Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

In shocking breaking news it appears the PGP do not believe Rudi did the crime. This post just in about another murder:

Just another couple of American white kids, (both "bravi," of course), who (allegedly) planned and committed a brutal murder (...of HER MOTHER!! )

Extremely chilling stuff. Numerous similarities with Meredith's murderers...

Pity for THESE PERPS that THIS COUPLE OF LOVEBIRDS didn't find a convenient black man to pin the crime on!

So it would appear that the poster thinks the kids pinned the murder on Rudi. Wow!

 

[Grinder]

Good news: I have now, finally, seen the elusive dispositivo.


Charge B) is carrying the knife out of Sollecito's house; apparently the statute of limitations on this offense has expired. (I predict the guilters will have a field day with this, emphasizing that it is not a finding of innocence. Lol.)

The other headline (which the guilters will probably have even more of a field day with) is that, yes, indeed the infamous second paragraph of C.P.P. Article 530 was cited, which some will persist in thinking means that the acquittal is less than "full". (This is wrong; non-"full" acquittals have been abolished.)

Thanks.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good news: I have now, finally, seen the elusive dispositivo.

It reads:



That is:



Charge B) is carrying the knife out of Sollecito's house; apparently the statute of limitations on this offense has expired. (I predict the guilters will have a field day with this, emphasizing that it is not a finding of innocence. Lol.)

The other headline (which the guilters will probably have even more of a field day with) is that, yes, indeed the infamous second paragraph of C.P.P. Article 530 was cited, which some will persist in thinking means that the acquittal is less than "full". (This is wrong; non-"full" acquittals have been abolished.)

Thanks for this information!

And yes, regarding the highlighted part, it's now fully apparent that what actually happened some years ago was that the Art 530 of the Italian criminal code was clumsily revised to reflect the legislative changes which abolished any distinction between levels of acquittal. But the dreadful, cack-handed way in which it was done (and I don't fully discount the possibility that this was deliberate*...) opened up a huge door of ambiguity and scope for misrepresentation.

As you say, it's now in fact the case that for every single acquittal where a crime took place but where a given defendant was acquitted of committing that crime, it has by definition got to be a 530.2 acquittal. That's the case whether a court deems that there was no credible evidence against the defendant, or whether a court deems that there was indeed evidence, but not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That distinction is usually addressed in either the judge's remarks or in the motivations report (or both).

* I suspect that there were many within the Italian criminal justice system who were unhappy with the changes being foisted upon them; perhaps some such people felt a need to rig the rewriting on 530 such that all acquittals might carry the stench of "no smoke without fire" - by rewriting the old 530.2 ("no smoke without fire") paragraph as the new all-in-one acquittal paragraph.

 

[komponisto]

Agree. The only previous time I remember a verdict of "did not commit the crime" was for the charge of the staged break in (Hellmann said there was no such thing).

Hellmann used the formula of "the act did not take place", and it was the correct one for that charge. Unfortunately, the SC has used the formula of "did not commit the act", which theoretically could be taken to imply the possibility that they thought the burglary was indeed staged (by someone else).

(It doesn't necessarily imply that, but I would have preferred the formula used by Hellmann.)

 

[LondonJohn]

In shocking breaking news it appears the PGP do not believe Rudi did the crime. This post just in about another murder:

Just another couple of American white kids, (both "bravi," of course), who (allegedly) planned and committed a brutal murder (...of HER MOTHER!! )

Extremely chilling stuff. Numerous similarities with Meredith's murderers...

Pity for THESE PERPS that THIS COUPLE OF LOVEBIRDS didn't find a convenient black man to pin the crime on!

So it would appear that the poster thinks the kids pinned the murder on Rudi. Wow!

Ugh. Even the attempt to draw a comparison here is a perfect illustration of the bone-headed lack of intellectual capacity (and intellectual honesty) of some pro-guilt commentators.

The case being referenced here is of a 14-year-old girl, who was in a sexual relationship with a 20-year-old soldier. The two of them allegedly planned and executed the murder of the girl's mother.

Hmmmm. Can anyone perhaps - just possibly - see how a 14-year-old girl might have developed feelings of deep resentment towards her mother, when she was involved in a (illegal) relationship with a 20-year-old soldier? Might this not - just possibly - have been the source of potentially explosive arguments? And can anyone similarly see how the 20-year-old boyfriend might also (stupidly, of course) have seen the murder of the mother as a potential solution to any problems that might have split the two lovers up?


And with all that in mind, can anyone see how this case bears any relevance to a (wrong) allegation that an adult 20-year-old who'd been in a normal 6-day relationship with an adult male of her own age teamed up with a third man whom the girl had only fleetingly crossed paths with before, and whom the boyfriend had never met before in his life, to murder a girl of their own age who posed no threat (implied, imaginary or real) to that girl or her boyfriend? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[JREF2010]

I don't see Rudy's case getting re-opened. The only thing I can see is Rudy getting charged with Calunnia for placing false evidence against Amanda and Raf with his famous letter that he read in court. And then having another 6-8 years tacked onto his sentence (coincidentally, a similar amount of time knocked off for his fast track discount).

I think cassation isn't letting this case get away from them again, and that they will put an end to it, in all of its iterations, in this case, and in any ancillary cases.

I just think they are ready to put this case to bed, and don't want it bouncing back at them. I see cassation as just cleaning house with their motivation report.

eta: all remaining cases against Amanda and Raf will be set aside (archived?). However, Raf will decline to take the easy way out with Mignini's suit over his book 'Honor Bound'. Raf (and his lawyer Brizoli, a survivor of Mingini's Narducci trail cases), will press through for full vindication, to be followed by the publication of Raf's book in Italy in Italian, and in the UK in English. Perummphh!!!

I wonder if Raffaele can "counter-sue" the Perugia "pack" for the interrogation and find something foul to pull Migninni up for charges?

 

[RoseMontague]

Good news: I have now, finally, seen the elusive dispositivo.

Charge B) is carrying the knife out of Sollecito's house; apparently the statute of limitations on this offense has expired. (I predict the guilters will have a field day with this, emphasizing that it is not a finding of innocence. Lol.)

The other headline (which the guilters will probably have even more of a field day with) is that, yes, indeed the infamous second paragraph of C.P.P. Article 530 was cited, which some will persist in thinking means that the acquittal is less than "full". (This is wrong; non-"full" acquittals have been abolished.)

Thank you! However it reads, it's an acquittal. Interesting on the knife charge expiring.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you! However it reads, it's an acquittal. Interesting on the knife charge expiring.

I am pretty certain that this was made public (and probably discussed here as well) way back on the day of the verdict.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you! However it reads, it's an acquittal. Interesting on the knife charge expiring.

I am pretty certain that this was made public (and probably discussed here as well) way back on the day of the verdict.

I think this was mentioned on March 25 when the prosecution summarized their case to the ISC. At first it was a WTF!? But I believe it was known even before the verdict on March 27.

 

[Kauffer]

Hellmann used the formula of "the act did not take place", and it was the correct one for that charge. Unfortunately, the SC has used the formula of "did not commit the act", which theoretically could be taken to imply the possibility that they thought the burglary was indeed staged (by someone else).

(It doesn't necessarily imply that, but I would have preferred the formula used by Hellmann.)

Doesn't it sound to you as if they're preparing for a bit of a fudge in the motivation report? Or could it be that they're actually going to embrace the madness? - in other words, leave intact the whole prosecution conception of the crime but just extract Amanda and Raffaele from it? Or is that reading too much? That's a big difference from Hellmann.

 

[Strozzi]

The PLE can partially save face for botching the case by coming up with a new accomplice to blame; thus pretending that their analysis of multiple attackers is correct - just that they got the wrong accomplices. I can hear Mignini now. "Find someone to substitute for Knox. Where's that guy, Kokoman? Bring me Kokoman.".

 

[acbytesla]

The DNA results are the most sensible guilter beliefs. They're the strongest pro-guilt evidence, and the main driver of the opinions of the most sensible colpevolisti. People who think that "the system works" assume that the police know what they're doing.

Hellmann understood this, which is why (as he stated) the Conti-Vecchiotti review was such a turning point.

They are...but nothing about that knife being the murder weapon made any sense to me.
Although the previous Cassation decision ordered that they test 36I and said that those results would be decisive.. (not the word they used..but something like that).

I found the idea that this knife to be involved in the murder to be absurd. It didn't match the wounds, it didn't match the blood stain on the sheet. So that means that 2 knives were used? Give me a break. It means premeditation. It meant that the knife was transported too and from the murder and with the starch on it, we'll that means they kept using it to cook.

I always thought that the best evidence they had was the bra clasp. But even it had too many problems to be taken seriously.

The evidence in this case was horrible. What is really amazing is that it ever went to trial. No motive, no known mental problems, no connection to Rudy.

Grinder has often pointed out to me that you don't need motive...and he's right...well sort of. If those shoe prints matched Raffaele's shoes and Amanda's fingerprints were found in Meredith's blood....then of course, even I would say that they are guilty. I guess the question is, do we need stronger evidence to convict when there is little or no motive?

 

[Strozzi]

I don't see Rudy's case getting re-opened. The only thing I can see is Rudy getting charged with Calunnia for placing false evidence against Amanda and Raf with his famous letter that he read in court. And then having another 6-8 years tacked onto his sentence (coincidentally, a similar amount of time knocked off for his fast track discount).

I think cassation isn't letting this case get away from them again, and that they will put an end to it, in all of its iterations, in this case, and in any ancillary cases.

I just think they are ready to put this case to bed, and don't want it bouncing back at them. I see cassation as just cleaning house with their motivation report.

eta: all remaining cases against Amanda and Raf will be set aside (archived?). However, Raf will decline to take the easy way out with Mignini's suit over his book 'Honor Bound'. Raf (and his lawyer Brizoli, a survivor of Mingini's Narducci trail cases), will press through for full vindication, to be followed by the publication of Raf's book in Italy in Italian, and in the UK in English. Perummphh!!!

If Cassation sends any aspect of Rudy's conviction to a lower court for eexamination/retrial, will Rudy be able to ultimately take his case to ECHR on the grounds that so many years have passed between his fast-track trial and its confirmation by Cassation that any new reexamination of his role by a court has taken so long that he was denied a "speedy" trial?

 

[MichaelB]

Good news: I have now, finally, seen the elusive dispositivo.

It reads:



That is:



Charge B) is carrying the knife out of Sollecito's house; apparently the statute of limitations on this offense has expired. (I predict the guilters will have a field day with this, emphasizing that it is not a finding of innocence. Lol.)

The other headline (which the guilters will probably have even more of a field day with) is that, yes, indeed the infamous second paragraph of C.P.P. Article 530 was cited, which some will persist in thinking means that the acquittal is less than "full". (This is wrong; non-"full" acquittals have been abolished.)

Do you have the PDF? Can you post it here?

 

[anglolawyer]

In shocking breaking news it appears the PGP do not believe Rudi did the crime. This post just in about another murder:

Just another couple of American white kids, (both "bravi," of course), who (allegedly) planned and committed a brutal murder (...of HER MOTHER!! )

Extremely chilling stuff. Numerous similarities with Meredith's murderers...

Pity for THESE PERPS that THIS COUPLE OF LOVEBIRDS didn't find a convenient black man to pin the crime on!

So it would appear that the poster thinks the kids pinned the murder on Rudi. Wow!

A couple of years back Ergon wrote a longish post at dot net in which he offered his theory of the crime. I started a thread about it at IIP called 'Ergon's theory of the crime' (one of a set of threads each devoted to individual PGP theories - including Machiavelli's 'fish dinner' theory). In Ergon's theory, Rudy was described as a 'patsy' (unintelligible American term) and a 'peacemaker'.

 

[anglolawyer]

The PLE can partially save face for botching the case by coming up with a new accomplice to blame; thus pretending that their analysis of multiple attackers is correct - just that they got the wrong accomplices. I can hear Mignini now. "Find someone to substitute for Knox. Where's that guy, Kokoman? Bring me Kokoman.".

Lumumba

 

[Numbers]

It is true that a person retains 'victim status' until or unless violations of rights are acknowledged and remedied, but this does not, as far as I can see, extend to the court agreeing to adjudicate the existence of a violation relating to any fair trial related matters in the event of an acquittal (except length of proceedings). Indeed, the court states it will not consider such claims and cites the supporting case law. If there are any judgements that contradict this, I'd love to know about them.

The question of what is 'decisive to the outcome of proceedings' is an overarching one. So, whatever disadvantage it was felt might apply at trial as a result of lack of discovery, has in fact not weighed on the final outcome as Amanda has not suffered for it having been acquitted. The court does not want to be swamped by applications from acquitted persons with lingering beefs about the conduct of their proceedings - effectively trying to fight battles when the war has already been won.

The court refers to violations being acknowledged 'expressly' or 'in substance' and to redress. So, if a person is acquitted, it may not necessarily preclude a claim, for example, of a violation under Article 3 for inhuman and degrading treatment, if it is not acknowledged, any adverse consequences eliminated and redress provided. Yet the ECHR encourages States to recognise and remedy their own violations and does not ordinarily set out to punish them after rectifying error.

Having said all that, assuming Amanda and her lawyers make a further application to the ECHR in connection with length of proceedings, there will be an opportunity to argue why the proceedings should be regarded as having been of unreasonable length. Some assistance with this may well be provided in the motivations. Hellmann's motivations, of course, are of considerable assistance in establishing that Amanda's procedural rights were violated - indeed, so were Chiefi's ironically. Across the two applications a lot of ground should be covered by the ECHR in relation to the trial process. Also, Raffaele is likely to apply too.

I agree with your analysis. I think that the best hope for redress, and one which Amanda and Raffaele should pursue, is redress including compensation from Italy. The motivation report for the acquittal may (one hopes) detail the abuses of procedure and violations of Italian law and the Convention. If it does not satisfactorily do so, it seeks unlikely that ECHR would necessarily find violations of fair trial provisions for acquitted persons. However, if there is an application for violation of the right to a reasonable length of trial, then the causes of this violation could be specified by the applicant(s) as the numerous violations of procedural law and Convention rights during the trials. My thought is that the applicant(s) should ask that the ECHR recognize these fair trial violations as continuing if not clearly enough addressed by the motivation report [a long shot] or, if that is precluded, for the ECHR to point out that such irregularities or violations of the Convention occurred during the course of the trial and contributed to the excessive length of the trial, and should not have been allowed by the domestic judicial authorities. The ECHR should point out that the domestic judicial authorities have the responsibility of following the Convention and avoiding violations at each pre-trial and trial stage.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A couple of years back Ergon wrote a longish post at dot net in which he offered his theory of the crime. I started a thread about it at IIP called 'Ergon's theory of the crime' (one of a set of threads each devoted to individual PGP theories - including Machiavelli's 'fish dinner' theory). In Ergon's theory, Rudy was described as a 'patsy' (unintelligible American term) and a 'peacemaker'.

It's fascinating how to the pro-guilt community any attempt to argue that Knox and Sollecito might be anything less than completely guilty is tantamount to a war crime, but it's perfectly acceptable in their community to argue for Guede being innocent.

One would think that because the evidence against Guede is by any accounting more direct and powerful than that against Knox and Sollecito, trying to whitewash his role in the killing ought to be a much worse offence.

One possible explanation is that the pro-guilt side is substantially directed by patsies for the ILE community, and hence much more concerned with laundering the ILE's botching of the case that in, say, true justice for Meredith Kercher.

Another is that the pro-guilt side is substantially directed by the Maresca/Kercher financial interest in suing Sollecito for millions of Euros, and hence much more concerned with keeping Sollecito in the frame than the penniless Guede, or for that matter true justice for Meredith Kercher.

The one thing we can say for certain is that trying to get Guede off the hook is fundamentally, utterly incompatible with seeking true justice for Meredith Kercher.

 

[Strozzi]

Would this mean that Rudy's original trial (and fast track discount) would also be voided?

Does that mean he would be forfeiting a fast track discount?

I think Rudy would be crazy (although he may be crazy) to give up the deal he got. He's already available for day release, isn't he?

It's not like he was going to be running for office. Maybe running from officers, but that's about it.

Carbonjam72, I disagree with your analysis above. After he is released from prison, I can see Rudy running for high office. Especially if there is a good toehold below and it is on the dark side of a building.

 

[Strozzi]

I wonder if Raffaele can "counter-sue" the Perugia "pack" for the interrogation and find something foul to pull Migninni up for charges?

IIRC, 10 or 12 of the police on duty the night of the interrogations brought suit against Knox or her parents.

I don't know how many are suing Raffaele, but since various members of the Perugia "pack" had different roles in the investigation, evidence collection, and abuse, I think Raffaele's attorney's strategy should be to sue or counter-sue all involved and try to split them, one from another, and get a few to talk. Offer leniency in any civil suit for damages to a few police and evidence-handlers and evidence-destroyers provided they disclose insider information on what their heavier-handed bosses were doing.