1117 users online (245 members and 872 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462

    Judge Alessandro Nencini's comments

    These Alessandro Nencini impropriety allegations are said to stem from statements made shortly after the guilty verdicts of ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were declared in the Italian courtroom. Nencini now faces charges of unprofessionalism and indecency that may result in penalizing correction if he is indeed found at fault.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/ales...judge-a-breach

    Italy's justice minister on Monday announced an investigation into comments to the Italian media made by the judge who read the guilty verdicts against Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

    Annamaria Cancellieri said in a one-line statement that she has asked the inspector general to make a "preliminary assessment" of the remarks published by two Italian newspapers over the weekend.
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/...riety-22344483

    Fabio Massimo Drago, chair of the Florence appeals court, said recent developments were unusual but "within the boundaries of propriety."

    Some Italians said they were embarrassed by the way the case has been handled.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...judge/5183469/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I am just putting this text here for further reference in the process of investigation of Nencini Court:

    Meredith Process,
    the Court Nencini reply to the Accusations:

    "I did not intend to anticipate the motivations"



    "I did not intend in any way anticipate the reasons for the sentence." He said the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, Alessandro Nencini, referring "to the press articles that reported my statements on trial for the death of Meredith Kercher."

    "I have not expressed any opinion on the trial strategy of the defense of the accused," he added Nencini, referring to his interviews. Nencini explains that the only marine biotoxins is when he talks about hearing "at the highest level." "If my words have generated misunderstandings" about the "absolute legality of the choice of an accused to make spontaneous statements, I regret it." He said the President of the Court process Florentine Meredith Alexander Nencini, referring to interviews in which he recalled that Sollecito was not done questioning.

    This is the full text of ANSA statement
    by the President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence,
    Alessandro Nencini:


    "In relation to the press articles that reported my statements on trial for the death of Meredith Kercher I intend to point out that there has been no interview organized or intended. I ran into some journalists in the corridors of the courthouse who have told me of rumors and speculation that circulated on the duration of the session. I then had a brief conversation with their intended, in my intentions, to clarify possible misunderstandings. I take responsibility for this, reaffirming that I did not in any way intended to anticipate the reasons for the sentence.

    In particular, I have not expressed any opinion on the trial strategy of the defense of the accused. Indeed the only reference, however, reported in the article appeared in the Messenger, is one in which I stated that the accused were defended in the process as 'very high level'. If my words have generated misunderstandings on this point and on the absolute legality of the choice of an accused to make spontaneous statements I regret it. These details were dutiful to the respect I owe to the people who participated in the process with me and I am proud to belong to the Order, as well as for consistency with my professional history, with over thirty years of work done without reflectors and without interviews. "

    Meanwhile, the entire group of secular center-right to the CSM (with the exception of Hannibal Marini), asked the Executive Committee of the Palace of the marshals the opening of a case on the judge Alessandro Nencini, president of Meredith College's process for interviews given after the ruling.


    "In addition to putting into practice a behavior probably relevant disciplinary, Dr. Nencini might have revealed a serious lack of impartiality in the performance of his duties "and 'lay advisers as they write the center-right in the document with which they are asking to open a practice in the court of Florence.

    One thing that would be "significant" for the purposes of the Act provides that "the transfer of the office of the magistrate" to incompatibility. Just about this look "is not secondary - write in their request Nicolo 'Zanon, Filiberto Palumbo, Bartolomeo Romano and Ettore Albertoni Adalberto - is the fact that on several occasions the European Court of Human Rights has assessed the problematically' impartiality of the judges who had issued public statements about jobs they treated, considering, in particular, that it is not the impartial judge who in interviews has criticized the methods of defense used in court by the accused. "

    Lay the center-right, also found important "in terms of lesion of the credibility of the judicial function", "the hype and the attention aroused by the media," view "that the international attention on the process in question is long concentrated ". "Not only gave publicity to the elements to be considered covered by the secrecy of the council chamber, not only anticipated many aspects of a motivation not yet known, but also expressed negative opinions, or otherwise puzzled about the conduct of the case of one of the defendants- condemned "and

    'This is the heart of the prosecution that the lay advisers center-right turn of the CSM President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence Alessandro Nencini. In their request to open the practice on the lay judge Nencini center-right show that the interview in question has been given "after the judgment but before the filing of the reasons." The document has not been signed only by Annibale Marini, saw his role as President of the First Commission. Sollecito's defense exposed on the interview

    The defense of Raffaele Sollecito will present a complaint against the President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence Alessandro Nencini for interviews after a judgment of the appeal. It has been learned from one of the lawyers, the lawyer Luca Maori. Sollecito's defense will turn to the CSM, the Attorney General at the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice. The decision 'was taken today at a meeting which was attended by Raffaele Sollecito's father Francesco, and the defenders Maori and Giulia Bongiorno. Sollecito's defense believes that the interview has violated the council chamber and the words of Nencini have highlighted a "prejudice" against the young. Clerks, court appointment of inspectors With regard to the statements made to the press by the President of the Assize Court of Appeal of Florence on the judgment concerning the murder of student Meredith Kercher, Justice Minister Annamaria Cancellieri-a release - has "asked the General Inspectorate of Ministry of preliminary investigations. "



    http://www.gonews.it/2014/firenze-pr.../#.UvBSzPkVqbB

    I moved this informative post here... thanks SMK

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    Quote Originally Posted by miley View Post
    Knox trial judge apologises for remarks
    Sollecito responded to the apology in a subsequent interview with La Stampa, another Italian newspaper.

    "If my testimony could have really changed the course of the trial, why did (no-one) feel the need to question me?" he asked.

    The parties represented at the trial - the prosecution, the defence, the victim's family - could have demanded Sollecito be interrogated.

    The court could also have taken such a decision, although such a move is unusual.


    http://www.news.com.au/world/breakin...-1226817132796
    thanks!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I am just putting this text here for further reference in the process of investigation of Nencini Court:

    [COLOR="Navy"]Meredith Process,
    the Court Nencini reply to the Accusations:

    "I did not intend to anticipate the motivations"

    http://www.gonews.it/2014/firenze-pr.../#.UvBSzPkVqbB
    Thanks. So it wasn't even a real interview. Just a journalist 'misunderstanding' his words. Much to do about nothing IMO.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera quoted Nencini as saying Sollecito's decision not to testify deprived the court of cross-examination.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-9105312.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    photos at link

    The judge seemed convinced of Knox’s guilt, saying he believed that the murder would never have happened without her. But he seemed less convinced of Sollecito’s culpability and said the Italian could have helped his case if he had submitted to cross-examination.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-verdict.html

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    Nencini did not give a specific reasoning behind the verdict, saying the court settled on a motive that would be made clear in the written explanation, expected within three months.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/02...wed-prejudice/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    And to make it even worse apparently the judge now says too that the jury watched the news every night and they commented why the evidence they were seeing was not like they were seeing in the news. Who knows what kind of nancy grace type programming they were watching!

    This whole case is just a mess....say what to will about their guilt but this circus did not give them a fair trial... Juries should not be watching biased tv coverage and judges should not be commenting on defense strategy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-verdict.html

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Let's hope the "reopen all" does not actually happen: That would mean a new trial, new judge, new lay judges; another year and a half to get a verdict. I simply cannot believe so experienced and regal a Judge made such a stupid mistake. To me, until this is cleared up, there is no point looking to the future:

    Meredith process, storm the court. Csm and anm: Inopportune his sentences. Lawyers for sollecito: Reopen all

    http://www.leggo.it/NEWS/ITALIA/omic...e/493792.shtml

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by sherlockh View Post
    Thanks. So it wasn't even a real interview. Just a journalist 'misunderstanding' his words. Much to do about nothing IMO.



    BBM: I was just coming here to post the same thing when I saw your post !

    I totally agree : Much ado about nothing !

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Let's hope the "reopen all" does not actually happen: That would mean a new trial, new judge, new lay judges; another year and a half to get a verdict. I simply cannot believe so experienced and regal a Judge made such a stupid mistake. To me, until this is cleared up, there is no point looking to the future:

    Meredith process, storm the court. Csm and anm: Inopportune his sentences. Lawyers for sollecito: Reopen all

    http://www.leggo.it/NEWS/ITALIA/omic...e/493792.shtml
    I think that any defense attorneys anywhere would do the same thing, that is their whole job, to try to take every opportunity they can to help their clients. I would take more interest in all of this if I had not watched the Arias case. But I did, and from that case I learned that sometimes attorneys can make, what is that term, a mountain out of a molehill (?), in order to do their jobs. For example, in the Arias case - mistrial for Juan Martinez signing a citizens' cane. If you think about how ridiculous that sounds - they wanted an entire months-long case thrown out for that. Also, mistrial for Martinez "bullying," when all he was doing was cross-examining witnesses who didn't want to answer his questions. In the Richard Chrisman trial, his defense attorney wanted a whole new case to be heard because he claimed prosecutorial misconduct for Juan Martinez.

    Of course, if JSS had done an interview, of course Arias' attorneys would have given some motion for re-trial due to biased judge. They would have claimed she was biased towards Jodi, they would have picked at her words and used everything they could to help Jodi's case.

    The problem is that this Judge made a misjudgement, and he shouldn't have given the interview. He was just allowing himself to be used as a pawn for the defense attorneys.

    JMO.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    And to make it even worse apparently the judge now says too that the jury watched the news every night and they commented why the evidence they were seeing was not like they were seeing in the news. Who knows what kind of nancy grace type programming they were watching!

    This whole case is just a mess....say what to will about their guilt but this circus did not give them a fair trial... Juries should not be watching biased tv coverage and judges should not be commenting on defense strategy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-verdict.html

    BBM: I disagree: this case is not a "mess" ... it is the "PR machine" that made it a "mess" -- in particular, the U.S. MSM -- and the U.S. MSM continues to make it a "mess" ...

    Knox and Raf were given a very fair trial IMO ... they need to stop complaining ...

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    27,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    And to make it even worse apparently the judge now says too that the jury watched the news every night and they commented why the evidence they were seeing was not like they were seeing in the news. Who knows what kind of nancy grace type programming they were watching!

    This whole case is just a mess....say what to will about their guilt but this circus did not give them a fair trial... Juries should not be watching biased tv coverage and judges should not be commenting on defense strategy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-verdict.html
    I don't think any other country has anything quite like Nancy Grace!

    Speaking of the corrupt Italian Justice system, where every level of the process is allegedly broken because it is different than how it is in the US, I'm surprised that anyone cares that someone discussed a trial after it's over. In the US, it's standard practice for those that deliberate the decision to get on TV and discuss what happened in the jury room. Now, because the laws are different in Italy, everyone is up in arms because something was said about the case after the trial is done.

    The double standards run deep, and it appears that the system that permits the most criticism is held as superior.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    Nencini said one clear difference in the Knox and Sollecito defenses is that Sollecito had never been questioned directly, besides during the investigation, even by the prosecution, according to il Messaggero. "The ability not to be heard in a trial is a right, but it deprives the subject of a voice," il Messaggero quoted Nencini as saying.
    http://www.twcc.com/articles/2014/02...of-impropriety

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I don't think any other country has anything quite like Nancy Grace!

    Speaking of the corrupt Italian Justice system, where every level of the process is allegedly broken because it is different than how it is in the US, I'm surprised that anyone cares that someone discussed a trial after it's over. In the US, it's standard practice for those that deliberate the decision to get on TV and discuss what happened in the jury room. Now, because the laws are different in Italy, everyone is up in arms because something was said about the case after the trial is done.

    The double standards run deep, and it appears that the system that permits the most criticism is held as superior.
    No, it is fine for them to talk to the media, even though under Italian law that is forbidden at this time. What is wrong is saying the jury was running around watching tv shows, etc and bringing that info into the deliberations room. That would be immediate grounds for a mistrial in a us court.

    It is also not right to comment on RS not being subject to cross examination.

    Not matter how one feels about the case, you should always be able to find fault or criticize something supporting your side. Those believing in her guilt seems never to find fault with anything, ever. One could still believe strongly in her guilt yet find some things inappropriate just as I could believe in her innocence yet still say she could have had a better demeanor

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 02-19-2014, 09:42 AM
  2. MySpace Links/Comments & Facebook comments
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 706
    Last Post: 09-14-2008, 05:11 PM

Tags for this Thread