Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
There is a fine distinction between exoneration and insufficient evidence. It is regrettable you struggle to grasp it. Is there anything I can do to help?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I can help you though. Article 27 of the constitution maintains a presumption of innocence until or unless a confirmed conviction is delivered by Cassation, which never happened. She has been absolved from blame.
 
Vixen said:
Anyone walking into a police station confessing murder will have their complaint treated seriously, especially if they lived in the abode the murder happened and claimed to have witnessed it.

It's unlikely the kiddiewinkies would have been granted an appeal here. They'd have got life, and been out on parole after nine years.
Click to expand...

You should try asking the CPS. They'd never have been interrogated let alone charged.

And Amanda never confessed to murdering anybody.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Anyone walking into a police station confessing murder will have their complaint treated seriously, especially if they lived in the abode the murder happened and claimed to have witnessed it.

It's unlikely the kiddiewinkies would have been granted an appeal here. They'd have got life, and been out on parole after nine years.
Click to expand...

Who, in this case, walked into a police station and confessed murder?
 
Bill Williams said:
Yes. Explain how "did not commit the act" means "insufficient evidence".

To review - depending on the charge both kids were found either, perché il fatto non sussiste, because the action the defendant was alleged to have committed never took place; or, perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso, because the defendant did not commit the action he was alleged to have committed, but that action did take place.
Click to expand...

Here's a good explanation:


http://tinyurl.com/q74mr26
 
Vixen said:
Rich, coming from you, when you deny being a member of a pro-Knox lobby group, when virtually everybody on the list knows better.
Click to expand...

We are essentially pro evidence. There isn't one pro innocence person on this board who wouldn't support a finding of guilt if that is what the evidence pointed to. Even now, theoretically, if something were to emerge.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
There is a fine distinction between exoneration and insufficient evidence. It is regrettable you struggle to grasp it. Is there anything I can do to help?
Click to expand...

from Amanda Knox's Afterword:
“Assolti, assolti, I said, too dumbfounded to translate. The Quarto Grado host looked stunned.
“Assolti?” he asked Croci incredulously.
“Wait for me to confirm, “ Croci said excitedly. “Wait, wait, I yelled. “I have to confirm.”
With the phone still up to his ear, Croci shouted: “Confermo! Confermo!”…..
….Minutes later Carlo Della Vedova, one of our two Italian lawyers, called.
“Does ‘aquitted” mean not enough evidence to convict? I asked him. “Or did they find us innocent?”
“They found you innocent. Amanda! It’s the best result possible!”​

Amanda Knox seems happy enough with the verdict which is the main thing.
 
Bill Williams said:
Yes. Explain how "did not commit the act" means "insufficient evidence".

To review - depending on the charge both kids were found either, perché il fatto non sussiste, because the action the defendant was alleged to have committed never took place; or, perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso, because the defendant did not commit the action he was alleged to have committed, but that action did take place.
Click to expand...

zotz said:
Who, in this case, walked into a police station and confessed murder?
Click to expand...


Amanda. Arrived voluntarily without invitation. Claimed she met Patrick and let him in. She covered her ears while Patrick had sex with Mez and murdered her.

In Italy, anyone assisting a murder can face charges of being an accessory to murder.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda. Arrived voluntarily without invitation. Claimed she met Patrick and let him in. She covered her ears while Patrick had sex with Mez and murdered her.

In Italy, anyone assisting a murder can face charges of being an accessory to murder.
Click to expand...

Not in the interrogation she didn't. That's what matters.
 
RoseMontague said:
What do you expect to happen?
Click to expand...

Criminal law in Italy was reformed meaning any murder charge resulting in conviction cannot be simply "acquitted" by ISC without remitting it back.

Marasca/Bruno have issued a verdict which is legally null and void.

Art 530 para 2 relates to permissible findings of a lower court. Niether of the lower courts found not guilty.

In addition, Marasca/Bruno cannot pith with the Chieffi judgment, beyond the strictly limited issues he remitted back to Nencini, having trashed, stymied, set aside, eradicated, erased, eschewed, expunged Hellmann/Zanetti's judgment.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda. Arrived voluntarily without invitation. Claimed she met Patrick and let him in. She covered her ears while Patrick had sex with Mez and murdered her.

In Italy, anyone assisting a murder can face charges of being an accessory to murder.
Click to expand...

Please have a go a this question. Mignini said that Amanda was a liar and an actress. Yet Mignini said he had to arrest Lumumba because, "Amanda accused him."

How do you reconcile those two statements of Mignini's?
 
Vixen said:
Criminal law in Italy was reformed meaning any murder charge resulting in conviction cannot be simply "acquitted" by ISC without remitting it back.

Marasca/Bruno have issued a verdict which is legally null and void.

Art 530 para 2 relates to permissible findings of a lower court. Niether of the lower courts found not guilty.

In addition, Marasca/Bruno cannot pith with the Chieffi judgment, beyond the strictly limited issues he remitted back to Nencini, having trashed, stymied, set aside, eradicated, erased, eschewed, expunged Hellmann/Zanetti's judgment.
Click to expand...

What do you expect to happen?
 
Vixen said:
Criminal law in Italy was reformed meaning any murder charge resulting in conviction cannot be simply "acquitted" by ISC without remitting it back.
Marasca/Bruno have issued a verdict which is legally null and void.

Art 530 para 2 relates to permissible findings of a lower court. Niether of the lower courts found not guilty.

In addition, Marasca/Bruno cannot pith with the Chieffi judgment, beyond the strictly limited issues he remitted back to Nencini, having trashed, stymied, set aside, eradicated, erased, eschewed, expunged Hellmann/Zanetti's judgment.
Click to expand...

This part is wrong, and all the lawyers attached to this case in Italy know it is wrong. You are being advised wrongly.

The ISC in Italy cannot convict without an appeal's court below it also convicting. If an appeals' court (ie. Hellmann) acquits, then the ISC must remand to another appeals' court to first convict them, before signing off on that.

The ISC in Italy can acquit on its own, but it cannot convict on its own. You have been advised wrongly. Even the Kercher lawyer, Maresca, has said this.
 
Bill Williams said:
Please have a go a this question. Mignini said that Amanda was a liar and an actress. Yet Mignini said he had to arrest Lumumba because, "Amanda accused him."

How do you reconcile those two statements of Mignini's?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Police arrested Patrick in good faith.
Click to expand...

This is not an answer. Mignini specifically said the arrest was made because "Amanda accused Lumumba". Yet Mignini regarded Amanda, as he also said, as a liar.

How do you reconcile that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom