Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
Yeah, that's what the Nazis said when they were convicted at Nuremburg.
Click to expand...

Newsflash from Radio PQ on TJMK:

"Breaking news. If Judge Marasca sticks to his promise to issue sentencing report in 90 days he'll release it this Wednesday. His dispositivo did not find for RS's and AK's "innocence" despite claims by AK lawyer and the Wikipedia. Marasca will know that his interim explanation 26 March was derided, and that Cassation's earlier finding that three people committed the crime still stands. Also that his ruling was legally outlandish and annullment pretty certain, see our next post."

Wow, PQ has really gone out on a limb this time.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Newsflash from Radio PQ on TJMK:

"Breaking news. If Judge Marasca sticks to his promise to issue sentencing report in 90 days he'll release it this Wednesday. His dispositivo did not find for RS's and AK's "innocence" despite claims by AK lawyer and the Wikipedia. Marasca will know that his interim explanation 26 March was derided, and that Cassation's earlier finding that three people committed the crime still stands. Also that his ruling was legally outlandish and annullment pretty certain, see our next post."

Wow, PQ has really gone out on a limb this time.
Click to expand...

Quennell is an idiot. I can't believe I even wasted the keystrokes typing that.
 
Vixen said:
Section 530 Para II Case Precedent: Italian State vs Andreotti
google translation Repubblica.it
------------
After 11 years, therefore, the process is closed to Andreotti and the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno does not hide his satisfaction. "It's fine also this verdict - said the lawyer - our first goal was in fact to put an end to a process that has gone on for 11 years. And then you have to look at the result that it ended with a judgment of acquittal."

Although, in the operative part of its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that Andreotti must pay court costs, a "figure millionaire" because its "11 years of legal proceedings", underline rumors of attorney of the Supreme Court. But the lawyer Bongiorno denies: "The court costs mentioned in the operative part of the judgment refer solely to ordinary expenses related to the rejection of the appeal to the Supreme Court. No compensation millionaire, then, but only a few cents."

The Judges of First Instance, in its judgment of 23 October 1999 had acquitted Andreotti of the charge of criminal conspiracy mafia type for lack of fact challenged (drawing art. 530, second paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely old formula of insufficient evidence), the courts of second instance had instead two distinct moments in the alleged links of Andreotti with the Mafia.

The first related to the facts until 1980 - qualified as criminal association "simple" does not exist then the association with the mafia - that the judges deemed prescribed; the latter - described as mafia-type criminal association - have been deemed non-existent, for which it was given acquittal (in this case, however, with reference to the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

http://www.repubblica.it/2004/j/sezioni/cronaca/andreotti/andreotti/andreotti.html
----------

Ironically Avv Bongiornio also got Judge Bruno (of the current case Fifth Chambers) off mafia charges IIRC.

ETA A big difference between the ISC in Andreotti's case and the kids is that the Court of the First Instance found Andreotti not guilty due to Art 530 II. The appeal court replaced this with a guilty verdict and ISC simply upheld the original court, and reinstated 530 para 2, as found by 1st Instance Court.

In the kiddies' case, the First Instance court found "guilty" and Nencini upheld it (Hellmann having been annulled, kyboshed, grounded, banished).

Therefore Fifth Chambers 27 March 2015 HAS ESTABLISHED A NEW PRECEDENT and in any case, DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO USE SECTION 530 Para 2.

What a shambles!!!
Click to expand...

Your use of color for the latter part of your post is quite pleasing.

The statements in your post are nonsensical; too bad the color could not correct that. The problem is that your post does not contain factual information regarding how the CSC works and does not describe its authority to produce judgments, which are laid out in the Italian {Law} Code of Criminal Procedure, the CPP.

In accordance with CPP Art. 615, para. 2, unless the CSC chooses, in deciding the appeal, to follow the provisions of CPP Art. 620, 622 or 623, it must either declare the appeal either inadmissible or it shall reject it.

Thus, to declare a decision of guilt, the CSC must accept the lower court's decision of guilt by declaring the appeal of the defense inadmissible or rejecting it.
The CSC may accept a lower court's decision of not guilty by declaring the appeal of the prosecutor inadmissible or rejecting it.

However, CPP Art. 620 gives the CSC the authority to annul a lower court decision and find the defendant not guilty, without referral.

CPP Art. 623 allows the CSC to annul a lower court decision and send the case back to be retried (referral).

CPP Art. 622 gives the CSC the authority to annul the civil and not the criminal parts of a case, if CSC decides that is appropriate.

ETA: CPP Art. 624 provides authority for the CSC to annul parts of a lower court decision.
 
Last edited:
Vixen is claiming that the 2015 ISC acted illegally when it annuled both Massei and Nencini and unilaterally exonerated AK/RS.

We will find out soon, but the 2015 ISC could very well have aannulled Nencini and simply reinstated Hellmann.

Why? Well, because in annulling Hellmann the 2013 ISC referred 3 points to the Nencini court for review. All three of those points went the defences' way.

Therefore the grounds for annulling Hellmann no longer exist. The 2013 and 2015 versions of ISC are in essential agreement.

The only question is why would Nencini convict. My guess is that the report to come will say that Nencini"s court went beyond what it was tasked with in 2013.
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen is claiming that the 2015 ISC acted illegally when it annuled both Massei and Nencini and unilaterally exonerated AK/RS.

We will find out soon, but the 2015 ISC could very well have aannulled Nencini and simply reinstated Hellmann.

Why? Well, because in annulling Hellmann the 2013 ISC referred 3 points to the Nencini court for review. All three of those points went the defences' way.

Therefore the grounds for annulling Hellmann no longer exist. The 2013 and 2015 versions of ISC are in essential agreement.

The only question is why would Nencini convict. My guess is that the report to come will say that Nencini"s court went beyond what it was tasked with in 2013.
Click to expand...

This is a good guess Bill. But I'm going with your past record though, no offense. Especially now that Diocletus is back.
 
Vixen said:
Section 530 Para II Case Precedent: Italian State vs Andreotti
google translation Repubblica.it
------------
After 11 years, therefore, the process is closed to Andreotti and the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno does not hide his satisfaction. "It's fine also this verdict - said the lawyer - our first goal was in fact to put an end to a process that has gone on for 11 years. And then you have to look at the result that it ended with a judgment of acquittal."

Although, in the operative part of its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that Andreotti must pay court costs, a "figure millionaire" because its "11 years of legal proceedings", underline rumors of attorney of the Supreme Court. But the lawyer Bongiorno denies: "The court costs mentioned in the operative part of the judgment refer solely to ordinary expenses related to the rejection of the appeal to the Supreme Court. No compensation millionaire, then, but only a few cents."

The Judges of First Instance, in its judgment of 23 October 1999 had acquitted Andreotti of the charge of criminal conspiracy mafia type for lack of fact challenged (drawing art. 530, second paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely old formula of insufficient evidence), the courts of second instance had instead two distinct moments in the alleged links of Andreotti with the Mafia.

The first related to the facts until 1980 - qualified as criminal association "simple" does not exist then the association with the mafia - that the judges deemed prescribed; the latter - described as mafia-type criminal association - have been deemed non-existent, for which it was given acquittal (in this case, however, with reference to the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

http://www.repubblica.it/2004/j/sezioni/cronaca/andreotti/andreotti/andreotti.html
----------

Ironically Avv Bongiornio also got Judge Bruno (of the current case Fifth Chambers) off mafia charges IIRC.
ETA A big difference between the ISC in Andreotti's case and the kids is that the Court of the First Instance found Andreotti not guilty due to Art 530 II. The appeal court replaced this with a guilty verdict and ISC simply upheld the original court, and reinstated 530 para 2, as found by 1st Instance Court.

In the kiddies' case, the First Instance court found "guilty" and Nencini upheld it (Hellmann having been annulled, kyboshed, grounded, banished).

Therefore Fifth Chambers 27 March 2015 HAS ESTABLISHED A NEW PRECEDENT and in any case, DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO USE SECTION 530 Para 2.

What a shambles!!!
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

My reading of this article says Judge Bruno was never even questioned.

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/crona...26mila-per-il-suo-errore-giudiziario-2116740/
 
MichaelB said:
Are you sure about that?

My reading of this article says Judge Bruno was never even questioned.

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/crona...26mila-per-il-suo-errore-giudiziario-2116740/
Click to expand...

Sounds like Bruno and some other judges were subjected to false accusation and an arbitrary investigation. The case ended at first-instance trial, with all the defendants acquitted. Now the officials who conducted that discredited investigation must apparently make payments, due to a civil action, to those falsely accused. If this is correct, can Amanda and Raffaele benefit from civil action of that type?

Google translation of the article cited in the quote:

OMA - Twenty Six {thousand} euro that the state must pay to remedy a legal error of some judges: among them Luigi De Magistris, now mayor of Naples. The court has in fact convicted of Salerno (for "inexcusable error") the prosecutor in Catanzaro in 2004 investigated the Supreme Court judge Paul Antonio Bruno for Mafia association. The magistrate then eventually acquitted, but now the Palazzo Chigi to shell out 26,000 euro for that investigation. And 'the last case of compensation set by the law Vassalli.
In short it will enter into force the new law Orlando, that the civil liability of judges, and at that point will be the judge to pay up to half the salary of annuality. According to the court of Salerno, the magistrates of Catanzaro have had more than a flaw in conducting the survey: "From the beginning of the investigation lacked any element, even of mere suspicion, suitable to hold the charge as proposed". The magistrate searched, Paolo Antonio Bruno, has never been questioned although he had asked for over a year. And finally the investigation had "a life totally unreasonable".
A sign the survey were the chief prosecutor of Catanzaro Mariano Lombardi (who died in 20110), the prosecutor Luigi De Magistris and added Mario Spagnuolo. According to the indictment in Reggio Calabria there would be a committee of business that would try to influence the Antimafia judges to stop the investigations. The investigation stopped at first instance with the acquittal of all defendants.
Click to expand...

ETA: Palazzo Chigi = Chigi Palace is the office of the Prime Minister of Italy (I googled it)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
AFAICS They remain legally guilty as ISC's acquittal is legally and actually perverse = null and void.
Click to expand...

The legal situation is clear under the Italian constitution. People are innocent until conviction confirmed by ISC. The convictions have not been confirmed (excepting callunia / Knox), therefore they are and ALWAYS have been innocent. That is a legal fact. Are now and always were legally innocent.
 
Vixen said:
Sheer overwhelming volume of evidence.
Click to expand...

The problem is when we drill down on this, the overwhelming volume of evidence is a Boojum. The bleach receipts that never were. The bloody finger print that never was.

You do understand the circular nature of your argument? You say that the blood on the light switch was deposited by Knox because (you assume) she had blood on her hands from the murder of MK. You then say this is evidence of her participation. You cannot use an assumption to justify that assumption.

Relying on falsehoods that appeared in newspapers and ignoring the facts presented in court documents is not a reliable way of weighing the evidence.
 
Numbers said:
Sounds like Bruno and some other judges were subjected to false accusation and an arbitrary investigation. The case ended at first-instance trial, with all the defendants acquitted. Now the officials who conducted that discredited investigation must apparently make payments, due to a civil action, to those falsely accused. If this is correct, can Amanda and Raffaele benefit from civil action of that type?

Google translation of the article cited in the quote:



ETA: Palazzo Chigi = Chigi Palace is the office of the Prime Minister of Italy (I googled it)
Click to expand...

Thanks Numbers. You deciphered that machine translation better than me.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda testified under oath she had not been ill treated.

In the case precedent Numbers likes to quote, the two guys had medical evidence to back up their claim.

Amanda's claim of police brutality is as transparent an attempt to wriggle out of her heinous allegations against Patrick, of rape and murder, with concommitant two week's jail, which of itself was a blatant attempt to shift suspicion away from herself.
Click to expand...

I believe criminal defendants in Italy are not actually "under oath".

Eta: I see this has been pointed out already. Funny that the same person who didn't even know this is writing how the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to make its ruling. Hilarious. Please tell us more.
 
Last edited:
MichaelB said:
Thanks Numbers. You deciphered that machine translation better than me.
Click to expand...

Google translate approximations of English can be a challenge.

It would be interesting to know more about what is meant by the "law Vassalli" and the "law Orlando". These seem to be compensation laws relating to false arrest, accusation, or trial. The Vassalli law apparently requires compensation from the government, and is apparently being superseded by the Orlando law, which will make the judges liable for their errors.
 
Vixen said:
AFAICS They remain legally guilty as ISC's acquittal is legally and actually perverse = null and void.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking what changed as far as the Masons were concerned that they decided to step in after seven years of malarkey? Why didn't the Sollecitos and Bongiorno just call them in at the start - especially with Raffaele being in solitary for six months. Seems like it would have saved a lot of time and money.
 
lonepinealex said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking what changed as far as the Masons were concerned that they decided to step in after seven years of malarkey? Why didn't the Sollecitos and Bongiorno just call them in at the start - especially with Raffaele being in solitary for six months. Seems like it would have saved a lot of time and money.
Click to expand...

The Masons had to let the k8ds languish in jail, to get the street cred for their book deals.
 
MichaelB said:
Are you sure about that?

My reading of this article says Judge Bruno was never even questioned.

http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/crona...26mila-per-il-suo-errore-giudiziario-2116740/
Click to expand...

I dare say Bruno and his defense barrister, Bongiorno, got together at the Bar and the conversation went something like this.

"What's yours?"

"I'll just have a pinot grigio spritzer as I'm facing that dour old judge Pini this afternoon."

"Heheh, got to keep up Bar Standards, eh? What did you want to see me about?"

"Well you know, Paolo, old ragazzo, remember that ahem, how can I put this? That 'family' affair. You never did pay my fee bill in total of €700K, so maybe you can do me a favour instead."

<fx masonic nudge and wink>

"Anything for you, m'dear."

"Well, I have this real bastado of a case with young Raff he really has been incorrigible, writing in his book I tried to bribe ragazzo now bambino Aviello €100K to lie for him in court, and then changing his alibi every five minutes, and the father! Mama Mia, on the blower every day bending my ear about his boy. You gotta help me, Bruno, baby, you owe me one."

"But how can I, Giulia. Alessandro(? Nencini) already wrapped it up watertight. It's absolutely leakproof, old girl."

<fx Bongiorno fiddles with the knives on the table. Shrieks>

"Eh, mama mia, Paolo, I got you off that charge and you no do something for me? What's da matter wid you, hey? Gotta no respect?!"

"Calm down, Giulia, put down those knives! Whatta can I a do ah?

<fx shrugs>

" I know! I used it to get off Giacomo -"

" Giacomo?"

""You know, Andreotti? Section 530 para 2! I remember it well- "

<fx a bead of cold sweat breaks out on Bruno's brow>

"I'll be the laughing stock of Italy. At least Giacomo's first trial pronounced 530 para 2. What did Papa Raff ever do for Italy except stick catheters up a few dons' - "

"Ah, shadduppa your face! Just do it Paolo. You're the cassazione supremo, you can do anything."

"Oh all right, then. But I'll be making history. And I'll probably be up half the night trying to persuade goody two shoes Marasca, the irascible bastado..."

"Ciao! You won't regret it!"

"Leave the cash in locker no 735 Firenze station. Ciao!"

<fx exit stage left>
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I dare say Bruno and his defense barrister, Bongiorno, got together at the Bar and the conversation went something like this.

"What's yours?"

"I'll just have a pinot grigio spritzer as I'm facing that dour old judge Pini this afternoon."

"Heheh, got to keep up Bar Standards, eh? What did you want to see me about?"

"Well you know, Paolo, old ragazzo, remember that ahem, how can I put this? That 'family' affair. You never did pay my fee bill in total of €700K, so maybe you can do me a favour instead."

<fx masonic nudge and wink>

"Anything for you, m'dear."

"Well, I have this real bastado of a case with young Raff he really has been incorrigible, writing in his book I tried to bribe ragazzo now bambino Aviello €100K to lie for him in court, and then changing his alibi every five minutes, and the father! Mama Mia, on the blower every day bending my ear about his boy. You gotta help me, Bruno, baby, you owe me one."

"But how can I, Giulia. Alessandro(? Nencini) already wrapped it up watertight. It's absolutely leakproof, old girl."

<fx Bongiorno fiddles with the knives on the table. Shrieks>

"Eh, mama mia, Paolo, I got you off that charge and you no do something for me? What's da matter wid you, hey? Gotta no respect?!"

"Calm down, Giulia, put down those knives! Whatta can I a do ah?

<fx shrugs>

" I know! I used it to get off Giacomo -"

" Giacomo?"

""You know, Andreotti? Section 530 para 2! I remember it well- "

<fx a bead of cold sweat breaks out on Bruno's brow>

"I'll be the laughing stock of Italy. At least Giacomo's first trial pronounced 530 para 2. What did Papa Raff ever do for Italy except stick catheters up a few dons' - "

"Ah, shadduppa your face! Just do it Paolo. You're the cassazione supremo, you can do anything."

"Oh all right, then. But I'll be making history. And I'll probably be up half the night trying to persuade goody two shoes Marasca, the irascible bastado..."

"Ciao! You won't regret it!"

"Leave the cash in locker no 735 Firenze station. Ciao!"

<fx exit stage left>
Click to expand...

That's really cute but you're confused again. Bongiorno never represented Judge Bruno.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom