The twenty-two-year old called Foxy Knoxy, Amanda Knox, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 26 years in an Italian prison. Her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years. Meredith Kercher was killed Nov. 1, 2007 in the cottage she shared with Knox.
In the United States, the case would be ripe for appeal given the extensive mistakes made by the Italian police who seem to know little about preserving evidence or maintaining the integrity of a crime scene. The evidence was largely circumstantial against the couple.
The most interesting difference between the U.S. and Italian system was a count on slander for Knox’s implication of another person. In Italy such counts are part of the criminal case while in the United States they are civil matters brought by the alleged victim of the defamation. In addition, Knox’s parents have been charged with defamation in a different case, here. This action is on behalf of police officers who they said abused their daughter.
Knox was convicted of murder, sexual assault, conspiracy, faking a burglary and slander.
For the full story, click here.
I read this feed when it first came out and was amazed they verdict. It seems crazy from the beginning. She is also ordered to pay 7.5 million to the family. The Jury is allowed to consider evidence even what is not introduced at trial, newspaper publication and anything else.
The appeals process is going to be some where between one and three years. There was just nothing that in my mind would have been sufficient to convict her but hey, the court of public opinion, to wit the 4th estate did a fine job. The actors 1) English Girl/Woman 2) American Girl/Woman. The second one promiscuity was played heavily at trial. Hmm, Do I hear Guilty of something?
She could have gotten life and they do not have truth in sentencing laws. Hell, who knows maybe shes eligible for international exchange of some sort.
What’s been fascinating to me has been the circling the wagons mentality of the US media versus the UK and Italian media. On CNN for example there has been no questions asked whatsoever of Knox’s guilt. She was declared innocent early on and they have framed the debate per the defense’s argument consistently. Damning pieces of evidence are completely omitted from the narrative. Meanwhile in the UK and Italy, despite evidence that implicates Knox, they chose to go with character assassination. Any attempt to get at the truth has been largely ignored.
Where is the evidence that implicates her?
For those interested in the Italian justice system, The Monster of Florence is a must-read. It’s a true crime story about a serial killer where the authors themselves eventually become the accused by some bat shit prosecutors.
Really unbelievable stuff.
Stel Pavlou: “Damning pieces of evidence are completely omitted from the narrative.”
I’m just coming to this case as of yesterday and I spent the better part of an hour trying to find a narrative that lays out the evidence that warranted a verdict of guilty. Yet I’m reading over and over there was no trace evidence of the defendant being at the scene; except for one knife that requires a story to bolster the minute amount of DNA on it.
Add to that the prosecution taking a page out of the Colin Powell book of prejudicial fraud by using computer animation and appeals to emotion (viz pictures of the autopsy edited into the show). This was the same type of horseshit display Powell used to defraud the U.N. into believing Saddam had WMD’s (when he and his deputy, Col. Wilkerson, knew damn well they didn’t.)
If this is all it takes to persuade Italians to take action, I say we get Powell to gin up another cartoon and convince them to send all 30,000 troops that Obama pledged.
Truth in jest & stereotypes?
Definition of Heaven:
1. You’re greeted by the English
2. You’re fed by the French
3. It’s run by the Germans
4. You’re entertained by the Italians
Definition of Hell:
1. You’re greeted by the French
2. You’re fed by the English
3. You’re entertained by the Germans
4. It’s run by the Italians
Bob,
I’ll be using that very functional definition.
Buddha,
Wouldn’t you agree that this is a topic worthy of a “top law blog?”
Just the lack of certainty regarding the DNA on the knife, the premise of defendant’s use of cleansers to create the ‘immaculate crime scene’ and the prosecution’s use of cartoons and autopsy pictures to mold the minds of the jurors despite the actual evidence … seems worthy of discussion to me.
Bob,
Most certainly I agree. The Knox trial has been more than a bit of a circus all the way around. As a fact finding venue, the Italians have really dropped the ball. It’s a farce just like OJ’s trial was a farce albeit for slightly different reasons. In both cases the truth took a back seat to other considerations. That’s always an appropriate topic.
I am truly of two minds about this case (which I have followed from the beginning).
On one hand, even the (I assume) Amanda-Knox-biased American media coverage– as well as Ms. Knox’s own ever-shifting story– made it apparent that she almost certainly had SOME involvment in the victim’s demise.
However, the shoddy police work and stories of overzealotry by the Italian prosecutor give me pause.
As I did not sit on the jury and see/hear the evidence/testimony that they did, I’ll reserve judgement. And, sadly, I’m not sure we’re ever know what “really” happened…
FK: a 14 hour interrogation in a foreign country with no access to an attorney could definitely explain a “shifting story.”
Like a said, The Monster of Florence is a must-read. The prosecutor that interrogated Knox plays a major and despicable role.
I would wager almost any amount of money that she had no role whatsoever. None.
“The most interesting difference between the U.S. and Italian system was a count on slander for Knox’s implication of another person. In Italy such counts are part of the criminal case while in the United States they are civil matters brought by the alleged victim of the defamation.”
1) I’m glad there’s a “count on slander” in Italy. This convicted murderer ruined the life of a Congolese man called Diya Patrick Lumumba, a relative of murdered Congolese prime minister Patrice Lumumba.
Patrick Lumumba owned a pub in Prugia called Le Chic where Amanda Knox aka Foxy Knoxy was a part-time bartender. On November 1, 2007, at 8:18 p.m., he sent a text message to Amanda Knox telling her not to show up as the night was slow. The man was 37, married to Ola, a Polish woman with whom he had a baby boy called David…
On November 6, 2007, Amanda Knox was arrested. And when asked about Lumumba’s text message on her cell phone, she told police Lumumba was the murderer of Meredith Kercher. The guy was arrested the same day and thereafter his bar closed down.
More damning for Lumumba, he thought he didn’t have an alibi, as he spent the great part of the evening alone at his bar, with one patron he’d never seen before.
Lumumba’s nightmare ended on November 24, 2007. Here’s how The Guardian had it: “[Lumumba] was only freed thanks to a Swiss academic who had talked politics with him at Le Chic that night – the sole customer. Back in Zurich, the man heard by chance about Lumumba’s arrest and contacted police with an alibi. ‘That is one person in all this that I would really like to see again,’ Lumumba said in September last year.”
Such a cold-blooded liar who could ruin the life of a man who gave her a job could as easily lie about the murder she might have committed. She’s got the personality of a sociopath: like O.J. Simpson. And Amanda Knox has to pay 40,000 euros to Patrick Lumumba (I think in civil courts in the U.S., the damage could be in the millions of dollars)…
2) I watched last night on CNN “nationalist” pundits lambasting the Italian legal system. Vanity Fair Judy Bachrach even called the proceedings at Prugia a “kangaroo court.” Well, here’s the headline for Bachrach: the Italian justice system is far more advanced than the US system for these reasons: 1) they don’t have the death penalty; 2) they don’t have crazy sentences like life without the possibility of parole; and 3)any of their sentences could be questioned by the European Union institutions that oversee the judiciary of the member states.
Read a summary of the saga of Diya Patrick Lumumba here
Takoma,
Knox claimed Lumumba was the killer after police interpreted a text message she sent to the bar owner the night of the murder, containing the phrase “see you later,” literally and forced her to implicate him after several hours of interrogation without an attorney or interpreter.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/an-american-in-the-italian-wheels-of-justice/
BTW, Do you know why we Americans have rules of evidence denying prosecutors of the ability to create cartoons while parading photos of the crime to prejudice the jury.
Got any idea why we don’t allow our judges to deliberate with the jury?
Go out and buy a clue.
For balance, here’s a UK version of the affair.
http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/video?videoSourceID=2126286&flashURL=feeds/skynews/latest/flash/ACT-BB-SA-DAVID-WILSON-INTERVIEW-EXTRA-051209.flv
And something about the man speaking in the video.
http://www.lhds.bcu.ac.uk/criminaljustice/davidwilson
Stel Pavlou,
Seriously? Exactly how is anything the defendant wrote while in prison, outside of a confession, relevant evidence?
Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence”
“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Self-absorptive ramblings are evidence of what? That she’s alone in a prison cell?
Let’s assume it’s a form of character evidence; how does it come in? Did the defendant even bring character into issue? Because if she didn’t, the evidence doesn’t come in.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule404
And what about that cartoon closing of the prosecution; with autopsy pictures interlaced for the entertainment of the “jury?”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule403
But hey, this is Italy. And you’ve got a judge, who is currently under indictment for abuse of office, deliberating with a jury of six who ‘know’ who did it.
Bob Esq.
It was interesting about the judge’s indictment not getting in the way of Italian justice. Italian justice seems alot like Texas justice.
rafflw,
Ok, Ablerto Gonzales is from Texas. I will give you that. Former Texas Supreme Court Judge too. He resigned to work for JorgeII, now he could not even get a Job in Texas. Hmmm.
There is an Italian judge who may also be a Natzi the underworld said. This may have been a plot to exploit Knox because, that is a Jewish name. Fort Knox was built by the Knox family. There may have been skin cells as dna on the knife due to the fact she used it for cooking. There needs to be more proof. She may be being sexually exploited by the judge and his relatives. Did anyone check on the identity of the four men living below them? Could they be relatives of the Judge? What about the shoe print they could not find a match to? It all sounds like bullshit to exploit her and her family for money. Pot and drinking do not cause murder. Was the supposed victim a Muslim who could have had a relative kill her thinking she was sending her to paradise in order to exploit Knox and her family to be slaves for money? There needs to be more evidence. We do not buy it. Fight back America. Sex with multiple partners is not the same as committing murder.
The Brits used many Italian spies and still do. Maybe the victim was murdered for having sex with multiple partners. The Brits carry special army knives. It could have been an inside job.
Bob:
”
Truth in jest & stereotypes?
Definition of Heaven:
1. You’re greeted by the English
2. You’re fed by the French
3. It’s run by the Germans
4. You’re entertained by the Italians
Definition of Hell:
1. You’re greeted by the French
2. You’re fed by the English
3. You’re entertained by the Germans
4. It’s run by the Italians”
******************
Bob:
I thought the Italians did a pretty good job of running everything worth running from about 756 BCE to about 1461 CE. Not bad for “bunglers.” Truth is always funnier than fiction.
Mespo,
Did you know that Italy didn’t become a unified country, i.e. not a fractured set of city states or Romans v. everyone else in the peninsula, until the 1860′s? Did I know that before I just looked it up today? No, but I still find it interesting.
And no matter how arbitrarily the English & American jury systems came into existence, did you happen to notice the tendency not to allow a judge, much less the presiding judge, sit and deliberate with said jury? Sure, I can see a judge sitting in as a consultant on minor issues of law to save time instead of passing notes to the presiding judge, but allowing the presiding judge to influence the jury??? Judicial Realism? Outcome Determinism? Duck A-muck?
@ Bob,Esq.:
BTW, I followed the link you gave and didn’t see anywhere convicted murderer Amanda Knox answering the text message of Lumumba with “see you later”… Being interrogated by police without lawyers present doesn’t mean she was waterboarded. The fact remains that she falsely accused an innocent man, ruining his life and his business in the process… She had the time to clear Lumumba once she got legal representation. Still, she maintained her accusation for two weeks, till the Swiss academic came forward with an alibi for Lumumba! This shows the callousness of Amanda Knox.
Incidentally, I fail to see why a justice system that has the death penalty (with more minority sentenced to capital punishment) could be the best in the world…
Amanda Knox is a sociopath and a pathological liar who ruined the life of Diya Patrick Lumumba. She could be a cute woman, but she’s a cute female O.J. Simpson!…
I think the bottom line here is that the chain of evidence is poor and the judiciary acted improperly to influence the jury.
Knox’s innocence is another issue.
A court is suppose to act as a trier of fact. That has clearly not been the case here regardless of verdict and it’s due to the mishandling by the police and courts. She may very well be guilty. She just as well might not be given the shoddy work of the Italians in securing the evidence and conducting the trial. They screwed up on areas relevant to facts and to improper prejudicial action regarding the jury. That’s Kangaroo Court.
Knox’s guilt or innocence is the wrong ball to be watching.
The prejudicial incompetence of the judge and police failure to maintain uncorrupted evidence is the proper focus. The injustice isn’t the verdict per se. It’s how it was reached.
Don’t forget that American Marines were acquitted in the American Trial known as the Strage del Cermis (“Massacre of Cermis”). The part that gets me is that they were acquitted of Murder and Homicide but Booted out of the Marines for destruction of Evidence, ie they destroyed the video footage of the act.
Maybe the Italians have a long memory.
What is even more strange is the Prosecutor in this case is going to be sentenced in January 10′ for Obstruction of evidence and other charges. Hmmmmmm
Bob,Esq.
Except that the Italian Corti d’assise isn’t a common law “judge and jury court” but a civil law “board of judges court”.
And mixed boards with lay and professional judges (i.e. there is no jury, just judges, like in the SCOTUS) are designed specifically so that the different viewpoints of professional judges (professional education and experience ["bullsh!t meter"]) and lay judges (identification ["one of us"] and “common sense” [outside the ivory tower]) come to a integrated conclusion.
This conviction seems to stand, after a troubled investigation, only on very thin circumstantial evidence.
Criticize that, not the differences between the judicial systems without any knowledge about one of those systems.
Lest we forget the victim and her family:
Ooops… how do you post videos on wordpress?
Well just to keep the perspective going, here’s another UK version.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6945967.ece
I have friends who only followed the US coverage and didn’t know half of these details.
My point isn’t to damn or exonerate Knox, my point is that a wider look at how this has been reported might bring a little more clarity.
Takoma: “BTW, I followed the link you gave and didn’t see anywhere convicted murderer Amanda Knox answering the text message of Lumumba with “see you later””
Sorry about that, I had three pages opened up and posted the wrong link. I can go back in my browser history or you could just google it yourself.
“Being interrogated by police without lawyers present doesn’t mean she was waterboarded.”
Coercion of a false statement doesn’t require waterboarding; so what’s your point?
“The fact remains that she falsely accused an innocent man, ruining his life and his business in the process… She had the time to clear Lumumba once she got legal representation.”
If the police forced it out of her, then how is it her responsibility to clear him?
“Still, she maintained her accusation for two weeks, till the Swiss academic came forward with an alibi for Lumumba!”
Tell it to the Italian police.
“This shows the callousness of Amanda Knox.”
The woman is on trial for her life and you expect her to be the Virgin Mary? How dare you?
“Incidentally, I fail to see why a justice system that has the death penalty (with more minority sentenced to capital punishment) could be the best in the world…”
You picked the wrong person to hang your hat on that argument with. Generally speaking, despite the arguments Immanuel Kant made for the death penalty, I’m against it for the same reason he was for it. Why? Because the burden of proof required for conviction, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, statistically speaking necessitates the killing of innocents. Thus the rule, carried out to its logical conclusion, would eventually require the entire society be condemned to death.
On the other hand, in the case of treason, no other penalty but death will do. A traitor is a cancer on the system itself, e.g. treason to benefactor is the 9th circle of hell for a reason, and therefore the perpetrator must be disposed of accordingly.
Now, what does your minute rant about the U.S. death penalty policy have to do with the facts of the case at bar? Nothing; it’s just a cheap & transparent rhetorical device to misdirect the reader away from the issues of the case.
“Amanda Knox is a sociopath and a pathological liar who ruined the life of Diya Patrick Lumumba.”
Assuming facts not in evidence; and by the way, the defendant was on trial for murder. Did the prosecutor use cartoons and autopsy pictures to show that the defendant killed Lumumba?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule403
No.
“She could be a cute woman, but she’s a cute female O.J. Simpson!…”
Defendant reminds you of OJ Simpson, for whatever personal reasons you may have, and therefore she’s as guilty as him? You are quite the long jumper; aren’t you?
Buddha,
I agree with you; but given the evidence presented (assuming all relevant evidence against defendant has been revealed) there’s not enough for a reasonable jury to convict.
Berliner:
“Except that the Italian Corti d’assise isn’t a common law “judge and jury court” but a civil law “board of judges court”.
And mixed boards with lay and professional judges (i.e. there is no jury, just judges, like in the SCOTUS) are designed specifically so that the different viewpoints of professional judges (professional education and experience ["bullsh!t meter"]) and lay judges (identification ["one of us"] and “common sense” [outside the ivory tower]) come to a integrated conclusion.”
AS I said earlier, I would have no problem if the American Jury system were tweaked to have a detached & neutral magistrate sitting in the jury room to ensure the jury doesn’t forget what they were instructed to do regarding the laws applicable to their fact finding.
But to allow the presiding judge to sit in the jury room ignores one of the major embarrassing facets of jurisprudence; i.e. judicial realism (outcome determinism) wherein the judge has already made up his mind and arranges his legal opinion to match the outcome he desired.
And since there is no moral or ethical duty to have absolute respect for the cultures and legal systems of other countries, let me just say that I find this little Italian ditty to be absurd and deserving of mockery.
What “jury room”? A Corti d’assise has no jury. It has a board of judges.
Of course not. But when you’re obviously clueless about how the system works, your “mockery” tends to fall flat on its face.
Berliner,
It’s a panel of lay judges. Acting as a jury.
Improperly being able to influence the jury is not an issue nullified by structure and composition of the jury/review panel. That the “jury” is composed of judges – people “in the loop” – isn’t irrelevant though. On the contrary, as panel of reviewers they should be able as experts to evaluate testimony and evidence without the presiding judge being present period and thus avoided this impropriety, perceived or otherwise. Civilian juries, other issues with them notwithstanding, avoid this particular issue usually unless the judge looses his or her mind (it has been known to happen). Outcome determinism isn’t an error that only occurs when there is a subordinate relationship, but in peer relationships as well. Everyone knows someone at work who relies on force of personality over fact based reasoning as a strategy. Unless they are in sales or entertainment, it usually catches up to them at some point but the sad thing is that it can and does sometimes work. The judiciary – here, Italy, the Moon, wherever – is just another work place for these people.
Bob’s mockery still stands logically.
Berliner:
“What “jury room”? A Corti d’assise has no jury. It has a board of judges.”
Pardon my idiom.
“Of course not. But when you’re obviously clueless about how the system works, your “mockery” tends to fall flat on its face.”
Let’s review:
You said: “And mixed boards with lay and professional judges (i.e. there is no jury, just judges, like in the SCOTUS) are designed specifically so that the different viewpoints of professional judges (professional education and experience ["bullsh!t meter"]) and lay judges (identification ["one of us"] and “common sense” [outside the ivory tower]) come to a integrated conclusion.”
Here’s the thing; SCOTUS has never been comprised of lay judges. While it’s true that even a 30 year old Italian who was never graduated from high school could be appointed to the Supreme Court, it just never seemed to happen. And while there were a few Justices on SCOTUS who were never graduated from law school, they were at least practicing attorneys first.
And regarding my idiom, how different is the qualifications to be a lay judge, or as you say “one of us,” to being a juror in the American system? Well there’s the citizenship & age requirement; an Italian not older than 65? And there’s the requirement that he/she happened to be one of the 8,000 or so shnooks who managed to become village justice of the peace; a position not requiring a law degree.
And what’s the job of that collective known as “one of us?” Well, seeing they have no legal education, you don’t suppose their job is to make DETERMINATIONS OF FACT in lieu of determinations of law; do you?
BTW, mocking the Italian Justice system seems to be OLD hat.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9906E0DF173BEF34BC4F51DFB4678388669FDE
*30 year old Italian, who doesn’t speak a word of English, …
“In the United States, the case would be ripe for appeal given the extensive mistakes made by the Italian police who seem to know little about preserving evidence or maintaining the integrity of a crime scene.”
Do you have some proof of that? Or, are you guible, buying into the PR campaign lunched by Knox’s father?
It would be nice if people actually got their information from the source rather than the sloppy reporting by the American media, sepecially Egan’s blog at the NY Times. The Micheli report has never been translated and displayed by any English speaking news source, which makes sense if you want to keep the spin slanted a certain direction. Read the Micheli report from Guede’s trial, the court transcripts from the Guede and Knox/Sollecito trials. Also, jurors must write a report detailing their motivation in the verdict within three months, while the judge must write a trial summary within six months. If you do not know Italian, find somebody that does. I am sure Turley can find a professor at George Washington University that is fluent in the language.
@Bob,Esq.
“The woman is on trial for her life…”
Italy does not have the death penalty.
UPDATE
Knox prosecutor convicted
By TIM HAECK
KIRO Radio
The Italian prosecutor who convicted Seattle exchange student Amanda Knox is now a convict, too.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=274343
The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:
1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.
2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.
3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.
4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.
5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.
6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.
7. On Meredith’s bra according to Dr. Stefanoni AND Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci.
Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.
A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.
Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated:
“You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”
The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.
According to Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.
He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.
Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room or the bathroom. The scientific police found a mixture of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor in Filomena’s room. They also found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito had tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom.
The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.
Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:
“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”
Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.
Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.
Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:
“There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”
Judge Massei’s 427- page report will be published in English on Monday 9 August. It will be available for download from PMF and TJMK.