Viewpoints on the Italian Justice System

Part XI in a series on the Knox/Sollecito case

The murder of Meredith Kercher has caused the Italian justice system to come under scrutiny. The first is a letter Count Neri Capponi wrote about the Monster of Florence case, and the second are his comments on the Knox/Sollecito case to Judy Bachrach of Vanity Fair. Count Neri Capponi is a judge and a lawyer, and his son Niccolo is an acquaintance of Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, authors of The Atlantic article and the book The Monster of Florence.

The travesty of justice undergone by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-monster-of-florence/4981/) is the tip of the iceberg. The Italian judiciary (which includes the public prosecutors) is a branch of the civil service. This particular branch chooses its members, is self-ruling, and is accountable to no one: a state within the state! This body of bureaucrats can be roughly divided into three sections: a large minority, corrupt and affiliated to the former Communist Party; a large section of honest people who are too frightened to stand up to the political minority (which controls the offices of the judiciary); and a minority of brave and honest men with little influence. Political and dishonest judges have an infallible method of silencing or discrediting opponents, political or otherwise. A bogus indictment, the tapping of telephones, the conversations (often doctored) fed to the press to start a smear campaign, a spectacular arrest, prolonged preventive detention under the worst possible conditions, third-degree interrogations, and finally a trial that lasts many years and ends in the acquittal of a ruined man. Spezi was lucky, because the powerful Florentine public prosecutor is no friend of the Perugia prosecutor’s and, I am told, “suggested” that Spezi be freed; the Perugia court, I am told, accepted the “suggestion.”
Count Neri Capponi
Florence, Italy
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/10/letters-to-the-editor/5197/

The Italian legal system, ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi informs me, will not work in Amanda’s favor. “Our system stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law,” he explains. What this means, in effect, he says, is that justice in Italy “is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact—written in our constitution by the way—that you’re innocent until proven guilty.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806?currentPage=6

Amanda Knox was accused of slander for her allegation of police abuse (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-proceedings-against-amanda-knox.html). Based on Frank Sfarzo’s report, one is skeptical about how objectively her allegations were investigated. From a report prepared by the human rights group EveryOne on police violence in Italy, “When human rights activists report episodes of violence or abuse of power being perpetrated by rogue officers to local or national institutions, a worrying phenomenon nearly always takes place. Instead of collecting precise reports of the episodes in order to investigate and identify those responsible for the abuse, the superiors shut up like a clam, denying without question that such disgraceful acts could have taken place. They assume a threatening tone with the associations and threaten to report them for slander, libel and defamation etc. This attitude, which the leaders of EveryOne themselves have witnessed on several occasions, prevents the rogue officers being isolated and their behaviour discouraged. On the contrary, it makes them feel part of an agency in which they are allowed to act above the law using violence, threats and acts of gratuitous coercion. According to the activists, after reporting misconduct by uniformed police officers towards racial minorities, it is not rare for the activists themselves to be followed by plain clothes policemen or summoned to police stations or headquarters and “advised” not to take any further action.” (thanks to Observer for pointing out this report*)

Commentator Peter Popham has written a couple of articles on the Italian system. Comparing the British and Italian systems Popham wrote (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/peter-popham-will-knox-find-justice-in-perugia-1826533.html), “One of the great virtues of the British judicial system is that, whatever ideas a detective or prosecutor may have about a case, he is not allowed to voice them until the case comes to court. And a very good thing too.

They manage these things differently in Italy, where prosecutors regularly leak their theories to the newspapers, often in extraordinary detail. Reporters compete for the juiciest tit-bits. As a result, by the time the trial comes around, the public already know what they think about a case, and why. This makes miscarriages of justice horribly likely. Take the Perugia murder: Mr Mignini made up his mind about it, and got his theories splashed across the media, in early November 2007. But weeks later forensic evidence led the police to another suspect who had little or no connection to Knox, Sollecito and their African friend. Rudy Guede, unlike the original three, was tied to the crime scene by fingerprints, hand prints and DNA evidence. In a separate trial he has already been convicted of the murder.

When Guede exploded on the scene, the investigators should have torn up their work and started again. But by this time the "guilt" of Knox and Sollecito was so well established in the media and in the public's mind that there was no going back. The jury sitting on the case absorbed all those early reports. As a result, justice may be done in Perugia next week, but I wouldn't bank on it.”

Popham also brought up (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-should-italian-justice-be-in-the-dock-over-the-conviction-of-amanda-knox-1836076.html) an aspect of the Italian system that might work in Knox and Sollecito’s favor, “The good news for them is that the appeal is essentially a re-trial: every aspect of the case will be examined afresh. It is very common for convictions at the first trial to be overturned on appeal. A conviction is not considered "definitive" until it is confirmed by the Court of Cassation.” Another commentator has indicated that Knox’s incriminating statement was thrown out before her trial in a way that might not have happened until after her trial in another country.

With respect to the broad latitude given to the prosecutor for his summation, Scott H. Greenfield (http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/05/a-trial-without-evidence.aspx) lamented, “During the summation, the prosecutor told the jury about the things Amanda Knox might have said to Meredith Kercher before the alleged drug-induced orgy that ended with her throat being slashed.

‘You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.’

This would be a horrible thing to say, except that it never happened. No one says that such a statement was ever made. But summations in Perugia aren't limited to evidence, as they are here. Rather, this is a permissible indulgence into fantasy, a made up dramatization of what the prosecutors contend might have happened. It's used to inflame the jury. It's what prosecutors try to do everywhere, except that there are no restrictions on such fabrications in Italy. Still, arousing passion gets a far better visceral response that appealing to reason.”

I have a relatively limited number of facts on which to base an evaluation of the Italian justice system. Broadly speaking, it has things to admire and areas for improvements. My comments here should not be construed as a blanket indictment of the Italian justice system.

*update 3/22/10
www.statewatch.org/.../EveryOne%20-%20Report%20Police%20Violence%20in%20Italy_ENG.pdf

The Monster of Florence and the Tragedy in Perugia

Part VII in a series on the Knox/Sollecito case

There are connections between the Knox/Sollecito trial in the murder of Meredith Kercher and the “Monster of Florence” case. The latter was a string of murders mainly in the 1970s and 1980s. A series of couples on lovers’ lanes were shot and the female bodies mutilated. Although several people were suspected, it is unlikely that the true culprit was ever found. Knox prosecutor Guiliano Mignini became involved in the Florence case well after the murders. He and an investigator, Michele Giuttari, were seeking a connection between the Monster case and the death of a certain Dr. Narducci in 1985 (p. 208, The Monster of Florence). Mr. Giuttari believed that the lack of an autopsy was evidence that the body in Dr. Narducci’s grave was not really his. On 6 April 2002 the body was exhumed and confirmed to be that of Dr. Narducci (p. 213). Mr. Giuttari and Mr. Mignini then argued that the bodies had been swapped twice, the second time just before it was exhumed.

Mr. Mignini claimed to believe that Mario Spezi, Mr. Preston’s coauthor for the book The Monster of Florence, planted evidence in the Monster of Florence case. Later he and Mr. Giuttari made Mr. Spezi into a suspect in the murders (p. 239). Mr. Spezi was indicted for obstruction of justice in the Narducci case and held in isolation for five days in 2006. Mr. Preston was himself interrogated by Mr. Mignini, after which he left the country because he was indagato for the crimes of reticence and making false statements (p. 259).

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/florence-murder/6.

It is a shame that Mr. Mignini harassed Mr. Preston and especially Mr. Spezi. Their theory of the crime and their identification of a suspect made much more sense than the baroque conspiracy theory Mr. Mignini and Mr. Giuttari favored. The Committee to Protect Journalists said that their, “research and interviews with Italian journalists, some of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of official retaliation, show a pattern of official harassment against Spezi in connection with his investigation of the ‘Monster of Florence’ case.”

“Mignini filed a request with the preliminary investigation judge of Perugia, Marina De Robertis, to invoke a rarely used law under Italy's criminal code to deny Spezi access to a lawyer for five days, Spezi's lawyer Alessandro Traversi told CPJ. The law is typically applied to the most dangerous criminals, yet Judge De Robertis authorized the measure, and for five days Spezi was denied legal counsel and held incommunicado.”

http://cpj.org/2006/04/crime-journalists-imprisonment-raises-alarm.php

“An appeals court that day ordered that Spezi be released immediately, but it did not issue an explanation as to why it overruled the judge who authorized the imprisonment. Spezi, 60, spent 22 days in prison after being taken into custody on April 7.”

http://www.cpj.org/2006/05/italian-court-frees-journalist-held-after-writing.php

Now let us move on to the Knox/Sollecito case, starting with something that happened to Mario Spezi (from the new afterward to Douglas Preston’s book The Monster of Florence, pp. 325-326):

“A few moments later a timid and exceedingly nervous young woman approached.

“I’m a fellow journalist here in Perugia,” she said quietly. Could I speak with you a moment?”

Spezi invited her to sit at his table.

She looked about furtively, as if to check if she were being followed. Then she lit a cigarette with a trembling hand and, stumbling over her words, blurted out, “I hope they don’t see us together.”

“Excuse me, Spezi asked, but who is ‘they’?”

“Them, the police. Mignini’s men.”

“And why can’t we be seen together? What are you afraid of?

“My name is Francesca Bene,” she said all in a rush, “and I work for a small newspaper here, the Giornale dell’Umbria. Last July I made what I thought was a real scoop in the case of Meredith Kercher.” [Francesca tells the story of a drug addict’s suspicious behavior on the night of the murder.]

“Then what happened? Why wasn’t there any follow-up?”

“I’ll tell you what happened. “ Francesca Bene looked around again. “The very day I published that story, I was summoned to the prosecutor’s office and interrogated by Mignini’s men—in particular that big policewoman, the same one who interrogated Amanda Knox.” (The one Amanda says struck her.)” “She’s violent; she scares me.”

“What was there to interrogate you about?” Spezi said. “You say your story was corroborated by many witnesses who went on the record.”

“Of course. But that didn’t stop them from indicting me for the crime of inciting public alarm by publishing false information.”

“But that’s absurd.”

“I was afraid. I’m the only one who works in my family and if I lose my job…I was afraid. So I dropped the story.”

My hunch is that the drug addict in question is unrelated to the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, from this information it should be possible to identify the policewoman who allegedly hit Ms. Knox. This incident also says much about Mr. Mignini’s character and the power of the prosecutors in Italy to intimidate journalists.

With this background in mind, I would like to offer Douglas Preston’s insights from the interview he gave to blogger Candace Dempsey: “One other detail that American readers might like to know: in Italy, prosecutors are firmly in charge. They tell the police what to look for, where to go, what evidence to analyze, what evidence not to analyze. In America, the police work independently and are specifically trained in evidence gathering and criminal investigation. In Italy, the police must do what the prosecutor tells them. As a result, many criminal investigations in Italy are botched by prosecutors who are judges, trained in the law, who have no background in criminal investigation, police work, or forensic science.”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/131443.asp

Ms. Dempsey has also written about the connections between this case and the Monster of Florence case. Her highlighting of Preston’s and Spezi’s dissection of the word “compatible,” a word applied to certain forensic evidence in the Knox/Sollecito case, is worth pondering.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/140460.asp