Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Makes sense - I wonder if this "judicial truths" thing has been a guilter-peddled red herring from the start (I feel like I've mixed metaphors there somewhere, oh well).

The Dewani trial is an interesting comparison. Three or four (I lose count) people were convicted of murder in conspiracy with Dewani and were even given reduced sentences for testifying against him. Dewani's trial didn't get past the halfway-way mark, but the convictions and sentences of the others don't seem to be in question. If anything, that "judicial truth" should be even more problematic because it's more specific; no one else could possibly be substituted for Dewani whereas here, in theory others could have acted with Guede.

(Good to see you back, btw!)

That's a good point. Those convicted in the Dewani case were essentially convicted on the premise of being hired hitmen, were they not?

I think the problem in the Kercher case is that the Italian justics system has got itself crazily tied up through its nuts constitutional rule that "judicial truths" can never be contradicted in different SC rulings - and that if they are contradicted, then the previous source of the contradiction (in this instance, Guede's conviction) has to be revisited in order to be able to tally the SC rulings.

What clearly needs to happen in Italy on the back of the Kercher case fiasco (among many other constitutional and institutional changes) is that the Constitutional Court urgently needs to change the rules, such that SC judgements can indeed be in contradiction, given that the evidence before the courts in each case might be very different. I think that the problem here again goes back to the legacy of the inquisitorial civil system of justice in Italy, where the role of the courts was to establish "the truth".

 

[LondonJohn]

If there were other attackers with Guede, where is the primary evidence of their presence in the bedroom. Were they hovering like dragonflies in thevair so as not to leave any bloody foorprints or is there evidence of a cleanup without leaving telltale swirls?

Wait, let me guess. Prosecutor Mignini will announce that an accomplice in another room directed Guede's attack.

I think most of us here agree totally that there's zero evidence of other participants, and also that the actual evidence is wholly compatible (and perhaps only compatible) with Guede as the sole attacker.

But the problem is that owing to bizarre circumstances in Guede's trial process (where all parties actively wanted there to have been multiple participants!), the convicting lower courts found that there were multiple participants, and the SC affirmed that factor when it endorsed the lower courts' verdicts.

 

[Kauffer]

From Barbie Nadeau's CNN article (my numbering):

1. "There won't be any civil trials like in the O.J. Simpson case because, according to Italian penal code, Italy's high court decision is final across all courts in the country."

2. "Sollecito changed his story more than once before finally settling on an alibi with Knox, so a legal battle could focus on whether anything he told investigators led directly to his arrest."

3. "In one of her initial interrogations in 2007, she told investigators she was in the house when Kercher was killed at which time she accused Patrick Lumumba, her boss at a pub where she worked, of the murder.

4. "Canestrini also says that Knox could potentially sue Italy for one year of false imprisonment, but because she admittedly lied to investigators early on which led to her arrest, she would likely not have much of a case."

She later recanted that statement, but Lumumba spent two weeks in prison because of her false claim."

1. Someone should tell Barbie that there was a civil trial already.
2. As others have said, let's see what Raffaele actually said in the recording of his interrogation. And as far as newspaper (Kate Mansey's?) accounts of what Sollecito suppposedly said, I cannot see how anyone could count that as one of Raffaele's stories (yet some have).
3. How the interrogation on 5-6 November could count as initial is beyond my ken. And Ms. Nadeau must surely know of the 7 November memoriale, which (as Katody pointed out long ago) is a complete retraction.
4. When did Knox admit to lying? She said exactly the opposite in one of her letters IIRC.

One could make a quiet living correcting Barbie's...approximations.

You are right. She did not admit lying.

I was mystified by the notion of an OJ style, additional civil trial on the back of the existing litigation, but it has been pushed by some of the guilters and yummi announced there was a 'new' law, which would support it. Seems unlikely - Nadeau apparently agrees it would go nowhere anyway.

On the rest of Nadeau's stuff, I would expect the motivations report to resolve any difficulties the former, now exonerated defendants might face in securing recompense from the Italian state (all be it that 3 of the four years of Amanda's imprisonment are currently not considered wrongful and will require attention from the ECHR in due course). If it does not, then they will have recourse to the ECHR - Amanda for a second time, since any impediment to relief as suggested in Nadeau's article, would amount, on the face of it, to un remedied article 6 violations in connection with their procedural rights.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Makes sense - I wonder if this "judicial truths" thing has been a guilter-peddled red herring from the start (I feel like I've mixed metaphors there somewhere, oh well).

The Dewani trial is an interesting comparison. Three or four (I lose count) people were convicted of murder in conspiracy with Dewani and were even given reduced sentences for testifying against him. Dewani's trial didn't get past the halfway-way mark, but the convictions and sentences of the others don't seem to be in question. If anything, that "judicial truth" should be even more problematic because it's more specific; no one else could possibly be substituted for Dewani whereas in theory others could have acted with Guede.

(Good to see you back, btw!)

Hi katy_did

It's a technicality, not "judicial truth". For example Borsini-Belardi motivation of Guede's sentence says outright, without any hypotheticals:
in concorso con KNQX AMANDA MARIE e SOLLECITO RAFFAELE
This is the sentence later confirmed by SC.
Judicial truth? Guilter-peddled red herring I like more

 

[BenBurch]

I'm just glad this is decided.

 

[Caper]

[/HILITE]

I believe it is more likely that Guede will be manipulated into revealing details than undergo a conversion and confess and cooperate.

Someone crafty will befriend Rudy and get him drunk, or high, and get a truer account from him. Not a complete story - but a statement (recorded) that he did the crime (alone) and that Amanda was not there. I predict Rudy will never be well off financially. He will live paycheck-to-paycheck, be in financial need, and will say something for money - not money to go to his lawyer or the Kerchers - but money for himself - cash, unaccounted for. He will be vulnerable to journalists posing as friends, or "friends" who will play him and deliver his story to paying journalists.

When Lumumba looked for and located Amanda coming out of class two days after the murder was discovered, Lumumba reportedly asked her two things 1) how she was, and 2) did she want to talk to a journalist. Apparently he was serving as go-between for a journalist, possibly one who was hanging out at his bar. He may have been looking for a finders-fee. He got more than he bargained for, compliments of Napoleoni's nighttime interrogation squad.

My hope has always been someone trys to pull the Mr Big technique on Rudy in prison.

 

[Strozzi]

My hope has always been someone trys to pull the Mr Big technique on Rudy in prison.

I think Guede has much more to fear from the police's and prosecutor's henchmen when he is eventually released back into society than from a brute in prison.

At lease if Guede's eventual job after his release is low pay, as seems likely the case, he won't have to worry about policewomen slashing his tires - because he won't own any.

Maybe Mignini foresaw Guede's future when he referred to Guede as "Poor Rudy".

 

[Machiavelli]

From Barbie Nadeau's CNN article (my numbering):

1. "There won't be any civil trials like in the O.J. Simpson case because, according to Italian penal code, Italy's high court decision is final across all courts in the country."

2. "Sollecito changed his story more than once before finally settling on an alibi with Knox, so a legal battle could focus on whether anything he told investigators led directly to his arrest."

3. "In one of her initial interrogations in 2007, she told investigators she was in the house when Kercher was killed at which time she accused Patrick Lumumba, her boss at a pub where she worked, of the murder.

4. "Canestrini also says that Knox could potentially sue Italy for one year of false imprisonment, but because she admittedly lied to investigators early on which led to her arrest, she would likely not have much of a case."

She later recanted that statement, but Lumumba spent two weeks in prison because of her false claim."

1. Someone should tell Barbie that there was a civil trial already.
2. As others have said, let's see what Raffaele actually said in the recording of his interrogation. And as far as newspaper (Kate Mansey's?) accounts of what Sollecito suppposedly said, I cannot see how anyone could count that as one of Raffaele's stories (yet some have).
3. How the interrogation on 5-6 November could count as initial is beyond my ken. And Ms. Nadeau must surely know of the 7 November memoriale, which (as Katody Matrass first pointed out long ago, before the full text was available) is a complete retraction.
4. When did Knox admit to lying? She said exactly the opposite in one of her letters IIRC.

One could make a quiet living correcting Barbie's...approximations.

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

 

[Kauffer]

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

Can you explain how this civil trial works? Cite the law etc. Haven't we already had this trial?

Can you also explain as far as you are aware matters in relation to Guede's possible right to a conviction review, citing law as appropriate. Thanks

 

[Strozzi]

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

Machiavelli, can public officials in Italy be sued for negligence/incompetence in the course of performing official duties? What I am thinking of is Sollecito and/or Knox suing the Postal Police tech who fried their computers, thus destroying evidence that they can claim showed them to be online at Sollecito's flat during various times of the evening and night?

 

[js202]

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

1. Were you right or wrong as to the outcome of Friday's decision? I seem to have momentarily forgotten your position on Knox's and Sollecito's guilt...
2. How did that celebratory carpaccio you "cooked" especially for the occasion go down after the verdict? I'll bet not even the best Barolo in your wine refrigerator could mitigate the looming sense of failure. Or was it out of two or three such bottles that your latest theory of Masonic corruption was made manifest?
3. Given how wrong you've been all along in this case, why should anyone - either online, or in the day-to-day world inhabited by scumbags like Maresca - now think of an interaction with you as equivalent to anything more significant than a child toying with a sleepy kitten?

 

[Machiavelli]

Can you explain how this civil trial works? Cite the law etc. Haven't we already had this trial?

No. It's not a civil trial. It was "civil parties in a criminal trial", something different
.
A true civil trial can be started, independently, in cases ended with reasonable doubt:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=185477#p185477

This is how the victim of the Ustica massacre reached the truth (although they sued the state, not the guilty parties).

Can you also explain as far as you are aware matters in relation to Guede's possible right to a conviction review, citing law as appropriate.

§ 1. a) art. 630 cpp

 

[Samson]

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

Machiavelli
I have read with interest your posts on PMF, and I tend to agree there is some sort of conspiracy, political pressure.
My belief is that many high ranking officials in the State department have been made well aware of the science that proves Knox and Sollecito were uninvolved with the crime. This is the only reason I can imagine for wanting to stop the extradition of Amanda Knox, and I am sure your supreme court became fully aware of the American state department position.
I am assembling that from reading this forum.

 

[Kauffer]

No. It's not a civil trial. It was "civil parties in a criminal trial", something different
.
A true civil trial can be started, independently, in cases ended with reasonable doubt:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=185477#p185477

This is how the victim of the Ustica massacre reached the truth (although they sued the state, not the guilty parties).


§ 1. a) art. 630 cpp

Ok - so art 630, the same mechanism Amanda Knox can use if the ECHR rules an art 6 violation in her calunnia case.

But what exactly is the basis for Guede's review?

On the civil trial, you disagree with Nadeau that the ISC ruling covers all legal matters? Why?

 

[carbonjam72]

1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

Hey Mach, welcome back. Is this your first post since the acquittal verdict? So how great was that? Totally innocent, does it get any better?

Ok, on to matters at hand.

Speaking of other suits, what will happen now with all the other cases? (Honor Bound? Knox/defamation? Knox's parents defamation? etc ). And will the Sollecitos now go hog wild with law suits?

Different track - Nina Burleigh said on CNN (IIRC) that Guede criminal trial is still sealed "for some mysterious reason".

Is this true? Is Rudy Guede's criminal trial sealed? Is this usual? Is there nay reason this must remain so? How can it be opened?

Is Guede original interview with Mingini (I believe in December of 2007, when he first got back from Germany), is that available anywhere to your knowledge? Kind of curious to see it.

Now that Cassation has spoken, how do you read the situation? Was this verdict legitimate? Is it a corruption? Are there masons involved? Or satanists? (Just covering the bases here, I know you believe more masons and mafia then satanists, but thought I should ask).

By the way, will the evidence from this case now be destroyed immediately, preventing any further review?

Anyway, welcome back.

 

[Machiavelli]

2. How did that celebratory carpaccio you "cooked" especially for the occasion go down after the verdict? I'll bet not even the best Barolo in your wine refrigerator could mitigate the looming sense of failure. Or was it out of two or three such bottles that your latest theory of Masonic corruption was made manifest?

Carpaccio is nothing celebratory, it's a light meal.
And it is not cooked: it's a cold dish.
Barolo would be for spicy steaks with sauce, and it's not my favourite actyally. I had a Dolcetto from the Langhe.

You know my suspicion became manifest when I heared the name of Paolo Antonio Bruno, and I heared his "Zanetti" and "code-like" comment.

Finally, your post is off-topic.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ok - so art 630, the same mechanism Amanda Knox can use if the ECHR rules an art 6 violation in her calunnia case.

But what exactly is the basis for Guede's review?

On the civil trial, you disagree with Nadeau that the ISC ruling covers all legal matters? Why?

§ 1. a)

Nadeau is simply factually wrong. Not my buisness why.

 

[Poppy1016]

Yea
Whatever disposed this cassation panel to annul the convictions it certainly wasn’t the cretinous, xenophobic racist online campaign in the English speaking world.
That’s not to say it didn’t have some effect. Some, from a certain demographic, fell for it but for any right thinking person it’s nature and the fact it was never repudiated (and was actually encouraged) by the killer’s family was instructive.

One Q remains perhaps – can a few more dollars be made or has the gravy train that was MK’s murder run its course.
There might be a market for the images of the victims naked corpse. Given the nature of Britney’s fan base it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Why is this slander of the fully exonerated Amanda allowed to continue here?

 

[Annella]

Frank Sfarzo's latest piece of brilliance!

This from Frank Sfarzo today.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/o...-not-having-committed-the-fact/#disqus_thread

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli
I have read with interest your posts on PMF, and I tend to agree there is some sort of conspiracy, political pressure.
My belief is that many high ranking officials in the State department have been made well aware of the science that proves Knox and Sollecito were uninvolved with the crime. This is the only reason I can imagine for wanting to stop the extradition of Amanda Knox, and I am sure your supreme court became fully aware of the American state department position.
I am assembling that from reading this forum.

Your DoS couldn't care less about those idiocies, like appealing to Gill or to "real science" nor they thought Knox was uninvolved.

The only thing they cared about was not to embarass Hillary Clinton over her campaign on the next presidential elections, which is also what the Italian governemt was concerned about.