that man?. They have to be brought to the police station, interrogated, their houses and their persons have to be searched, in the hope that they confess that Berlusconi gave them money for sex (because it’s a crime paying under-aged for sex). And if nothing emerges, if none of them tells you to have had sex for money with the man and his friends, the investigation doesn’t end there.
Right, we don’t have other problems to think about, let’s spend more millions, let’s not leave those girls alone until they confess that they had sex with Berlusconi!
Italy became a mixture between a Stalin-like state --where the political police could enter your house-- and a theocratic state --like the one established in Florence by Fra' Girolamo Savonarola, who canceled all progresses in the civilization achieved by Lorenzo De’ Medici, who executed many free spirits and who had even Botticelli to burn his masterpieces in the infamous bonfire of vanities (1497).

What a world, you are the number one entrepreneur of the country, you are the premier of the government, and you can’t even have sex in peace in your villa, because the new preachers are there lurking...
Boccassini should remember how Savonarola ended up...

Saturday, January 15, 2011


‘I Was Forced to Accuse You’

It has been beautiful being the only one in Italy maintaining the innocence of Sabrina Misseri. On the other side, everybody: judges, lawyers, experts, all journalists, all readers, the whole country, even Sabrina’s friends, aunts, uncles.... Even my friend Walter Biscotti, representative of Sarah’s family. Even the general Luciano Garofano, who proposed his usual explanation, the one good for all cases: why did Sabrina kill Sarah in a second? Because she suddenly turned crazy, just like Amanda Knox when she stabbed Meredith Kercher, the expert kept teaching.

Then professor Franco Coppi, unanimously recognized best Italian lawyer, took Sabrina’s defense. Coppi, who certainly doesn’t need publicity, crossed the country to go defend a girl who can’t pay him (sometimes it’s nice being Italian...). And things started to change...

The prosecutors continued with their little games. They tried to armour Michele and his statements (the fake ones) so he couldn’t retract.
When Coppi asked to interrogate Michele they secreted the case, so it became forbidden for Michele to speak about it with Coppi. In their dreams, because Coppi found the way to have Michele to say something.
Michele, indeed, probably solicited by Coppi, had written a letter to Sabrina on Christmas eve. A letter in which he explained what we had already easily figured out.
I was forced to accuse you, it seems that the letter said, I was threatened. Really? What a surprise...

Saving Andreotti
1999: Franco Coppi (right) with legend of Italian politics Giulio Andreotti

Coppi obtained to interrogate Michele today. He just just asked him if he could confirm the content of the letter. And Michele confirmed it. He finally exonerated Sabrina, without violating the secret on the investigation...
The case against Sabrina certainly doesn’t finish like this, since more steps will be needed to get rid of Michele’s nonsense accusations. But the ending is clear. Same as for the Knox-Sollecito case: it’s just a matter of time. It’s just a lot of suffering for the victims of the pack and a huge waste of money for the state...

No Good at Railroading

I don’t understand how could those genius cops and judges, in cahoots with Michele’s unbelievable lawyer, hope that the truth wouldn’t have emerged one day. They are not great at railroading down there. They don't know that stressing, threatening or blackmailing witnesses, is not enough. If they had put a bit of DNA on the rope the case would have last much more, it could have make it even to the appeal trial... It's not difficult, you just have to rub a t-shirt, something like that, against the item...
They should write me. I could tell them who could teach them the technique.

Anyway, they will not easily give up, but, the fate of that impossible theory is sealed.
In the meanwhile, I guess on the Italian media we will start enjoying the show of the experts switching side...

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Behind the Knox-Sollecito Trial

Notes for a Perfect Miscarriage of Justice

Meet the family
Giustizia (center), Legge (left), Forza (right).
They live there, on the top of the S.C. door
Mignini may not speak too much in the courtroom anymore, but outside he has been quite talkative, and his theorem-- that Guede’s conviction at the Supreme Court will imply the conviction of Knox and Sollecito at the Court of Appeals-- had quite a fortune among the faithful press.
This is Mignini’s world; a world made out of respect. So it may happen that, in this view, the Corte d’Appello has to respect what the Supreme Court ruled.
Indeed we have noticed that, especially in little counties, the Corte d’Appello tends to respect the Corte d’Assise. The Corte d’ Assise respects the G.U.P (judge for preliminary hearings). The G.U.P. respects the Cort of Freedom. The Court of Freedom respects the G.I.P. (judge for preliminary investigations). The G.I.P. respects the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor respects the police.... In this triumph of respect, what dies is Justice...

Luckily most judicial mistakes are overturned when they get to Rome. But even Rome’s Supreme Court may be tempted to be uncritical towards the previous judgement.

Supreme Flop

In the Meredith Kercher case, we find everything. We even find an example of bias that conquered the Supreme Court, too.
In 2008, Rome’s High Court defined the alibi provided by Amanda and Raffaele as false. And the false alibi, as opposed to the failed alibi, is a clear indication of guilt. So the alibi Amanda and Raffaele had given was counted among the grave indications of guilt, which allowed their pre-trial detention (which is still in place).
Typically, the murderer, before the police get to him, attempts to construct a fake alibi. He convinces someone to testify he was with him, or he gets a train ticket, or a movie ticket... something like that. Anything that helps back up his attempt of proving his presence was anywhere other then the crime scene. And that is of course a clear indication of guilt.

However, Amanda and Raffaele didn’t do anything of the sort; instead, they simply just stated they were at home together.

Only their computer consultants, after their arrest, had been looking for traces of computer activity, and failed to find enough traces that would prove their whereabouts for that whole evening. You guys be the judge: does this seem like a false alibi?
Does this seem in any way similar, for instance, to what Olindo and Rosa Romano did, when after having massacred the Marzouk family, ran to a restaurant to get a bill so they could give themselves an alibi when the police came knocking at their door?

In the opinion of the High Court, Knox and Sollecito’s defense shouldn’t have tried to prove their presence at Raffaele’s place!
As we can see, then, even the highest Italian court may run against the right of self-defense! Even the Supreme Court is not immune to inaccurate reasoning and influence from the previous judgement. After all, we have learned under which conditions they work; when you have to rule on seven to eight cases a day, you can hardly claim to be infallible...

One Thousand and One Courts

Let’s examine the Italian system in a nutshell. Even before a trial starts, at least three judges have already ruled on the case: the prosecutor, the GIP and the GUP. Then, eventually, Court of Freedom (three judges) and Supreme Court (seven judges) rule.
Finally there’s the trial. If convicted, then there is the appeal trial. If even after the appeal trial they are still found guilty, then off to a Supreme Court trial. The Supreme Court could order a new trial and so on...
An impressive number of judges and courts that get to rule one on each other. And no judge can rule twice on the same defendant.

We may consider it nice having so many levels of judgement, if they all worked properly.
But since the copycat effect is a reality, all these judges and courts are useless, and only do damage.
Italians think that all these judges and guarantee rules, are proof of fairness in their system. But instead, it’s just the opposite.
If the lawmaker keeps adding judges and tribunals at every stage, it’s because he has noticed that the system doesn’t manage to be fair and the equality between state and defendant is a far reach.
The law, then, that prevents a judge to rule twice (even if he had just signed a minimal issue on that defendant), is not exactly an expression of blind trust. On the contrary. It admits that a judge may be influenced by human factors.
Having this rule in place indicates that a judge may hold a bias towards the defendant, so next time it’s better to have a different one! In other words, if the lawmaker had to make such a law, it means that he was aware that judges could behave unprofessionally.

Courtroom architecture:

quite recent in Perugia, but:
The j
ury seats on a ritual bench, whose semicircular shape intends to mean harmony among judges and refers to the perfection of the circle.
The presiding judge seats on a dominating position, at the center of the bench. A huge sacred symbol set over the head of the President associates him to the culture’s main divinity.
The judges, set at a superior level, are protected by a screen that hides their body and hands, allowing them to look at the defendant from a higher position, while the defendant can only see their faces and shoulders.
Reserve jurors and clerk are left off the bench, and are seated at casual tables.

Architecture of punishment, suspicion and humiliation.
It reveals prejudice, it confuses law, religion and fear of the damned criminal.
It’s meant to artificially attribute authority to the judges, and give them unnecessary physical protection and unfair advantages, letting them almost spying on the plateau from behind the bench.

At the same time it expresses contempt for the defendant, and unnecessarily displays rank distinctions among different figures.
Despite the rhetoric, the bench is made of cheap wood, which reveals the real consideration the Court has for its own judges.

This kind of judicial space could easily be from the middle ages. In thirty years, though, no Perugia judge has ever asked to get rid of the embarrassing plywood, possibly revealing that the architecture matches the
We have see
n, indeed, a real medieval trial, where defendants are clutched by the guards, looked at with contempt, sued for defending themselves, attacked by yelling accusers. Even male guards are allowed to put their hands on female defendants. Over zealous guards, on a whim, have wrest notes from the defendant’s hands.
Even some journalists are watched over, looked at with hate, and often scolded, mistreated or attacked by the pack. An environment of incivility which is optimal for raising the perfect miscarriage of justice.

As we have previously seen, the system doesn’t manage fairness very well. The judicial mind is backwards, and, especially in little counties, keeps resting on a rule of instinctive suspicion, and on a concept of punishment and presumption of guilt.

If all those judges, courts and guarantee rules don’t help, better to have only one court. The many levels of judgment, indeed, are all just illusions.
In the end, the verdict that counts is the final one. Like in the common law system, there is only one trial.

You can have 400 pages of motivations, 400 pages of words, but , again, like in the common law, one word is the one that counts: innocent or guilty. And it’s given with the ultimate ruling.

Architecture of judicial space precedes and suggests the fair trial

Main courtroom: Turin, Northern Italy. Judges and defendant are on the same level. Judges, popular judges, reserves and the clerk sit on the same bench. All formally peers, and together reaching the mythical number of 12 (just like the American jury), echoing the jury summoned by Goddes Athena for the death of Electra, made of 12 humans, not Gods (as narrated in the Orestes myth by Aeskhilus and Euripides).
The Altar-effect very reduced, symbology minimized, no rhetoric, no religion, no expression of fear or contempt, no intentional class distinction.

Face to Face

Turin, the other Corte d’Assise courtroom: the altar becomes a simple table.
Defendant/witness sit at the table with the judge
Finely worked cherry wood, soft lines, cozy lights; relaxing
An architecture that matches the mind: no handcuffs, no hands on the defendant. Never have I witnessed animosity towards a defendant, or rudeness towards the journalists, in a court like Turin. There are just professionals who try to solve a problem.

The Pilate Effect

The lawmaker doesn’t know what else to devise to make the penal trial fair. He thinks that the problem of the particular mysterium iniquitatis that afflicts the Italian judicial system, can be solved with reform (which is not the case, since, as we have seen, it’s a problem of culture).
Besides adding all those judges, and changing rules, he also has been copying from others (as is typical for a country in an intellectual decadence). And Italy acquired from America the doctrine of reasonable doubt.
But copying just one thing from another system doesn’t help. Copy everything, or nothing at all.

The judge who knows that there will be another trial after his own may be victim of the Pilate effect. He may effectively leave the final decision to the next one. Knowing that his verdict is not the last, he may even convict when he’s not really certain beyond a reasonable doubt.

Only when there’s no appeals left, the call to the conscience becomes imperative. Especially if the only remaining option is the electric chair. It is here, in the moment of extreme judgement, can a little, minimum doubt possibly prevent you from ruining someones life, and may scream to your conscience: acquit!

That’s why the reasonable doubt in Italy doesn’t work.

The Rules of the Pack

We have seen the outcome of a system that doesn’t work. Judges lose control of the police, who are then free to sue anyone they want. Free to create trials in series, and effectively start what will eventually become miscarriages of justice.
The pack attacks an occasional victim, preferably the ones who go to them thinking they are truly there for help. Whoever calls the police in Italy, including Amanda and Raffaele, get into trouble. They become judges, but still with their cop minds.
The victim, at the mercy of the pack, is alone in the interrogation room, where the order of law is commonly lost. There’s no law, no hierarchy, no discipline. Whoever yells the loudest is the leader of the pack. First rule of the pack: never name each other; making it difficult for the victim to report who did what.
The lawyer is denied, the victim is pressured, threatened, beaten, sued. Mandatory is a serious attention to the tapes, which have to disappear.

The pack rages on the victim in any possible way, not only with interrogations that can be sometimes torturous (and can even lead to the victim’s death), but also with an exaggerated investigation and pouring on the victim any sort of accusations.

What were Onofri, Stasi, Knox and Sollecito investigated for? Murder? But they also managed to start a bunch of trials for slander, defamation, pornography, contempt of court... Even the mother of Federico Aldrovandi, killed by the mobile squad for fun, was sued for having said that they were delinquenti! They had killed her son, and she could not even define them as felons! And another trial started....
Even for Sabrina Misseri, a bunch of satellite trials are ready to begin.
This is how the judicial system gets killed. Especially if the prosecutor (the closest judge to the cops) acquires their methods instead of teaching them the proper legal behavior.

But the number of lawsuits the cops have initiated around Amanda and Raffaele has beaten every record. Why do they fear so much about what she or others might say about the night at the police station? Why are they so attentive to the press? Why all the lawsuits? Why this attempt to silence people? Why this repression?
They collect information about us, they follow us, they film us, they beat us, they arrest us... Why? What are they so terrified that we might discover?
Do you want to know?