The Supreme Court shows fists to those who work without professionalism in the justice system

by Massimo Prati


The Italian Supreme Court

With the motivations report Knox-Sollecito, the Supreme Court shows fists to those who work without professionalism in the justice system and also get it wrong because of the media

It seems done on purpose and maybe it is…Shortly after the second show trial against Sabrina Misseri has ended and shortly before the scheduled trials against Massimo Bossetti, Veronica Panarello and others, who claim to be innocent, have officially begun, the judges of Cassation finally show fists and motivate a judgment using the logic of Criminal Code far from the suggestions and prejudices spread by those who feel untouchable, who, in order to convince people of their arguments, however absurd, use mass-media, those that deliver the ‘guilty’ scoop leading to the popular belief that prosecutors are right no matter how much more inventive and incredible the written acts that GIP and GUP uncritically accept without reference and with their eyes closed.

Finally, the Supreme Court judges did not give the usual carrot and stick to those convicted but with a specter of true Justice gave the whipping to investigators and prosecutors who abuse their power and who, while investigating evil in a superficial manner, without anything serious in hand (evidence or real evidence, or valid reconstructions, or plausible motives) first jail and then bring to trial their favorite perpetrators.

But that’s not all, because finally the Supreme Court has also openly admitted that the media have a crucial role in the conduct of investigations and that as a result of media pressure, which makes one want to do everything in a hurry, investigations end up being spasmodic and consequently poorly-conducted and approximate. But there is not only this, because finally the judges slapped even those who worked and are still working in the scientific field, in that institution supported and revered by prosecutors and television commentators alike, in that institution that in the case in question (which will be the benchmark for other cases to be treated) had carried out non-repeatable tests, used poorly-preserved artifacts and did not show high professionalism in the analysis.

Last but not least, it [the Supreme Court] finally scolded the judges that had preceded it in judicial decisions. Judges that instead of acquitting had convicted because they wanted to convict based on personal prejudices without even considering the logic and the Criminal Code.

Reading what is written in the motivations you find that the Supreme Court points the finger at investigators and prosecutors in Perugia, who should have been fully aware from the beginning of the absurdity of their thesis, a thesis lacking any accusatory argument and solid support. As regards the last motive suggested by the Prosecutor (a disagreement between roommates, exacerbated by the fact that – according to prosecutors – Meredith Kercher was not happy that Knox let Rudy Guede in their bathroom), the ensuing fight is quick and noisy; as we read in the motivations, such a motive is not only absurd, but that it is also very disrespectful of the reality of the case. Moreover, the Supreme Court asks on the basis of what logic prosecutors could think that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had selectively cleaned the crime scene, erasing only traces of their presence in Meredith Kercher’s room, but leaving in plain view other traces easy to clean inside the bathroom. And also: how was it possible to think that the two lovers had simulated a theft (glass shards from a windowpane were found inside, under clothing and furniture) when it was Sollecito himself, upon his entry into the house, to point out to the Postal Police a peculiar situation, since nothing seemed to have been stolen from that room. It is also absurd to think that cell phones were taken and then thrown away to prevent them from ringing prematurely, seeing that it was enough to turn them off to get the same result.

No, this time the Supreme Court has no mandate to tell anything to anyone and has assumed that role that is very upright [trustworthy], also quoting the work of analysts. It brought up Dr Patricia Stefanoni and, talking about the bra clasp, reported her statement at trial, in which the dottoressa of the Scientific Police conceded that, initially, she hadn’t collected the bra clasp [during the first police inspection of the crime scene] as it wasn’t considered important because she had already collected [bagged] the victim’s bra. Of course, the Supreme Court has repealed it, since bras are closed and opened by the hook that appears here to be the most important [piece] to analyze. At the same time, the court has pointed the finger at non-repeatability of that analysis which, to be considered reliable and valid, needs to be done at least twice, as demanded by law, which was also confirmed at the trial by a court–appointed expert (which, among other things, works in the same Scientific Police). In practice, the analysis carried out did not yield any valid evidence to bring to trial and, given the lack of repetition, the findings were not even considered to be evidence by the judges. And here the Supreme Court reaffirmed the notion that if the test material is not perishable, when there is no possibility of redoing the analysis because the collected material is scarce, the results obtained in the process are to be considered null and void and devoid of any probative or circumstantial value. This even if tests were carried out in compliance with the law with a unique formula of unrepeatable assessment [verification].

But the Supreme Court did not stop there and warned those judges who, instead of being impartial, fill investigative gaps using their own logic. To better understand the judgment, think of the Judge Marina Tommolini, the Parolisi case, who, in order to convict the corporal, reversed the investigative findings changing at will the modus operandi brought forward by the prosecution.

The Supreme Court says that there is a rule, a rule that some judges do not respect, a rule that the Supreme Court highlights in written motivations – that a reconstruction (if it’s carried out by the prosecution), even if it conforms to ordinary logic, must nevertheless, be adhering to procedural realities [be consistent with the realities of the case] and act as the main result of a process of critical evaluation of evidentiary data obtained. In short, the use of logic and intuition (by the judge) may not in any way make up for deficiencies in evidence or investigative failures. In the face of missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge must confine himself to acknowledging them and issue the judgment of acquittal, pursuant to art. 530 paragraph 2 criminal procedure code, even if he is animated by genuine moral conviction of guilt of the accused. In practice, the Supreme Court has expressed a clear concept that should not be interpreted but implemented.

If those who carry out an investigation are wrong and are not able to prove guilt in court, the accused must be acquitted and the judge is obliged to absolve them. If you want to be professional, conduct better surveys that lead to better results and the ability to convict or exonerate for the right reasons.

The above is only a small part of what the Supreme Court judges have written but makes us understand why Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been acquitted and that they might have suffered for too many years an unjust imprisonment. Finally we know that, even for the Supreme Court, the flaws and the injustice in the Italian justice system stem from a bad job done by a set of professionals. And since the same judges of the Supreme Court have pointed the finger at the media pressure that does not help the good surveys, now everyone should understand that gatherings of television crews on the sites of crimes in search of scoops are deleterious for investigators, for prosecutors and their investigations. Deleterious because the pool of investigators is still composed of people not used to the spotlight; they may feel compelled to look for a guilty party as soon as possible and at all costs. The condition that leads to more mistakes and insistence [on their scenario].

In short, the picture painted is bleak and only those who are mentally blind don’t see that, too often, we are forced to watch the show of useless, unprofessional and especially harmful justice, supported and presented to the public, with much pomp, by bootlickers [lit.-“doormats”] (those who for thirty pieces of silver stretch under the feet of those who offer the scoop) that hail everything as absolute truth even before there are any suspects and trials. And the Supreme Court has written something about this, stating that we cannot accept witnesses who in retrospect, after being hammered by the media, accuse the defendants. A logical thing that too often is forgotten (see the witnesses against Sabrina Misseri and Cosima Serrano that only after months and months of media hammering changed their versions). But what does it matter to those “doormats” who, allied to prosecution, appear on video with a ‘smartass’ face and capture [trap] public opinion, new witnesses and new lay judges with the [sticky] FlyPaper of prejudice?

Paper rolls in the hands of famous experts, armchair commentators created for the occasion or hacks specializing in fabrication? People who without having read and considered any real facts, append themselves to powers that be and parrot whatever they want, clinging to the “colpevolisti” bandwagon until it is in vogue? As long as it is in vogue, because if the wind changes, regardless of the damage already done to people’s minds, the same ‘colpevolisti’, within a few days, change the way of formulating opinions. Their faces remain undeterred on video, and those who get going, but change, use the occasion to become a “bronze” [statue?].

Of course, among them there are those who even read the motivations of the law, but find that nothing is wrong with the about-face, short-lived commentary of their colleagues, just as a good media chameleon adapts to the new words for the occasion. Naturally, there are those pretending ‘I haven’t done anything in the past’ and jumping nonchalantly onto the [other] bandwagon as if he had never openly accused some suspect… certain that the human memory is too short and the memory of his old words has been lost.

Take for example Enrico Fedocci, the envoy of Mediaset, who in recent months has focused on the strength of rumors to convince his audience of the guilt of Massimo Bossetti. In the months after the arrest he let screen videos of the van and broadcast intercepts of telephone calls between mother and son (the robe that he said incriminates the bricklayer.) Yet, after the [Knox-Sollecito] motivations came out, in an act of self-denial, yesterday in a report aired on Studio Aperto, he [Enrico Fedocci] admitted that what is written by the judges of the Supreme Court to justify the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito could affect the trials that are about to begin, because in none of these there is any solid evidence and no definitive clues good enough to convict the accused.

How come? Until yesterday, Bossetti didn’t have a chance because the evidence against him was, and even today is, granite, certainly enough for a life sentence? What wind did the Supreme Court judges launch? Can you clear the air?

No, he would not [clear the air], wind or no wind, rest assured that the hypocritical ‘do-gooders’ in the absence of exemplary sentences to those broadcasters / editors that allow their employees to rape the law and the defendants (we’re speaking of millions and millions of euro) aren’t afraid; they wouldn’t be here, were it not for huge profits guaranteed by being on TV and in newspapers, in terms of sales.

To earn a profit you require a “two-footed tackle” and must get onto the leaking ship of justice, and continue to propose morbid headlines that can obscure the healthy part of the human brain, you must play the Magic Flute and force public opinion to follow the melody. This has been done for years and will continue. Because, although the Fifth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation has explained [its conclusions] and spanked [the protagonists of the justice system] in a serious way in trying to close, at least in part, the leak that for too many decades has been sinking the Italian justice, the patching won’t last if the Criminal Code isn’t adhered to by all other judges. To start with too many GIP that, instead of following the law, prefer fairy tales [fables] and as the rats of Hamelin* (Hameln) follow the sound of the flute of prejudice played by the prosecution…

Share Button