Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
This is hilarious! Then the thought occurred that you might be serious!
The remaining guilters are falling over themselves speculating that the Marasca report (due tomorrow) is somehow going to reverse the March 27 exonerations. One webpage owner has predicted that Marasca will write what he really should have said three months ago - guilty as charged.
Another is bringing the long long since debunked "mixed-blood" meme, that was debunked even in the Massei report from 2010 - so one wonders why (5 years later) Marasca would resurrect it, given that not even the few remaining judicially-linked guilters in Italy believe that, if they ever did.
The non-judicially-linked-in-Italy-guilters can't even get the plot straight.
However, given that the above is perhaps not meant as parody, it is further proof that to maintain a guilt position, one just has to make stuff up.
Sort of like Mignini, Massei and Nencini. It's a living.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Hilarious! These people just can't quit.
The most interesting question outstanding and the obvious one actually, is how they will treat the notion of a three on one killing, since they gave a "didn't commit the act" response to the charge in the dispositivo as opposed to "the crime does not exist".
There was never any reliable objective evidence of guilt of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in this case.
The arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba relied on Knox's statements from the police interrogation and her "interview" later on Nov. 6 by PM Mignini. It also used an apparently truncated version of the phone text message she had sent to Lumumba. Use of the Knox statements as evidence for the murder/rape case was supposedly limited by the CSC, yet it continued to play a prominent role in the trial in part because of the criminal and civil calunnia trials joined with the murder/rape trial. Furthermore, the Chieffi panel motivation report used the Knox interrogation statements as one of the justifications for annulment of the acquittal of Hellmann.
My argument is, from the viewpoint of the Convention, the trial was of excessive length, and in fact the proceedings should not have been initiated. The prosecution and courts continually violated the Convention rights of the defendants during the various phases of the proceedings, beginning with the Nov. 5/6 interrogations. There was never any reason, justifiable in a democratic society, for these individuals to be arrested or tried.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
My guess - carbonjam72 notwithstanding - is that Marasca will just return to Hellmann's logic.
Rudy's process ended with the multiple attacker scenario. Hellmann said that it was not his job to rule on the multiple attacker scenario, just as to whether AK and/or RS were involved. Which they were not, demonstrably.
There seems to be an urge in the ISC to have harmony between the differing internal-sections and their history of rulings. I truly see Marasca writing something which is even in line with the 2013, Section One reversal of the acquittals. Marasca will say that those three items were legitimate items to reverse an acquittal on, and to return them to the appeals' level for judgement.
Then he'll say that all three went the defence's way, and that the Nencini court erred in law to use that to re-convict. He'll say Hellmann got it right, except for three things he should have tested, but now that they are tested simply confirm the rightness of Hellmann's verdicts.
In my own fantasy world, I'd like to see arrest warrants issued for Stefanoni, Mignini, Comodi, Napoleoni and Donnino..... but....
Speaking of fantasy worlds... I've been told it is Ergon who is claiming that Marasca will simply "gloss over" the mixed-blood evidence. Regardless (or is it Irregardless) of the fact that there is no such evidence of mixed-blood, and never was.
We all do what gets us through the night I suppose.
lonepinealex
Muse
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
The Achilles Heel of all this is the arrest of Lumumba. What guilters gloss over in blaming AK for "naming Lumumba", is this:
Mignini said two things - one is that Lumumba had to be arrested, because Amanda named him.
The other is that Mignini said about Amanda that she was a liar and an actress.
Let's just ponder those two statements osmotically, and consider who is the liar here.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
It depends on how you frame the use of the word.
My own experience is that about 5-10% of the people use it incorrectly and as many as 25% may say the word "anyways" another incorrect usage. So by some people's logic...
Whatever you do don't appeal to authority by using dictionaries
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Numbers,
Here is a part of the dark side discussion:
Here now is Article 628 of the Penal Code with a comment on what it means courtesy of Yummi:
Quote:
Impugnability of a ruling issued by a judge after remand
1. A verdict that had been issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand, may be impugned through a recourse at Supreme Court of Cassation if the ruling was issued on an appeal instance, and through the mean provided by law if was issued on a first instance level.
2. In any case a verdict issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand may be appealed only on the reasons that do not concern those that had already been decided by Cassation on the order of remand, or for not abiding to disposition of art. 627 paragraph 2.
*
In other words: the second paragraph of art. 628 clearly says the 5th division of Cassazione may absolutely not have accepted requests of appeal [from AK and RS] on those points that had been already decided by Cassation 1st division (Chieffi court).
Those points decided by Chieffi, as for art. 628, cannot be appealed. Questions about them should be inadmissible.
Here is a part of the dark side discussion:
Here now is Article 628 of the Penal Code with a comment on what it means courtesy of Yummi:
Quote:
Impugnability of a ruling issued by a judge after remand
1. A verdict that had been issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand, may be impugned through a recourse at Supreme Court of Cassation if the ruling was issued on an appeal instance, and through the mean provided by law if was issued on a first instance level.
2. In any case a verdict issued by a court following a Cassation order of remand may be appealed only on the reasons that do not concern those that had already been decided by Cassation on the order of remand, or for not abiding to disposition of art. 627 paragraph 2.
*
In other words: the second paragraph of art. 628 clearly says the 5th division of Cassazione may absolutely not have accepted requests of appeal [from AK and RS] on those points that had been already decided by Cassation 1st division (Chieffi court).
Those points decided by Chieffi, as for art. 628, cannot be appealed. Questions about them should be inadmissible.
But the Chieffi panel did not decide except in terms of annulment of Hellmann; they sent the case back to be retried for consideration of certain issues. They did ask certain questions indicating a preference to guilt, but did not state explicitly that the defendants were guilty; if they had, there would be no reason for referral.
Also, I believe whoever wrote the statement you are repeating has the Articles' texts or numbering wrong.
It is CPP Art. 628, para. 2 that states: The judgment of the referral judge may, in any case, only be appealed for arguments which do not concern the issues already decided by the CSC or due to failure to comply with the provision of Article 627, para. 3.
And CPP Art. 627, para. 3 states: The referral judge shall conform to the judgment of the CSC as regards any issue of law it has decided upon.
What CPP Art. 627, para. 2 states is: The referral judge shall decide, exercising the same powers of the judge whose judgment has been annulled, without prejudice to the limitations established by law. If a judgment of appeal is annulled, the judge shall order the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, if so requested by the parties, for the gathering of evidence that is relevant for the decision.
{Note that CPP Art. 627 para. 2 would mean the Nencini was obligated to reopen the evidence gathering, if that was requested by the defense (and agreed by the prosecution?) and relevant.}
{Emphasis added}
So perhaps if the writer pointed out specifically what the Chieffi panel decided that the Marasca panel overruled some more specific statements could be made. ETA: Such issues may be overruled if they are not issues of law previously decided by the CSC. However, if the issues were producing a violation of the Convention or ECHR case-law, the CSC must rule to enforce the Convention or ECHR case-law.
Last edited:
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
And what points is this person proposing that Chieffi decided, which Knox and Sollecito then submitted for relitigation, and Marasca ruled differently than Chieffi? I doubt there are any.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
This would be all well and good IF the Chieffi court HADN'T also referred issues to the Appeals' court. In fact, the Chieffi court remanded three issues to the Nencini court for review. ISC cannot issue a convict after an acquittal (the situation Chieffi faced) so the only way to order a conviction would have been to remand to Appeals with NO outstanding issues. Remanding WITH outstanding issues is the sign that ISC was not locked into convicting.
Whatever the sins of Section 5 are, Nencini obviously both went outside his mandate, as well as went against the mandate as served to him by the Chieffi court.
He, too, reinterpreted conclusions Massei arrived at. For instance, Massei said this was a crime of Rudy's initiation, whose lust needed no third party provocation - much less from AK and/or RS who (in Massei's recreation) were in Amanda's room legally and so far not engaging in any criminality.
In the Nencini account, it is an argument between Amanda and Meredith which begins the criminality, to which Rudy joins in - quite the reverse of what Massei had found.
Nencini went outside his mandate by, in essence, reinterpreting Conti & Vecchiotti, using suspect-centred logic. Nencini had only the mandate to explore the ownership of exhibit 36I when it came to the DNA evidence. Please note - Chieffi did not overturn Hellmann because of C&V per se, he overturned Hellmann because (in Chieffi's view) Hellmann abrogated his judicial responsibility to rule on what would or would not be tested to Vecchiotti, who at the time said it would do no good to test 36I.
Perhaps Hellmann DID get that one wrong. However the issue surely is for Marasca - The Nencini court DID discover the ownership of 36I, and that fact went the defence's way. So why did Nencini convict? It was not on the points as remaded by Chieffi!!!!!
Yummi cannot have it both ways. Yummi, as per usual, is only telling 1/2 the story - maybe even 1/4 of the story. Yummi is grasping at straws because of his own confirmation bias.
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Nearly last thoughts prior to motivation report release...
Bill, I completely agree with your analysis on how Maresca will tackle the motivation, basically circling around to Hellman's results.
I am however, troubled by your historical 'wrong-way-Corriganesque' record for accuracy, and so am much troubled by my own agreement with you here. Not for any logical reason, but because I am prone to superstition, mumbo jumbo, and other forms of unrigorous bias wholly unsuited, I realize, to a skeptics board.
I learned from our former NYC Mayor Dinkins, that "irregardless" is a common mistake in language use. "Regardless" carries the same intended meaning, and is recognized as the proper form. This is not an area of "new language", "slang", or "evolving language", its just a plain old mistake.
I think Kauffer's question really does go to the heart of the motivation report, and would go a long way to putting this case to rest, and finally providing some closure to the Kerchers, as well as the exonerated defendants.
Whether Marasca will assert the murder could have been committed by Rudy Guede alone, probably did, or must have been committed alone, will go a long way towards ending that type of speculation.
I hope Marasca will take a clear, unambiguous view on this point, and give all concerned the confidence they need to let the issue of culpability rest where it belongs, solely with Rudy Guede, and allow the aftermath of the judicial process, grieving and reconciliation to proceed along its normal path for all concerned.
However, a finding that Rudy Guede committed the act alone, or a finding that there is no evidence of any other party to the crime along with Rudy Guede, would be a tremendous rebuke to Mignini personally and professionally.
Considering that Giuttari has been reinstated just last week to the police force granting his previously denied promotion for his contributions to the MOF case, the same farcical satanic-masonic sect theory he and Mignini pursued in the Narducci Trail cases which led (in my view) to the Kercher case fiasco, indicates that the judiciary undercutting Mignini here, would show Mignini is being set up to take the blame for this miscarriage of justice.
The truly evil are rarely punished, and when they are it is never for the crimes they have committed.
Bill, I completely agree with your analysis on how Maresca will tackle the motivation, basically circling around to Hellman's results.
I am however, troubled by your historical 'wrong-way-Corriganesque' record for accuracy, and so am much troubled by my own agreement with you here. Not for any logical reason, but because I am prone to superstition, mumbo jumbo, and other forms of unrigorous bias wholly unsuited, I realize, to a skeptics board.
I learned from our former NYC Mayor Dinkins, that "irregardless" is a common mistake in language use. "Regardless" carries the same intended meaning, and is recognized as the proper form. This is not an area of "new language", "slang", or "evolving language", its just a plain old mistake.
I think Kauffer's question really does go to the heart of the motivation report, and would go a long way to putting this case to rest, and finally providing some closure to the Kerchers, as well as the exonerated defendants.
Whether Marasca will assert the murder could have been committed by Rudy Guede alone, probably did, or must have been committed alone, will go a long way towards ending that type of speculation.
I hope Marasca will take a clear, unambiguous view on this point, and give all concerned the confidence they need to let the issue of culpability rest where it belongs, solely with Rudy Guede, and allow the aftermath of the judicial process, grieving and reconciliation to proceed along its normal path for all concerned.
However, a finding that Rudy Guede committed the act alone, or a finding that there is no evidence of any other party to the crime along with Rudy Guede, would be a tremendous rebuke to Mignini personally and professionally.
Considering that Giuttari has been reinstated just last week to the police force granting his previously denied promotion for his contributions to the MOF case, the same farcical satanic-masonic sect theory he and Mignini pursued in the Narducci Trail cases which led (in my view) to the Kercher case fiasco, indicates that the judiciary undercutting Mignini here, would show Mignini is being set up to take the blame for this miscarriage of justice.
The truly evil are rarely punished, and when they are it is never for the crimes they have committed.
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Chieffi's new standard for allowable disredarding of witnesses?
I pretty much agree. But I did have one question that may stick out.
ISC Chieffi questioned Hellman on discounting the credibility of Curatolo, just on the basis of his performance in court.
The criticism was, IIRC, that Hellman did not conduct any sort of psych or medical review of Curatolo, and therefore was wrong to disregard his testimony as being not credible, just because he was a homeless heroin addict and his general lifestyle.
I think Chieffi is out of his mind, and this view flatly contradicts ECHR precedent giving the last word on the credibility of witnesses to the last highest court to hear the witness in person. So I think Chieffi has a problem with that standard.
But it is a legal standard of some sort, is it not? How will Marasca address the credibility of Curatolo being disregarded by Hellman, without addressing Chieffi's off the cuff new standard, whatever it is Chieffi even had in mind?
I pretty much agree. But I did have one question that may stick out.
ISC Chieffi questioned Hellman on discounting the credibility of Curatolo, just on the basis of his performance in court.
The criticism was, IIRC, that Hellman did not conduct any sort of psych or medical review of Curatolo, and therefore was wrong to disregard his testimony as being not credible, just because he was a homeless heroin addict and his general lifestyle.
I think Chieffi is out of his mind, and this view flatly contradicts ECHR precedent giving the last word on the credibility of witnesses to the last highest court to hear the witness in person. So I think Chieffi has a problem with that standard.
But it is a legal standard of some sort, is it not? How will Marasca address the credibility of Curatolo being disregarded by Hellman, without addressing Chieffi's off the cuff new standard, whatever it is Chieffi even had in mind?
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I am now troubled that you are both troubled and in agreement.
Wasn't Curatolo's testimony self-contradictory regarding the day he claimed to have seen Knox and Sollecito? Also, there was no proper identification procedure to demonstrate he was able to identify them, and he only came up with this identification long after the defendant's photos were in the media. It was also a concern, IIRC, whether or not there would have enough light and short enough distance for him to clearly see them where he claimed they were in the piazza.
There are thus many concerns regarding Curatolo's testimony and it seems unlikely that medical condition or addiction status alone was the deciding factor.
If the CSC were to overrule itself on a point of law, btw, what organization would have authority to legally question that?
Last edited:
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Interesting example, since the credibility of a witness is fundamentally an issue of fact, and thus one might legitimately question what Chieffi was even doing addressing this issue. Those not inclined to ask such a question, I assume, will have no problem if Marasca similarly decides to weigh in on "issues of fact."
That said, since all Chieffi was competent to say was: "you didn't assess credibility logically, therefore go back and do it again," I don't know why Marasca can't just say: "Nencini improperly assessed the credibility of Curatalo, who was clearly nuts (notwithstanding whatever conjectures Chieffi made)." Marasca probably also alludes to the ECHR, and explains that a court who never heard a witness can't overrule the credibility determination of the court that did hear the witness. Italy wouldn't want to be violating the ECHR now, would it?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Cynically the Marasca report will say lots of stuff, basically boiled down to......
..... this is a case which should never have been prosecuted against the two, and we need it to go away.
..... this is a case which should never have been prosecuted against the two, and we need it to go away.
- Status