Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

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.

As the son of a restaurateur, I know perfectly well that carpaccio is not cooked. It was you who mentioned in your post Friday evening that you were cooking some. In fact, the meal you described sounded to me as though you had prepared something out of the ordinary in anticipation of some auspicious event. Perhaps I was wrong. But, then again, perhaps you should have stuck with the cold pizza and dandelion wine.

 

[Kauffer]

§ 1. a)

Nadeau is simply factually wrong. Not my buisness why.

Art 652:

".....judgement of acquittal produces closure only when it contains an actual declaration of the fact, or the inability to attribute it to the defendant and not when the acquittal is motivated by the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the fact...."

This is a rough translation of what you cite - I hardly see that as a right to further trial. The ISC has completely absolved the former defendants of the crime. They were not involved!

Please clarify.

 

[Samson]

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.

Agreed, there is little evidence your judiciary are smart enough to realise Amanda couldn't be involved, but having arms twisted to get a just result is fine with me. I am from New Zealand by the way.

 

[js202]

Agreed, there is little evidence your judiciary are smart enough to realise Amanda couldn't be involved, but having arms twisted to get a just result is fine with me. I am from New Zealand by the way.

There are also sinister rumors, btw, that, in addition to being a Skull and Bones man, John Kerry is also a Mason. Note the way he has held his right pinky in photos from his trips to Italy as head of the State Department. You guessed it. Secret code.

 

[Kauffer]

As the son of a restaurateur, I know perfectly well that carpaccio is not cooked. It was you who mentioned in your post Friday evening that you were cooking some. In fact, the meal you described sounded to me as though you had prepared something out of the ordinary in anticipation of some auspicious event. Perhaps I was wrong. But, then again, perhaps you should have stuck with the cold pizza and dandelion wine.

LOL!

 

[Machiavelli]

As the son of a restaurateur, I know perfectly well that carpaccio is not cooked. It was you who mentioned in your post Friday evening that you were cooking some.

No. I said I cooked an egg pie with parmigiano. That one is cooked.
Because carpaccio alone is a bit too light.

In fact, the meal you described sounded to me as though you had prepared something out of the ordinary in anticipation of some auspicious event. Perhaps I was wrong.

You were wrong. I only meant that I was home relaxing, I was not in Rome and not interest in following a media frenzy.

But, then again, perhaps you should have stuck with the cold pizza and dandelion wine.

Sorry, I like simple cooking but always have good food, I'm not a masochist. Contrarily from your understanding, I meant that I was preparing something simple. But "simple" does not mean I won't use the best Aceto Balsamico of Modena to dress my carpaccio.
This evening no wine but some good Grappa di Nebbiolo.

I point out that I have never anticipated any celebration, I am not one of those who said they would put Spumante bottles in their refrigerator, neither I would drink any.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Welcome back, Machiavelli. I admire your ability to return and mix-it-up here after what must have been a blow to you and your analysis over the last number of years. I have some respect for that.

Truly, you have been a loyal follower of Giuliano Mignini. But all of that is behind as of March 27, 2015. Raffaele and Amanda are fully and finally exonerated. Mignini is now officially yesterday's man.

As with other posters here, as with yourself, there is obviously some sort of back-channel involvement into Section 5 of the ISC. Whereas you invoke conspiracy with the initial Zanetti-like comment, I view it as a jurist who has actually read and digested the record in front of him/her. I don't think you will agree.

It is obvious that if Section 5 had ever considered something other than a total and complete vindication of the defence position, that thinking through those alternate-possible verdicts, it was futher disaster and embarrasment for Italy. A brown horse is always a brown horse, despite judicial truth that claims otherwise. It is obvious that anything less than a full, complete and total vindication of AK's and RS' non-involvement in Rudy Guede's crime would lead to future problems for Italy - internally and internationally. It is inconceivable that there was not behind the scenes lobbying of the 5 judges to take a look at the obvious - and do the right thing.

It is ludicrous to see this as having anything to do with Hillary Clinton. It is amusing that you would try. Yet with the realities of the evidence in the hands of the State Department, presumably to buttress a hypothetic extradition request, the embarrassments of Stefanoni's labs, and lower courts' fantasizings about evidence/motive would have become the story. Therefore anything less than telling the truth about innocence had to be faced.

Instead of tabloids stalking twenty-somethings in Seattle, the tabloids would have eventually got around to discovering that the REALLY INTERESTING story, was the judicial incompetence, an incompetence which ended on March 27 - what with one outstanding issue headed to the ECHR. Tabloid stalkers and photographers would have been following Stefanoni and Napoleoni, the latter of whom was implicated in the slashing of her ex's tires. Imagine the havoc the tabloids could have wrecked ad nauseum - IF Cassazione had done anything other than totally exonerate, and hope it all goes away.

It has the added benefit of being supported by real, actual evidence this time with no reversal of burden of proof - or more properly, a complete lack of evidence for two of the three accused.

Anyway, welcome back. There's a lot of respect due to someone who can recover and continue to mix-it up.

 

[Machiavelli]

Art 652:

".....judgement of acquittal produces closure only when it contains an actual declaration of the fact, or the inability to attribute it to the defendant and not when the acquittal is motivated by the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the fact...."

This is a rough translation of what you cite - I hardly see that as a right to further trial. The ISC has completely absolved the former defendants of the crime. They were not involved!

Please clarify.

It's very simple. A criminal verdict of acquittal does not prevent the opening of a civil trial if the acquittal was on reasonable doubt. Preventing the opening of a civil trial is "... not when the acquittal is motivated by the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the fact..."

 

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back, Machiavelli. I admire your ability to return and mix-it-up here after what must have been a blow to you and your analysis over the last number of years. I have some respect for that.

(...)

I don't think there was any blow to my analysis. I think there was a blow to Justice, and to the Kerchers.

And my educated guess is there will be nothing resembling "a full, complete and total vindication of AK's and RS' non-involvement".

Moreover, bear in mind anyway a concept: if there actually was a political interference of any kind, in that event even a Cassazione judgement would be null, and could be theoretically declared so, if the interference you claim is proven.

 

[Kauffer]

No. I said I cooked an egg pie with parmigiano. That one is cooked.
Because carpaccio alone is a bit too light.



You were wrong. I only meant that I was home relaxing, I was not in Rome and not interest in following a media frenzy.



Sorry, I like simple cooking but always have good food, I'm not a masochist. Contrarily from your understanding, I meant that I was preparing something simple. But "simple" does not mean I won't use the best Aceto Balsamico of Modena to dress my carpaccio.
This evening no wine but some good Grappa di Nebbiolo.

I point out that I have never anticipated any celebration, I am not one of those who said they would put Spumante bottles in their refrigerator, neither I would drink any.

I understand that there is quite a lot of vinegar over at PMF these days...and Aldi wouldn't take back Harry Rag's cheap fizz - will that guy's problems ever end?

 

[Kauffer]

I don't think there was any blow to my analysis. I think there was a blow to Justice, and to the Kerchers.

So do I - it came when they withheld evidence from the trial. If I were the Kerchers, searching for truth and all that, I'd be asking to see all that evidence now.

 

[Numbers]

Art 652:

".....judgement of acquittal produces closure only when it contains an actual declaration of the fact, or the inability to attribute it to the defendant and not when the acquittal is motivated by the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the fact...."

This is a rough translation of what you cite - I hardly see that as a right to further trial. The ISC has completely absolved the former defendants of the crime. They were not involved!

Please clarify.

The CPP appears to rule out any further civil action against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito by those who had their civil actions joined to the proceedings in this case.

Here is CPP Article 652 in English translation by Gialuz et al.:

Article 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or that the accused did not commit it ...in the civil or administrative trial for restitution and compensation for damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings, unless the injured has already brought the action in civil court, under Article 75, paragraph 2.
2. {Same effect for a fast-track trial.}

 

[js202]

I point out that I have never anticipated any celebration, I am not one of those who said they would put Spumante bottles in their refrigerator, neither I would drink any.

Interesting. I've always thought even the best Dolcetto a rather poor sister to a decent Beaujolais.

 

[Bill Williams]

Agreed, there is little evidence your judiciary are smart enough to realise Amanda couldn't be involved, but having arms twisted to get a just result is fine with me. I am from New Zealand by the way.

There are also sinister rumors, btw, that, in addition to being a Skull and Bones man, John Kerry is also a Mason. Note the way he has held his right pinky in photos from his trips to Italy as head of the State Department. You guessed it. Secret code.

John Kerry IS a Skull and Bones man. The 2004 presidential election was the first one where both major candidates were Skull and Bones.

However, the basic requirement John Kerry would need to know of one of his citizen's innocence is his grade-school reading program. If he can read, he'd know that the only way to create a narrative of guilt is to do things like reverse the burden of proof, make judicial truths over prosecutors' assertions, and withhold basic evidence from a defence.

John Kerry would have been making a hypothetical extradition contingent on the release and independent analysis of Stefanoni's EDFs, as well as an identification of the owner of the presumed semen stain on the pillow. He'd have made it contingent on finding out the identities of the two female-friends who left their Y-haplotypes as part of the Sample 165B trace.

No cooperation on a whole list of points, and the American citizen stays where she is. As Canada said to the United States in the Lawrencia Bembenek case - you either meet our demands or you can suck eggs. Of course the requirement in the US/Italy treaty is that reasons for denial be put into writing........

........ and I think that Italy feared that most of all. Forcing the Yankees to say no, and give the obvious reasons why.

It's what Bonesmen do on occasion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting. I've always thought even the best Dolcetto a rather poor sister to a decent Beaujolais.

I mean I wouldn't drink any Spumante on the Knox Sollecito verdict. It's not a party to me. It wouldn't be in any event.

 

[Machiavelli]

The CPP appears to rule out any further civil action against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito by those who had their civil actions joined to the proceedings in this case.

(...)

Try a bit of jurisprudence:

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

 

[Kauffer]

The CPP appears to rule out any further civil action against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito by those who had their civil actions joined to the proceedings in this case.

Here is CPP Article 652 in English translation by Gialuz et al.:

Article 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or that the accused did not commit it ...in the civil or administrative trial for restitution and compensation for damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings, unless the injured has already brought the action in civil court, under Article 75, paragraph 2.
2. {Same effect for a fast-track trial.}

Sounds right to me

 

[js202]

I understand that there is quite a lot of vinegar over at PMF these days...and Aldi wouldn't take back Harry Rag's cheap fizz - will that guy's problems ever end?

Given Rag's noteworthy absence from the scene, one could as well suspect he drank everything he had on hand in his council flat, and rapidly succumbed to alcohol poisoning. There are any number of paths to Brenda Leyland's fate.

 

[toto]

I don't think there was any blow to my analysis. I think there was a blow to Justice, and to the Kerchers.

And my educated guess is there will be nothing resembling "a full, complete and total vindication of AK's and RS' non-involvement".

Moreover, bear in mind anyway a concept: if there actually was a political interference of any kind, in that event even a Cassazione judgement would be null, and could be theoretically declared so, if the interference you claim is proven.

I think I would agree with Frank Sfarzo (whose latest article is linked above) that SC appreciated that the Nencini Motivations were poor and doing their best to give a considered account of events that took cognisance of all the evidence just wasn't good enough. But could you kindly clarify whether the SC has decreed them INNOCENT or something less so. I got the impression that Sollecito's advocate Bongiorno stressed that the courts had said they had been found innocent in the same way that the distinguished judge Hellman had?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think there was any blow to my analysis. I think there was a blow to Justice, and to the Kerchers.

And my educated guess is there will be nothing resembling "a full, complete and total vindication of AK's and RS' non-involvement".

Moreover, bear in mind anyway a concept: if there actually was a political interference of any kind, in that event even a Cassazione judgement would be null, and could be theoretically declared so, if the interference you claim is proven.

I sincerely doubt I have that kind of pull. However, the strange thing is that it would also call the whole of the judicial system into disrepute, and the only way to assure justice for the Kerchers would be to remove any further inquiry from Italy all together.

I do not think this is what you meant to imply, but it is what you imply. And I simply do not believe you that you felt no blow. But like I say, I have no pull to convince anyone anyway. Others will perhaps take you at your word.