Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
Fridays are always good. But the dark side says Marasca was pro guilt and outvoted so he will write a motivation that will be unacceptable.

AFAIK they have 90 but no penalty for going over. I think Rose had an example of a motivation that was waaaaaaay late.
Click to expand...

The dark side or some of them are suggesting the dispositivo will be retracted and the case sent back to the appellate court.

Quennell linked to this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lineer_cebir/status/613917405899833344

Hilarious.
 
Kauffer said:
The dark side or some of them are suggesting the dispositivo will be retracted and the case sent back to the appellate court.

Quennell linked to this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lineer_cebir/status/613917405899833344

Hilarious.
Click to expand...

If, indeed, that does happen and the M.R. ends up reversing the exonerations of Mar 27, then I will join in with both Peter Quennell and Machiavelli in complaining that this case has become hopelessly politicized.

The one thing it has never been about, apparently, is giving the Kerchers' justice - unless you call going after innocents part of justice-making.

Neither PQ or Mach can be friends to the victims here, in their fantasies of going after Amanda Kox no matter what.

And who is Raffaele Sollecito again?
 
Numbers said:
My reading of this article by means of Google translate suggests that the issue is that the CSC is inundated with cases and there is a risk that the system will become paralyzed. {Which is what the headline implies.}
Click to expand...

Beyond all this, the Italian system is reaping the whirlwind.
 
carbonjam72 said:
No News on the motivation report due today? At what time is it officially late?
Click to expand...

If it's any way similar to England (I know it's not) it should be issued by 4:00pm. AIUI it's almost that time in Italy. However, IIRC the report goes to the prosecution and defense lawyers. They are the ones who will publicise it once received.
 
Numbers said:
....
I think that the highest and most idealistic version of the Marasca panel motivation report would include a statement to this effect:

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.

Based upon the European Convention on Human Rights, Italy's highest law, the trial was of excessive length, and in fact the proceedings should not have been initiated. The prosecution and courts continually and systematically violated the rights of the defendants granted under the Italian Constitution, the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Convention 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. They are in actuality totally innocent of the alleged crimes of murder and rape.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the conviction of Knox was wrongful, but our authority under Italian law does not allow us to reverse the conviction. We must await the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to issue its judgment on the matter, after which, in accordance with the Italian Supreme Constitutional Court judgment Number 113/2011, a revision trial may be requested consistent with the provisions of CPP Article 632.

The CSC also notes that CPP Article 630 para. 1d provides that a request for revision trial may be made if it is proven that the judgment of conviction has been delivered as a consequence of false documents or statements provided during the trial or any other criminal act deemed to be an offence by law.
Click to expand...

Until the Marasca CSC panel publishes their motivation report, I think we can use the above idealization as a summary.

I expect that their actual MR will be close to the Hellmann treatment. They will include the results of the additional DNA test obtained in the course of the Nencini trial to confirm that Raffaele's kitchen knife was not the murder weapon, and re-affirm that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that test results are credible and reliable. That is, the prosecution must show that their results are not due to contamination and that the test procedures were appropriate and met international standards.
 
Last edited:
Guede's 2013 trial:

E)
Of the crime foreseen and punished according to article 545 of the Penal Code, because, in order to gain profit, being aware of its criminal origin, he bought or at least received from persons unknown, the following goods: One female wristwatch presumably of gold, that for the circumstances of its discovery, is considered to be of a criminal origin, - as per the report prepared by the officers of the Garibaldi Venezia Police headquarters of Milan, one grey/black portable computer of the Sony brand, model Vaio complete with charger; one mobile phone of Nokia brand model 6310 with IMEI code 350780/20/390565/1, thefts recorded as per the complaint presented on 15.10.2007 at Perugia Police station by Paolo BROCCHI.
Ascertained in Milan, 27th October 2007;
F)
Of the crime as per article 4 act 110/1975, because without justified reason, he carried from his residence or originating from there, objects capable of offending in particular: a hammer capable of breaking glass in an emergency.
Ascertained in Milan, 27th October 2007;

That reads like he was a fence. He wasn't convicted as the statute of limitations ran out.

In 2013 they still had the watch. They were going after him for all charges yet even with the published Diaz story no match. They could have added more time with the Diaz fire and theft.
 
MichaelB said:
Tomorrow at the latest apparently.
Click to expand...

Friday release lets the news cycle cool over the weekend. I don't see much fuss in Italy over this, there's no options left to pursue, IIUC, this is just a formality now?

But maybe in terms of how the evaluation of the case comes out, it could maybe influence other side cases, like honorBound trial, etc.

Or even help instigate a formal investigation?
 
Grinder said:
Guede's 2013 trial:

E)
Of the crime foreseen and punished according to article 545 of the Penal Code, because, in order to gain profit, being aware of its criminal origin, he bought or at least received from persons unknown, the following goods: One female wristwatch presumably of gold, that for the circumstances of its discovery, is considered to be of a criminal origin, - as per the report prepared by the officers of the Garibaldi Venezia Police headquarters of Milan, one grey/black portable computer of the Sony brand, model Vaio complete with charger; one mobile phone of Nokia brand model 6310 with IMEI code 350780/20/390565/1, thefts recorded as per the complaint presented on 15.10.2007 at Perugia Police station by Paolo BROCCHI.
Ascertained in Milan, 27th October 2007;
F)
Of the crime as per article 4 act 110/1975, because without justified reason, he carried from his residence or originating from there, objects capable of offending in particular: a hammer capable of breaking glass in an emergency.
Ascertained in Milan, 27th October 2007;

That reads like he was a fence. He wasn't convicted as the statute of limitations ran out.

In 2013 they still had the watch. They were going after him for all charges yet even with the published Diaz story no match. They could have added more time with the Diaz fire and theft.
Click to expand...

Wonder if they could have tested the gold watch for DNA?

If they had and it turned up with Rudy's neighbor's DNA, would you be willing to conclude it was her watch? (Of course if they just showed it to her, instead of stealing it, which is what the police did, let's face it, of course she could have identified it or not).
 
carbonjam72 said:
Friday release lets the news cycle cool over the weekend. I don't see much fuss in Italy over this, there's no options left to pursue, IIUC, this is just a formality now?

But maybe in terms of how the evaluation of the case comes out, it could maybe influence other side cases, like honorBound trial, etc.

Or even help instigate a formal investigation?
Click to expand...

It's an innocentisti fantasy that the upshot of the Marasca M.R. will be investigations. It is clear that Mignini, Napoleoni, Stefanoni and perhaps others belong in prison.

But that is not going to happen. Remember, you heard it from me first!!!!
 
Numbers said:
Until the Marasca CSC panel publishes their motivation report, I think we can use the above idealization as a summary.

I expect that their actual MR will be close to the Hellmann treatment. They will include the results of the additional DNA test obtained in the course of the Nencini trial to confirm that Raffaele's kitchen knife was not the murder weapon, and re-affirm that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that test results are credible and reliable. That is, the prosecution must show that their results are not due to contamination and that the test procedures were appropriate and met international standards.
Click to expand...

It will cycle back to Hellmann's M.R., while making a big deal on why the 2013, Section One reversal of Hellmann is now satisfied. It's now safe to return to Hellman's conclusions because the Nencini court actually DID look into the three items referred to it, and all three of those went the defences' way.

The reason to reverse Nencini is because it went way beyond its mandate, into matters Nencini never heard first-hand in court, much less allowed the defence the opportunity to cross-examine those "unique" conclusions Nencini drew.

He simply made them his basis of judgement pulled straight out of thin air once the trial was over. Crini didn't lead it, and the defence never had opportunity to dispute it.

I'm getting the feeling that the reason the Marasca M.R. is taking so long is because it only needs to be one page long.
 
Bill Williams said:
It's an innocentisti fantasy that the upshot of the Marasca M.R. will be investigations. It is clear that Mignini, Napoleoni, Stefanoni and perhaps others belong in prison.

But that is not going to happen. Remember, you heard it from me first!!!!
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Who are you to show up in a tutu in the middle of my fantasy?

I'm still hoping marasca will quash the calunnia conviction!
 
Dougm said:
Although many on the PIP side do argue that Rudy was a serial burglar, was a drifter, was aggressive with women, etc., I agree that the evidence for much of this is based on some conjecture, which works best if the person making the conjectures already believes that Rudy is guilty of Meredith's murder. But I think the reason that PIP posters often don't reply to challenges to this information is that it doesn't really matter.

I think that who Rudy was, and if he was a fence, or a burglar, or whatever, is interesting background, but largely immaterial. The evidence at the murder scene shows that Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher, by himself. Some of these other points support the idea that he was the kind of person that might end up in such a situation, and his behavior that night seems consistent with his previous behavior (in regards to breaking into offices, nursery schools, homes, etc.). But even if he was the Mayor of Perugia, and had never violated any laws before, he would still be guilty of the murder, and the evidence of that would be clear.

There may be some who can't get over the idea that Rudy had to have been a burglar, drug dealer, etc., but what I see when people argue that is that it makes sense, based on what evidence we have. But it is not essential to solving the crime. What is clear from the evidence is:
1) Mez was killed;
2) Rudy was there, and had never been there before;
3) He was there at the time the killing occured;
4) There is no reliable evidence that anyone else was there at that time;
5) His story about why he was there, and what happened when he was there, is not believable.

There may be a "dogma" around who Rudy was and why, but it is not a driver of the case, or the fact that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Rudy did it. They didn't. That is true if Rudy was a burglar, or a fence, or a successful businessman. The story of Rudy as a drifter, burglar, and guy who annoyed women and fell asleep on toilets fits the narrative, and seems to be the most likely true story. But he is still the killer, regardless of how one wants to portray him.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what is found with the new English translation of Rudy's troubles, this is still the issue....
 
carbonjam72 said:
Bill, your prediction speaks for itself, "ubeda-ubeda-ubeda-...blaahhh!"
Click to expand...
I wish I could find my bookie prediction from after Nencini. Buried in the thread somewhere, Raffaele would never spend another night in jail. I couldn't see it. But you trumped everyone. Of course someone had to be right....
 
Samson said:
I wish I could find my bookie prediction from after Nencini. Buried in the thread somewhere, Raffaele would never spend another night in jail. I couldn't see it. But you trumped everyone. Of course someone had to be right....
Click to expand...

Would this be it
 
Samson said:
I wish I could find my bookie prediction from after Nencini. Buried in the thread somewhere, Raffaele would never spend another night in jail. I couldn't see it. But you trumped everyone. Of course someone had to be right....
Click to expand...

After Hellman, I assumed it was over. When ISC annulled Hellman, that got my attention. I assumed Nencini would acquit, and when Nencini convicted I couldn't even tell from the live feed that the verdict was guilty. That's when I started to become curious, and wanted to see what this was all about.

After a few months of reading and research, I found myself on these pages, and haven't left since (not including my recent "forced vacation").

But I never believed any court would convict or allow the case to keep moving forwards. In that way, I've only been right twice, and wrong on everything else.

My views on dietrologia, etc, are all done with the benefit of hindsight. But my last call on a full acquittal I was pretty happy with. Not just because it was right, but because there was an argument in back of it, and with so much confirming incidents right in the home stretch, a kind of analysis otherwise known as "time frame continuity", but just meaning micro, mid-level, and macro data all aligned in a consistent direction.

Or, I coulda just got lucky.

Anyway, case closed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom