Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

duplicate

 

[Strozzi]

Makes sense. The jacket could easily have remained on for a while as it was a cool evening with the day's high being in the mid fifties and the heat most likely off for the afternoon/evening.

If she were screaming (Rudi being the only one that said she screamed at 9:20) wouldn't the most likely thing to be chocking or covering the mouth? Not stabbing her through the neck.

You are pushing the digestion time to the max according to some here.

Rudi may have first approached her to force her to stop screaming. That may have been his initial intent in accosting her (not sex). Aren't there indications that she suffered a blow to her mouth area and also separate finger bruises around her mouth indicative that Rudi from in back of her wrapped his left hand tightly over her mouth? Did it work - did it quiet her down and cause her to stand still? Apparently not. There is more struggle.

Regarding pushing the digestion time to the max, how so? What is the time consensus? Does her digestion indicate that she was killed at 9:05 pm, rather than 9:20 pm?

Was Rudi's estimate that she screamed at 9:20 off by 10 or 15 minutes? He paid attention to it. He described it as a loud scream - so loud that he was concerned people in the street might have heard it.

 

[Bill Williams]

However, even an irrevocable decision would be irrevocable only as for its criminal effects (jail time penalty), but does not equate to any irrevocable finding of judicial truth. Other legal actions, of different kinds, may even well find out very different judicial truths. Moreover, there are definitive judicial truths already that point in direction of Knox's guilt (calunnia, multiple attackers) which are all still 100% valid.

Welcome back, Machiavelli. You have been missed. Truly.

Those two "judicial truths" do not point in the direction of Knox's (sic) guilt. However the use of the name of only one of the exonerated betrays the problem that has plagued this wrongful prosecution since the beginning, doesn't it?

Calunnia does not equate to proof of murder. Mignini knows it, but this is one of the last items he has, so he's arguing this for all he's worth.

Multiple attackers is a judicial truth generated from Rudy's fast-track trial. Not only were Sollecito and Knox not represented at that set of trials when the judicial truth was confirmed, fast track trials do not have an evidence-phase, so the "factual" result of it cannot be said to be superior to a set of trials where evidence is tested in the court, and subject to cross-examination.

 

[Ken Dine]

Could you be any more generous and insulting at the same time Ken?

Since I wasn't even trying, I suspect I could be more obnoxious if I tried!

Totally off topic but I'll bite. I voted for Obama because he more represents my view on health care, labor relations, minimum wages, antitrust laws, net neutrality, abortion, the environment and foreign relations. We both are in favor of increasing spending on infrastructure and support more progressive tax structure. As for race relations, I think he has been both a positive and a negative for race relations. Mostly because he is black and for no other reason.

I can appreciate your political liberal leaning fervor -- as noted, I have some in my own family and we tolerate them (more or less).

Has he been an effective leader in terms of getting legislation through congess? No. But I'll take nothing from him as opposed to what happened under Bush Jr. Or has everyone forgot the economic and foreign relations mess he left us in?

I didn't like Dubya either, and on a few occasions back then we were nearly thrown out of restaurants for arguing too loudly, and I mean me arguing with my conservative family members and not my daughter (since we generally agreed about Dubya back then).

That said, entirely blaming Dubya for the economic meltdown during his final term is not fair since Dubya was merely going along with the Democratic controlled congress in his final years:

Barney Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 28, 2008

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...ngerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

There's plenty of blame to go around for that mess, and I do blame Dubya for stupidly going along with the Democrats, which includes Hillary along with Barney Frank.

I also blame Dubya for Iraq, which was probably unnecessary and likely made things worse there. However, Hillary and the other Dems went along with it.

Life is simply NOT black & white!

Just saying... and to keep this discussion topical, it was his state department that failed to protect Amanda's rights in Italy. (Only kidding about this last part..but I had to add something about Knox to keep it topical.

Since Amanda's conviction wasn't upheld, we'll never know how her extradition would have played out.

I'm glad Amanda was exonerated, but it would have been interesting if she wasn't. I suspect she would NOT have been extradited, but if she were extradited, then it would be a standard State Dept condition that Italy gave Amanda another trial since the Nencini trial was 'in absentia'.

Geeze, this thing could have gone on forever.

 

[Kauffer]

SC motivations are usually quick. Very, very rarely I recall of longer delays than 3 months. It's already within the range of exceptional.
There isn't a legal requirement. There is a praxis, and usually there are no delays.



Of course I disagree. It's just a lie.
First, because mentioning 530.2 rules out the possibility of finding someone innocent. (in fact this is why in those cases civil actions are well possible).
Second, because SC does not weigh evidence and cannot draw its own findings in the merits. One thing is speak about the merits through assessing the quality of some other court judgement, another thing would be taking decisions, and specifically, new decisions that were not decided by any other lower court. That would be something out from the Code.



No. I do not accept that Cassation had the authority to acquit, because it's not in the Procedure Code, and there is no precedent. I do think that on practical grounds there is a high probability that the judgement is irrevocable (even if wrong, because of double jeopardy) however I can't tell that for sure, because it's an unprecendented occurrence (a Prosecutor General might challenge it if motivations violate art. 628) it even happened without summoning United Sections, which makes it look even more absurd in procedure. I also can't say that in the absolute because the decision would be invalid if evidence of judicial corruption or political pressure was found.
However, even an irrevocable decision would be irrevocable only as for its criminal effects (jail time penalty), but does not equate to any irrevocable finding of judicial truth. Other legal actions, of different kinds, may even well find out very different judicial truths. Moreover, there are definitive judicial truths already that point in direction of Knox's guilt (calunnia, multiple attackers) which are all still 100% valid.

But surely that can't be right. It is in the procedure code. Article 620 Letter A and L is cited as the authority for the judgement in the dispositivo.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

Seems clear enough doesn't it?

 

[Machiavelli]

Welcome back, Machiavelli. You have been missed. Truly.

Those two "judicial truths" do not point in the direction of Knox's (sic) guilt. However the use of the name of only one of the exonerated betrays the problem that has plagued this wrongful prosecution since the beginning, doesn't it?

Calunnia does not equate to proof of murder. Mignini knows it, but this is one of the last items he has, so he's arguing this for all he's worth.

Multiple attackers is a judicial truth generated from Rudy's fast-track trial. Not only were Sollecito and Knox not represented at that set of trials when the judicial truth was confirmed, fast track trials do not have an evidence-phase, so the "factual" result of it cannot be said to be superior to a set of trials where evidence is tested in the court, and subject to cross-examination.

Those judicial findings are irrevocable and 100% valid.

Those findings indeed point in direction of Knox's guilt, albeit not necessarily in direction of the guilt of another perpetrator additional to Knox (even if we know there was one, Sollecito, in the merits). Those final judicial truths implicate Knox more than Sollecito in my opinion, however we can also see they implicate Sollecito in a degree.

You may think calunnia does not imply evidence of being involved in murder. But that is your opinion, and that could very well be seen as biased by someone neutral. I point out, btw, that Hellmann's reasoning in order to "separate" calunnia from murder was crashed forever and declared illogical by the Supreme Court (so Marasca would need to find out some other scenario).

So it's actually not that easy to split calunnia from murder in this case. People will make their own minds, and I guess mostly they won't share your logic and your faith.

Multiple attackers is not just "generted from Rudy's trial", it's actually generated by the autopsy reports and findings, and never been seriously challenged, not even in the other trials. Because it's impossible to challenge it with plausible arguments. But incidentally, I remind that it is absolutely not true that Knox and Sollecito's defenses were not represented at Guede's trial (which was not a "series" of trial, but a single one; the other two stages were just "his" actions against the trial, his own appeal and recourse).
To say that Knox and Sollecito were not represented is a plain lie.
The fast-track does not have a specific court evidence phase (discusses evidence from the investigation), but this goes both for the prosecution and the defence and civil parties; it has an arguments phase, and Knox and Sollecito defences did enter articulate defence arguments. The multiple attackers scenario is essentially an argument based on autopsy report, blood pattern analysis and testimony which all already existed at the time of the trial. The findings from a fast track trial are not superior, but they are not inferior either. And the calunnia trial is valid as well. Btw there is also a second calunnia trial which will reach an additional judicial truth as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

But surely that can't be right. It is in the procedure code. Article 620 Letter A and L is cited as the authority for the judgement in the dispositivo.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

Seems clear enough doesn't it?

No. There is nothing of that kind in the procedure code. Art. 620 is about the power to "annul" a decision.
But to "annul" is not to "acquit". They are two very different things. Annul is a decision about a trial/proceedings, while acquit is a decision about a person, and it's a conclusion in the merits of a crime.

Simply, there has never been another SC ruling where the chamber says "assolvere" (acquit). There is no precedent.

 

[acbytesla]

Since I wasn't even trying, I suspect I could be more obnoxious if I tried!





I can appreciate your political liberal leaning fervor -- as noted, I have some in my own family and we tolerate them (more or less).





I didn't like Dubya either, and on a few occasions back then we were nearly thrown out of restaurants for arguing too loudly, and I mean me arguing with my conservative family members and not my daughter (since we generally agreed about Dubya back then).

That said, entirely blaming Dubya for the economic meltdown during his final term is not fair since Dubya was merely going along with the Democratic controlled congress in his final years:




There's plenty of blame to go around for that mess, and I do blame Dubya for stupidly going along with the Democrats, which includes Hillary along with Barney Frank.

I also blame Dubya for Iraq, which was probably unnecessary and likely made things worse there. However, Hillary and the other Dems went along with it.

Life is simply NOT black & white!




Since Amanda's conviction wasn't upheld, we'll never know how her extradition would have played out.

I'm glad Amanda was exonerated, but it would have been interesting if she wasn't. I suspect she would NOT have been extradited, but if she were extradited, then it would be a standard State Dept condition that Italy gave Amanda another trial since the Nencini trial was 'in absentia'.

Geeze, this thing could have gone on forever.

No President is totally or even 50 percent responsible for everything that happens during their tenure. Not Bush, Clinton, Obama etc. I disagree with your dismissal of Bush's responsibility for the banking mess. It silly to blame it on Barney Frank, while he does bear some of the responsibility as does Bill Clinton, who signed the GOP sponsored Banking and Financial modification Act of 1999. This is the bill that repealed Glass Steagall among other changes to the banking laws. It should be noted though that it was the GOP that fought tooth and nail against the reinstatement of Glass Steagall when Obama tried to have it reinstated.

As for thinking that it might have been interesting if Amanda had not been exonerated. I thought a little that way when the Court of Cassation overturned Hellmann. I wanted no part of that this time around. (Don't tempt the gods)

 

[Strozzi]

Those judicial findings are irrevocable and 100% valid.

Those findings indeed point in direction of Knox's guilt, albeit not necessarily in direction of the guilt of another perpetrator additional to Knox (even if we know there was one, Sollecito, in the merits). Those final judicial truths implicate Knox more than Sollecito in my opinion, however we can also see they implicate Sollecito in a degree.

You may think calunnia does not imply evidence of being involved in murder. But that is your opinion, and that could very well be seen as biased by someone neutral. I point out, btw, that Hellmann's reasoning in order to "separate" calunnia from murder was crashed forever and declared illogical by the Supreme Court (so Marasca would need to find out some other scenario).

So it's actually not that easy to split calunnia from murder in this case. People will make their own minds, and I guess mostly they won't share your logic and your faith.

Multiple attackers is not just "generted from Rudy's trial", it's actually generated by the autopsy reports and findings, and never been seriously challenged, not even in the other trials. Because it's impossible to challenge it with plausible arguments. But incidentally, I remind that it is absolutely not true that Knox and Sollecito's defenses were not represented at Guede's trial (which was not a "series" of trial, but a single one; the other two stages were just "his" actions against the trial, his own appeal and recourse).
To say that Knox and Sollecito were not represented is a plain lie.
The fast-track does not have a specific court evidence phase (discusses evidence from the investigation), but this goes both for the prosecution and the defence and civil parties; it has an arguments phase, and Knox and Sollecito defences did enter articulate defence arguments. The multiple attackers scenario is essentially an argument based on autopsy report, blood pattern analysis and testimony which all already existed at the time of the trial. The findings from a fast track trial are not superior, but they are not inferior either. And the calunnia trial is valid as well. Btw there is also a second calunnia trial which will reach an additional judicial truth as well.

Machiavelli, thank you for clarifying this subject. Am I understanding correctly that because it is a fast-track trial the evidence (autopsy report, lab analysis, statements made earlier, etc.) is introduced but not subject to debate or cross-examination by anyone? It is accepted by the court as valid?

 

[christianahannah]

Does anyone have a link to Raf's statement in English?

Are you asking for the November 5-6 statement? I had given this link when you asked earlier. It is from The Meredith Wiki in both Italian and English.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Raffaele_Sollecito's_Nov_5th_2007_Statement_to_the_Police

 

[Ken Dine]

No. There is nothing of that kind in the procedure code. Art. 620 is about the power to "annul" a decision.
But to "annul" is not to "acquit". They are two very different things. Annul is a decision about a trial/proceedings, while acquit is a decision about a person, and it's a conclusion in the merits of a crime.

Simply, there has never been another SC ruling where the chamber says "assolvere" (acquit). There is no precedent.

If you're correct, then it seems like this case was a perfect opportunity to CREATE a new precedent, NO?

Similarly, our SCOTUS recently decreed (on a 5 to 4 vote) that homosexuals had a constitutional right to marry, and many Americans have likewise argued that our SCOTUS has overreached in their (binding) legal opinion.

Whether right or wrong, it appears that a court of last ditch is a 900 lb gorilla that does what it wants to do, regardless of minor legal technicalities.

Amanda Knox is now officially INNOCENT, so deal with it.

 

[acbytesla]

No. There is nothing of that kind in the procedure code. Art. 620 is about the power to "annul" a decision.
But to "annul" is not to "acquit". They are two very different things. Annul is a decision about a trial/proceedings, while acquit is a decision about a person, and it's a conclusion in the merits of a crime.

Simply, there has never been another SC ruling where the chamber says "assolvere" (acquit). There is no precedent.

While I do welcome you back, I don't believe there is no precednt. Out of curiosity, do you believe it the latest court overstepped it's authority?

 

[zotz]

To say that Knox and Sollecito were not represented is a plain lie.
The fast-track does not have a specific court evidence phase (discusses evidence from the investigation), but this goes both for the prosecution and the defence and civil parties; it has an arguments phase, and Knox and Sollecito defences did enter articulate defence arguments. The multiple attackers scenario is essentially an argument based on autopsy report, blood pattern analysis and testimony which all already existed at the time of the trial.

In Guede's trial didn't the defense stipulate that there were more than one person involved and a staged break in? Knox and Sollecito could not challenge prosecution witnesses (because there weren't any) and they were not allowed to put their own witnesses on the stand. The articulate defense arguments were irrelevant because the prosecution and Guede's defense agreed with each other.

 

[Bill Williams]

Multiple attackers is not just "generted from Rudy's trial", it's actually generated by the autopsy reports and findings, and never been seriously challenged, not even in the other trials. Because it's impossible to challenge it with plausible arguments. But incidentally, I remind that it is absolutely not true that Knox and Sollecito's defenses were not represented at Guede's trial (which was not a "series" of trial, but a single one; the other two stages were just "his" actions against the trial, his own appeal and recourse).

Eight of the nine experts who testified at the Massei trial said a single attacker was a possibility the the evidence (you cite) supported. Even Massei himself said that he had to include other factors to conclude multiple attackers - because of that evidence from the experts h heard.

To say that Knox and Sollecito were not represented is a plain lie. The fast-track does not have a specific court evidence phase (discusses evidence from the investigation), but this goes both for the prosecution and the defence and civil parties; it has an arguments phase, and Knox and Sollecito defences did enter articulate defence arguments. The multiple attackers scenario is essentially an argument based on autopsy report, blood pattern analysis and testimony which all already existed at the time of the trial. The findings from a fast track trial are not superior, but they are not inferior either. And the calunnia trial is valid as well. Btw there is also a second calunnia trial which will reach an additional judicial truth as well.

They were represented up to the point where they were set over for trial, and Rudy went the different, fast-track route. From that point onwards, they were not represented, and most certainly not when the multiple attackers became a "judicial fact" at the conclusion of the Rudy-process.

This simply cannot be fudged, no matter how much you try. I have read Mignini's latest predatory defamation claim against Maori and the journalist, and in it he basically re-argues the case he lost on March 27 2015. He has that right to hold the opinion he does.

It is simply unconvincing, though, that he just asserts the old-tired bits of fantasy - staged break-in, etc. - when his claims/assertions have long since fallen apart.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you're correct, then it seems like this case was a perfect opportunity to CREATE a new precedent, NO?

Similarly, our SCOTUS recently decreed (on a 5 to 4 vote) that homosexuals had a constitutional right to marry, and many Americans have likewise argued that our SCOTUS has overreached in their (binding) legal opinion.

Whether right or wrong, it appears that a court of last ditch is a 900 lb gorilla that does what it wants to do, regardless of minor legal technicalities.

Amanda Knox is now officially INNOCENT, so deal with it.

It turns out that there is a lot at stake for some in Italy for Amanda and Raffaele being declared innocent. Machiavelli is basically copying his arguments from Mignini, and other than Mignini no one is arguing that way.

It is completely self-serving, for obvious reasons. Mignini knows he's a national embarrassment, and he's fighting back the only way he knows how.

Sue everyone in sight.

 

[Strozzi]

While I disagree with your daughter about Amanda, I don't think voting for Obama makes one have a skewed view of reality. I voted for him twice as well.

What I've noticed about this case is that people of right and left political leanings both support guilt and innocence in this case. See Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell for example.

I heard Trump speak to a large group two years ago. He talked about many subjects, but especially his business projects and how cleaver he is. He did say that he read into the Knox case and that she is innocent. He said "Knox said some pretty stupid things". He did not describe the 4-day period or the midnight interrogation, and I have no idea what he specifically knows about it.

 

[zotz]

I heard Trump speak to a large group two years ago. He talked about many subjects, but especially his business projects and how cleaver he is. He did say that he read into the Knox case and that she is innocent. He said "Knox said some pretty stupid things". He did not describe the 4-day period or the midnight interrogation, and I have no idea what he specifically knows about it.

Well, he's the expert, isn't he?
I will be voting for Trump in the primary elections. (I'm a Democrat)

 

[Machiavelli]

Eight of the nine experts who testified at the Massei trial said a single attacker was a possibility the the evidence (you cite) supported. Even Massei himself said that he had to include other factors to conclude multiple attackers - because of that evidence from the experts h heard.

It's no argumentation. The word of an expert in a trial equates to the word of a lawyer. In the Aldrovandi case IIRC eight experts gave testimonies that were in contrast with the only one expert whom the judge agreed with. This is relatively frequent. Citing a "number of experts" is an idiocy.
This must be understood together with the fact that medical experts are not judges. The same experts also testified that there was no evidence of sexual violence. But the judges found evidence. Because things have a context, information is crossed with other information.

They were represented up to the point where they were set over for trial, and Rudy went the different, fast-track route. From that point onwards, they were not represented, and most certainly not when the multiple attackers became a "judicial fact" at the conclusion of the Rudy-process.

No, they were represented through the whole Guede's trial. And they brought remarkable evidence and arguments to support the "lone perpetrator scenario" (for example they tried to show that Guede stepped on a glass fragment that purportedly remained trapped beneath his sole and was carried around). Only, they lost. They were not convincing.

This simply cannot be fudged, no matter how much you try.

I don't need to "try" anything. This is simply what is in the record.

I have read Mignini's latest predatory defamation claim against Maori and the journalist, and in it he basically re-argues the case he lost on March 27 2015. He has that right to hold the opinion he does.

It is simply unconvincing, though, that he just asserts the old-tired bits of fantasy - staged break-in, etc. - when his claims/assertions have long since fallen apart.

But they haven't. And by my understanding, the defamation lawsuit appears as a preparatory work for further legal actions.

 

[MichaelB]

No. There is nothing of that kind in the procedure code. Art. 620 is about the power to "annul" a decision.
But to "annul" is not to "acquit". They are two very different things. Annul is a decision about a trial/proceedings, while acquit is a decision about a person, and it's a conclusion in the merits of a crime.

Simply, there has never been another SC ruling where the chamber says "assolvere" (acquit). There is no precedent.

You've mistranslated "giustizia-spettacolo" in the frivilious Mignini complaint. It should be judicial circus not "freakshow".

 

[Ken Dine]

In Guede's trial didn't the defense stipulate that there were more than one person involved and a staged break in? Knox and Sollecito could not challenge prosecution witnesses (because there weren't any) and they were not allowed to put their own witnesses on the stand. The articulate defense arguments were irrelevant because the prosecution and Guede's defense agreed with each other.

That's the way I understand that it went down.

Italy recognizes that they need to make drastic judicial reforms - they apparently went thru this back in the 1980s, but those earlier reforms didn't fully take since their judiciary resisted the reforms.

Recently, Italy started to once again reform their legal system, but apparently decided to reform their CIVIL code sections first before tackling their CRIMINAL code sections, apparently, because their antiquated CIVIL laws were scaring away foreign investment.

As for Amanda's conviction for libel/slander during her late night (unrecorded) interrogation, Italy's laws in that regards seriously needs to be amended.

While it may likewise be a criminal act in America to misdirect a criminal investigation, it seems like the lines were blurred by allowing Lumumba to pursue Amanda (civilly?) during her criminal prosecution?

I.e., logically how could Lumumba's attorney openly chastise Amandar as a 'SHE-DEVIL" during her criminal trial if Lumumba's part was only the civil aspect?

If Amanda was indeed CONVICTED of slandering Lumumba during the CIVIL portion of her trial, then how did her SLANDER conviction equate to a 3 year criminal sentence?

In America, a CRIMINAL trial can result in a prison sentence, but a CIVIL trial can only result in a monetary judgment! And, certainly both types of trials don't happen in conjunction!

Things are upside down in Italy, so venture there at your personal peril.