Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Sergei Walankov]

An opinion expressed by Lionking is correct by definition. If circumstances are such that the incorrectness of such an opinion appears to be self-evident, that does not mean it was wrong -- rather, the issue itself has vanished, and the opinion and its incorrectness have disappeared with it.

 

[acbytesla]

"With police waiting outside his home in Puglia, in the heel of Italy’s boot, Sollecito was well aware he would be immediately arrested had the conviction against him been upheld."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tears-of-joy-after-meredith-kercher-acquittal

Surreal!

Absolutely. Can you imagine being one of those cops? The media is there to film you arresting Raffaele and haul him off to prison. And it's "OK boys, let's go home."

 

[Numbers]

Thanks Strozzi, I was going to say that while I think Mach's right about the possibility of a civil suit after an acquittal for insufficient evidence, it seems strange that someone who's already brought a civil claim and lost (as presumably the Kerchers have done) should then be allowed to bring another civil suit. Surely you can't just keep suing someone over and over again until you get a result you like?

Legally, you generally can file repeated civil suits, there is no double jeopardy there. However, the courts (an appeal judge) may at some point order no further suits on the matter are allowed if the claims appear to be without merit. (As I understand US law, and I am very officially not-a-lawyer).

 

[Kauffer]

"Lawyer Giulia Bongiorno said the maximum under Italian law for wrongful imprisonment is 500,000 euros (about $550,000). She said no decision was made about whether to bring any lawsuits against the prosecutors in the two trials which yielded convictions."

http://news.yahoo.com/knoxs-ex-beau-acquittals-were-still-friends-114239414.html

Interesting! Presumably the reference is to civil lawsuits.

Somewhat interesting considering that Mignini is currently suing Raffaele.

 

[Kauffer]

Legally, you generally can file repeated civil suits, there is no double jeopardy there. However, the courts (an appeal judge) may at some point order no further suits on the matter are allowed if the claims appear to be without merit. (As I understand US law, and I am very officially not-a-lawyer).

Vexatious litigancy!

 

[acbytesla]

I am certainly confident that some of the guilt erstwhile will be saying that.

Man, I hate using this tablet to make comments, the spell correcting changes my words.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks Strozzi, I was going to say that while I think Mach's right about the possibility of a civil suit after an acquittal for insufficient evidence, it seems strange that someone who's already brought a civil claim and lost (as presumably the Kerchers have done) should then be allowed to bring another civil suit. Surely you can't just keep suing someone over and over again until you get a result you like?

I think there is a confusion over words and phrases that are not fully defined.

If someone is accused of a crime, but has not committed it, there will be necessarily "insufficient evidence" that the person has committed it.

The other question is whether there will be "sufficient evidence" that that person has NOT committed the crime, that is, by means of alibi or similar evidence.

So if one considers that in a crime of the nature of the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, where she was killed by knife wounds and there was considerable bleeding, there is definitive evidence of the presence of an attacker in, for example, bloody footprints and DNA left inside the victim and on her clothing. That attacker was Rudy Guede. There is no reported evidence of anyone else. Thus, for all of the remainder of the population, including Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, there is insufficient evidence that they committed the crime and sufficient evidence that they did not.

Therefore, they are totally and actually innocent.

 

[Kauffer]

More from the Kerchers:

Including..."Mrs Kercher told Italian media that after "eight years of waiting, we now know that we have waited in vain"."

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/we-waited-eight-years-in-vain-say-kerchers-31104156.html

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with you on this, though I do think that cassation will have worked out or had explained to them that they were going to get creamed at the ECHR.

We shall see if they reference the court specifically in their motivations, or, if not, perhaps at least allude to procedural rights violations and equality of arms issues from the lack of discovery.

The choice was to self-correct, or to let the larger European machinery embarrass Italy from beyond Italy's reach.

I have no clue if this was part of Cassazione's thinking.... I'd love to think that it was, but that would be conspiratorial thinking.

Oh hell.....to blazes with trying to look non-conspiratorial. Cassazione overlooked the obvious innocence evidence of the two, overlooked lower judges literally breaking the law with their rulings, and issued a total and complete vindication of their innocence only to save face - make it look like their judiciary had the capacity to self-correct. (At least that was the memo they got from Freemasonry, Inc.)

There. I'm now the moral equivalent to Machiavelli. Sad, really.

 

[Anode]

Absolutely. Can you imagine being one of those cops? The media is there to film you arresting Raffaele and haul him off to prison. And it's "OK boys, let's go home."

With Raffaele bursting out the front door of the house, arms out and spread wide screaming with joy, "Arrivederci Polizia!

 

[Anode]

Judge Hellmann spills.... these are some exceptional words...


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/hellmann-interview-march-30-2015/

This is a great article. Hellmann was amazingly brave to do what he did. He essentially bucked the entire system at his own peril. He knew they were innocent and honestly came to that judgement regardless of the consequences that were in store for him. He lost the chance of the promotion. He was essentially forced into retirement. Yet through it all, he stuck to his ideals and did the right thing. The guy is a hero and an honest man. I hope he comes to be recognized as such in a broader sense.

He is yet another victim in this 8 year fiasco.

 

[katy_did]

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

Incidentally, don't these SC rulings only consist, at this stage, of extremely curt and brief verdicts, with little or no supporting explanation? If so, then surely the SC wouldn't even have gone into this much detail yet over exactly what sort of acquittal it was etc.

What they would normally say is "acquittal for not having committed the offence, with reference to para 2, Article whatever it is" (only with the number, obviously). If there's no reference to paragraph 2, then it's usually a paragraph 1 acquittal. The media seem to be saying specifically that the judge made reference to paragraph 2, not just that it was an acquittal for insufficient evidence (which is what Maresca said), so I'm not sure they're simply twisting his words. But we'll know for definite when the dispositivo emerges.

I was discussing this with Luca (Cheli) yesterday, and he said that insufficient evidence carries a wide range of meanings, from almost enough to convict to hardly any evidence at all, so we'll have to wait till the ruling comes out to know exactly what kind of acquittal it is.

 

[toto]

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

Incidentally, don't these SC rulings only consist, at this stage, of extremely curt and brief verdicts, with little or no supporting explanation? If so, then surely the SC wouldn't even have gone into this much detail yet over exactly what sort of acquittal it was etc.

MichaelB on IIP has posted this link:

http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corri...ie-7eabcfb6-d6d3-11e4-98fd-eb61b2c716f3.shtml

which seems to confirm a paragraph 2 acquittal

Of course, the easiest solution would be to set aside the judgment of appeal by placing a new trial, but the "insufficient evidence" was judged "not unbridgeable" even later. So - said the Chairman to colleagues - if those are the elements, "what need to do another job?".​

It will be fascinating to read the motivation report.

 

[katy_did]

Legally, you generally can file repeated civil suits, there is no double jeopardy there. However, the courts (an appeal judge) may at some point order no further suits on the matter are allowed if the claims appear to be without merit. (As I understand US law, and I am very officially not-a-lawyer).

Thanks, seems a bit crazy that you can endlessly pursue someone through the courts as long as you have enough money! At any rate, from what Strozzi found it sounds as if the Kerchers might not be able to pursue a civil case here because they did so in the criminal case. Maybe Mach can confirm that.

 

[katy_did]

"With police waiting outside his home in Puglia, in the heel of Italy’s boot, Sollecito was well aware he would be immediately arrested had the conviction against him been upheld."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tears-of-joy-after-meredith-kercher-acquittal

Surreal!

He should've knocked on the car window after the acquittal and said "I assume you're here to return my passport?"

 

[Dan O.]

An opinion expressed by Lionking is correct by definition. If circumstances are such that the incorrectness of such an opinion appears to be self-evident, that does not mean it was wrong -- rather, the issue itself has vanished, and the opinion and its incorrectness have disappeared with it.

Lionking has made his beliefs clear in the past but his last post appears to be denial and distancing from the subject. It may still not be too late for him to keep his word^*.

Continuation 1-[Post 24291]
Author : lionking
Date : 3rd January 2011 03:36 AM

If the appeal is upheld I'll be the first to pass on my apologies to Amanda and her family.
​

(*) At least I haven't noticed a rush to offer apologies from those that have been vilifying Amanda and her family all these years.


ETA: [Moderators, my last 2 posts are not attacks against Lionking personally but indirect attacks against his statement that there is nothing left to discuss. If ones position is an authoritarian and the ruling of the authority is absolute then there is never anything to discuss. Lionking's participation in these threads has been at odds with such a position.]

 

[Katody Matrass]

Oh, erm, wow. This just in from "Yummi":


Sources confirm that the has been a direct intervention from political forces. The ploy was Bruno within the panel, while Marasca tried to resist for several hours.

The interference came from the American Embassy, and the power who enforced it is the Italian Partito Democratico.

The problem was not to embarrass the Democratic candidate at the next presidential elections.

There are two people, one American and one Italian, who worked to the solution, and they are people related to US intelligence. The political interference is similar under some aspects to the Shalabayeva affair, but more extended and complex.


All I will say by way of comment is that those look like incredibly serious accusations of massive corruption. Not only is it alleged here that the most senior level of the Italian judiciary was susceptible to extreme corruption from other parts of the Italian Government, but also that the Italian Government and US Government were acting in concert to corrupt the Italian Supreme Court in order to meet US Government demands.

I certainly hope that "Yummi" can support these incredible accusations with reliable evidence. I guess we might soon find out...........

This is huge!

They really, really need to put it on the main page of their "wiki". And quick!

 

[Numbers]

What they would normally say is "acquittal for not having committed the offence, with reference to para 2, Article whatever it is" (only with the number, obviously). If there's no reference to paragraph 2, then it's usually a paragraph 1 acquittal. The media seem to be saying specifically that the judge made reference to paragraph 2, not just that it was an acquittal for insufficient evidence (which is what Maresca said), so I'm not sure they're simply twisting his words. But we'll know for definite when the dispositivo emerges.

I was discussing this with Luca (Cheli) yesterday, and he said that insufficient evidence carries a wide range of meanings, from almost enough to convict to hardly any evidence at all, so we'll have to wait till the ruling comes out to know exactly what kind of acquittal it is.

I believe that if the CSC panel thought there was the possibility of a finding of guilt on the evidence, they would have sent the case back for a 3rd 2nd-level trial.

 

[Antony]

Well Bongiorno appears to have said that judges involved in previous trials will be investigated. That's ambiguous. Firstly, "investigation" could just as easily mean investigation by professional bodies, as opposed to a criminal police investigation. And secondly, does her definition of "judges" extend to figures such as Mignini and Comodi, who technically are members of the judiciary?

I think that there should be investigation of the conduct of the courts in this case, particularly the Massei and Nencini courts. I think there's a strong case to answer that these courts unlawfully disallowed certain evidence, unlawfully failed to mandate proper disclosure to the defence, and made unlawful rulings on certain key items of evidence and testimony. I think they should be held accountable on these issues, and if they are found to have been in error, then the professional judges involved should be severely professionally sanctioned as a result.

But, as you say, there is potential for criminal investigation as well, though not of any of the judges. I think not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni may well have a case to answer over her court testimony (possibility of perjury and obstruction of justice?), and that maybe even Mignini and Comodi have criminal cases to answer as well.

No doubt the motivation report for the latest ISC decision will focus on exactly these issues (highlighted). If it were to lead to significant sanctions then that would give real hope of reform.

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks, seems a bit crazy that you can endlessly pursue someone through the courts as long as you have enough money! At any rate, from what Strozzi found it sounds as if the Kerchers might not be able to pursue a civil case here because they did so in the criminal case. Maybe Mach can confirm that.

The Kerchers lost their wrongful death claim on the merits. That claim is res judicata. It's done.

I suppose they could collaterally attack the judgment for "fraud," but that would be a colossal waste of time and money, and would fail. No Italian court is going to adjudicate the ISC guilty of "fraud".