Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Ahhhh Massei! The guy who also gave us the following legendary reasoning in regard to Capezzali and the famous "scream of death":

"If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."


There's no denying that sort of outstanding legal mind

In a court of law, eye-witnesses' testimony is given great weight.

The defense had every opportunity to cross examine Mrs Capezzali.

 

[Numbers]

Given the First Instance court, who found out the facts, decreed the burglary was simulated and there was more than one perp, the fact remains, two or more individuals - one whom we know was of feminine build from the bloody footprint and facial fingermarks on the victim - then it most certainly was a crazy group scenario by a bunch of drugged up fantasists.

Especially as Mez was subjected to a long torture.

There are a number of misstatements in the quoted post, some of which are highlighted.

Most importantly, the Massei court, that of first instance, was in error on a variety of issues and was corrected on these by the Hellmann court. The final judgment that defendants Knox and Sollecito are innocent was given by the CSC (Marasca panel) in March, 2015. The final motivation report has not yet been published, but is expected by the end of June, 2015.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen needs enlightening:

And we are back to Square One. So, Amanda is suddenly fluent in Italian and understands what the cop was saying in order to relay the information to Mez' friends in the questura.

Answer: "Luca mimed it".

 

[Vixen]

There are a number of misstatements in the quoted post, some of which are highlighted.

Most importantly, the Massei court, that of first instance, was in error on a variety of issues and was corrected on these by the Hellmann court. The final judgment that defendants Knox and Sollecito are innocent was given by the CSC (Marasca panel) in March, 2015. The final motivation report has not yet been published, but is expected by the end of June, 2015.

You omitted to state Hellman's report was annulled.

 

[Numbers]

That is the bizarre thing about this case. Having shredded Hellmann's report on the above grounds and directing Nencini to correct Hellmann's shortcomings, SC have now torn up Nencini's.

This situation with regard to the varying verdicts and motivation reports of the Italian courts in the case are understandable if one accepts that the Massei court, Chieffi panel CSC, and Nencini court all produced arbitrary judgments that violated Italian law, including the very basics of the Italian Constitution, and were in violation of ECHR case-law. The Hellmann court was also in violation, in particular with respect to the calunnia conviction of Amanda Knox. The Marasca panel CSC, which is the final court trial in this case under Italian law, has acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Amanda Knox remains (falsely) convicted of the calunnia charge, pending ECHR review.

Your attempts to produce sensible arguments (if that is what they are) from the arbitrary reasoning of the Massei and Nencini courts, or the Chieffi panel CSC, cannot succeed.

 

[Numbers]

You omitted to state Hellman's report was annulled.

The Massei and Nencini court verdicts are likewise annulled, as is the Hellmann verdict. The reports per se remain as a record of the court judgment in each case, but the logic and reasoning, including evaluation of evidence, must be considered in light of the motivation report of the Marasca panel CSC, anticipated June, 2015, Italian law and Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Reasoning of an Italian court which violates the laws of Italy (which includes the ECHR case-law) cannot be considered valid. Judges do not get to make their own law, especially not in a civil-law State.

 

[Vixen]

This situation with regard to the varying verdicts and motivation reports of the Italian courts in the case are understandable if one accepts that the Massei court, Chieffi panel CSC, and Nencini court all produced arbitrary judgments that violated Italian law, including the very basics of the Italian Constitution, and were in violation of ECHR case-law. The Hellmann court was also in violation, in particular with respect to the calunnia conviction of Amanda Knox. The Marasca panel CSC, which is the final court trial in this case under Italian law, has acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Amanda Knox remains (falsely) convicted of the calunnia charge, pending ECHR review.

Your attempts to produce sensible arguments (if that is what they are) from the arbitrary reasoning of the Massei and Nencini courts, or the Chieffi panel CSC, cannot succeed.

I have to admit I found Massei, Nencini and Chieffi strong on logic; incisive, perspicacious and legally sound. I nodded my head at their elegance of expression.

Hellmann was all over the place. "Amanda and Raf were just having a romantic evening". It showed the brainpower of a legal pygmy.

I expect the reasoning of Bruno-Marasca will also cause me to frown, as it is sure to be completely irrational, abstract and severely legally compromised.

 

[Kauffer]

Streak of diluted blood on the door frame. Obviously overlooked by the person/s who busied themselves in it.

The presence of dilute blood in the flat is evidence of a rinsing with water of blood from a perpetrator's clothing and footwear in the small bathroom. There is also evidence this perpetrator returned to Kercher's room after rinsing. That's what the evidence shows.

You cannot infer an in-room crime scene cleanup merely from the presence of dilute blood residue elsewhere.

The action of cleaning leaves evidence of cleaning. There is no such evidence.

 

[lonepinealex]

Anyone know if there's any news on the Honour Bound trial?

 

[Vixen]

The Massei and Nencini court verdicts are likewise annulled, as is the Hellmann verdict. The reports per se remain as a record of the court judgment in each case, but the logic and reasoning, including evaluation of evidence, must be considered in light of the motivation report of the Marasca panel CSC, anticipated June, 2015, Italian law and Constitution, and ECHR case-law.

Reasoning of an Italian court which violates the laws of Italy (which includes the ECHR case-law) cannot be considered valid. Judges do not get to make their own law, especially not in a civil-law State.

ECHR is independent of individual EU states.

Is there any evidence of Amanda being assaulted and abused by the police?

I do not believe the claim Italy has no process for police complaints.

ECHR will want to know why Amanda did not go through the police complaints procedure.

Selling her story to OGGI does not count. Honest!

 

[Kauffer]

I have to admit I found Massei, Nencini and Chieffi strong on logic; incisive, perspicacious and legally sound. I nodded my head at their elegance of expression.

Hellmann was all over the place. "Amanda and Raf were just having a romantic evening". It showed the brainpower of a legal pygmy.

I expect the reasoning of Bruno-Marasca will also cause me to frown, as it is sure to be completely irrational, abstract and severely legally compromised.

What do you know about the law?

This case is characterised by Italian ignorance of Italian and relevant international law. In particular, Nencini ignored the ruling of the Gemeli court with regard to the usability of Amanda's statements, themselves obtained as a result of multiple violations of her procedural rights. His motivation report is demonstrably not legally sound.

 

[Vixen]

The presence of dilute blood in the flat is evidence of a rinsing with water of blood from a perpetrator's clothing and footwear in the small bathroom. There is also evidence this perpetrator returned to Kercher's room after rinsing. That's what the evidence shows.

You cannot infer an in-room crime scene cleanup merely from the presence of dilute blood residue.

The action of cleaning leaves evidence of cleaning. There is no such evidence.

There is more to cleaning than bleach and water.

 

[Kauffer]

ECHR is independent of individual EU states.

Is there any evidence of Amanda being assaulted and abused by the police?

I do not believe the claim Italy has no process for police complaints.

ECHR will want to know why Amanda did not go through the police complaints procedure.

Selling her story to OGGI does not count. Honest!

The ECHR is incorporated into Italian law at the constitutional level. It is superior to ordinary Italian law such that if there is a conflict, the ECHR prevails, so you are wrong.

ECHR case law, in circumstances relating to violations of Article 3 does not require a police complaints procedure.

In cases where there is no police record, as in this one - either in the form of contemporary notes, which appear to have been taken but never produced, or interrogation recordings and in the absence of a lawyer, itself a violation of the convention, the court is minded to believe the complainant with regard to allegations of abuse in custody.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's in his written reasons, in support of his verdict.

No, it isn't. I quoted what he said. He expressly made no finding. You have not understood the difference between:

A a recitation of the evidence and
B a finding of fact

If you maintain your claim that Massei found the 37 cm print was that of a female then quote the passage.

 

[Dan O.]

What is Vixen's evidence for "diluted"?

By the time the investigators arrived, all of the smaller blood stains had compleatly dried. All that is left is the same concentrations of blood products as from whole blood. what can be seen is a difference in the pattern that gets left. While whole blood is packed with red blood cells and dries uniformly, in diluted blood the cells migrate to the periphery due to surface tension and dries leaving a dark ring.

The blood drip on the bathroom door shows none of the signs of having been diluted. But the guilters desire to show a cleanup and therefore theorize that the drip was created by a sponge cleaning blood off the door and thus "probably diluted". This is the way they manufacture their "M O U N T A I N O F E V I D E N C E". There is no bloody sponge, no sign of blood having been on the door, no sign of diluted blood. Just a single drip of whole blood at about knee hight like what would be left by scraping a bloody pant leg against the edge of the door.

 

[Dan O.]

There is more to cleaning than bleach and water.

Other than Filomena's testimony that she bought bleach for the cottage and the case for bleach being left in the hall, what is the evidence that any bleach was used?

 

[anglolawyer]

Other than Filomena's testimony that she bought bleach for the cottage and the case for bleach being left in the hall, what is the evidence that any bleach was used?

As opposed to the positive evidence that no bleach was used (no smell of bleach, no detection of bleach, presence of Rudy's footprints, presence of bare footprints made by occupants, nothing found on mop despite careful preservation with Christmas wrapping paper and being strangely paraded through blood soaked room etc etc)

 

[RoseMontague]

No, it isn't. I quoted what he said. He expressly made no finding. You have not understood the difference between:

A a recitation of the evidence and
B a finding of fact

If you maintain your claim that Massei found the 37 cm print was that of a female then quote the passage.

Massei made no finding saying that in any case he believed that Amanda was barefoot when she was in Meredith's room.

 

[RoseMontague]

Raffaele's defense presented a memorandum to the court regarding the possible semen stain on 4 December (before the verdict). This is covered in Massei's motivation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Massei made no finding saying that in any case he believed that Amanda was barefoot when she was in Meredith's room.

Quite so. I posted the quote from Massei here. If memory serves, the point unexpectedly revived in Nencini's motivation.