Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

"No longer a Forrest Gump" overwhelmed by events, but now with a company of his own and a second book coming out.....

It seems Italy has long since turned a corner on this case. Bravo, Raffaele!

http://www.lanazione.it/raffaele-sollecito-manager-1.1113494

The Sollecitos and this news outlet seem to think that the March 27 exonerations were final. The Sollecitos, it seems, now believe that Mignini will simply withdraw his lawsuit against Raffaele and Gumbel.

Clearly, they are adopting a public posture of no fear of Mignini any more, "the great accuser".

Who was it who was asking for some media proof that Italians believe the March 27 verdict to be the correct one?

 

[Numbers]

Andrea Vogt has tweeted today that Art 617 requires Cassation to issue the motivations in 30 days from the verdict!

Doh!

There is ambiguity, to my reading of the translation, in CPP Art. 617. The 30-day provision (in para. 2) may apply only to the brief description of the judgment or to the grounds of the judgment, and refers to the filing of the brief judgment or of the grounds of the judgment, not the delivery to the defendant.

CPP Art. 617 Grounds of the judgment and filing of the judgment

1. After the deliberation, the President of the bench or the judge appointed by him shall draft the grounds of the judgment. The provisions concerning the judgment in the first-instance trial shall be observed, provided they are applicable.

2. The judgment, undersigned by the President of the bench and the drafter, shall be filed with the Judge's Clerk's Office within thirty days of its deliberation.

3. If the President of the bench orders so, the Court of Cassation shall meet in closed sessions to read and approve the text of the grounds of the judgment. The Court of Cassation shall decide on the proposals for modification, integration or deletion of the judgment without any formalities.

In contrast, CPP Art. 544 gives an Italian court a maximum of 90 days to deliver the grounds of the judgment - 180 days if it is a conviction and there are complexities.

CPP Art. 544. Drafting of the judgment

1. Upon conclusion of deliberation, the President of the Court shall draft and sign the operative part of the judgment. A brief description of de facto and de jure grounds upon which the judgment relies shall be drafted immediately thereafter.

2. If it is not possible to proceed to the immediate drafting of the grounds of judgment in closed sessions, the grounds shall be drafted no later than the 15th day after the judgment was delivered.

3. If drafting the grounds of the judgment is particularly complex due to the number of parties or the number or seriousness of the accusations, the judge that holds that he may be unable to file the judgment within the time limit provided for in para. 2, may indicate in the operative part of the judgment a longer time limit, which in any case must not exceed the 90th day after delivery of the judgment.

3-bis. {In really difficult cases covered under Art. 533, conviction of guilt, for certain crimes, the judge gets to double the time limit provided for in para. 3.}

 

[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.

Machiavelli/Yummi is tweeting the same thing. The two of them are thick as thieves.

Interesting. As we can see, he was saying something rather different a day or two ago. Vogt must have copied him. Art 617(2) says nothing about the motivation. It refers to the "judgement", which I assume to mean the dispositivo.

A 30 day requirement has never been mentioned before in connection with a Cassation report as far as I can see.

 

[Numbers]

The Sollecitos and this news outlet seem to think that the March 27 exonerations were final. The Sollecitos, it seems, now believe that Mignini will simply withdraw his lawsuit against Raffaele and Gumbel.

Clearly, they are adopting a public posture of no fear of Mignini any more, "the great accuser".

Who was it who was asking for some media proof that Italians believe the March 27 verdict to be the correct one?

The last 3 paragraphs of that article, Google translated:

As for the process Florentine defamation Sollecito would "expect" that "Mignini withdraw the lawsuit. My son has a perfect right to believe that investigators have made mistakes. If it were not for all these errors he would not have ended up in jail. " But between Bisceglie and Giovinazzo, the stronghold of Sollecito, March 27 marked the day of the activity. And apart from a trip abroad Raffaele jumped headlong into projects as a boy free.

"Raffaele is giving me great satisfaction: the hard work, the desire to live his daily life, the reconquest of his life." Then Dad Sollecito back. In the days immediately after the final verdict. The immense joy and a small tangible sign that everything is over. The passport to be returned. "I went to take it back to the police station - he says - I did not want to turn into a show even then. A little thing that says so much. Raffaele went abroad a month and a half later, no desire to 'escape' but, finally, the ability to choose. "

And on the new legal tussle Mignini-Luca Maori (the latter is the {legal} office of the young) and the criticism of the prosecutor, in the complaint, the decision to Piazza Cavour "unpredictable and abnormal" by Sollecito arrives censorship: "The judgments must be respected and magistrates can not not do it. "

 

[MichaelB]

The Sollecitos and this news outlet seem to think that the March 27 exonerations were final. The Sollecitos, it seems, now believe that Mignini will simply withdraw his lawsuit against Raffaele and Gumbel.

Clearly, they are adopting a public posture of no fear of Mignini any more, "the great accuser".

Who was it who was asking for some media proof that Italians believe the March 27 verdict to be the correct one?

Remo Croci posted the article on his FB page and had this to say....

La libertà di opinione! Qualcuno dovrebbe avere il buon senso di tacere dopo quanto è' successo. È' ora di smetterla. Lo abbiamo messo in croce con accuse che si sono rivelate infondate. Ora è' stato assolto! Finitela di rovinargli la vita. Il colpevole del delitto sta scontando la sua pena!

Google translation:

Freedom of opinion! Someone should have the sense to keep quiet after what is' success. It 's time to stop. We put him on the cross with allegations that proved unfounded. Now it 'was acquitted! Stop it to ruin his life. The culprit of the crime he is serving his sentence!

 

[Grinder]

And when your the one attacker scenario is reinforced by the evidence of only one attacker found in the bedroom where the attack/murder took place, a multiple attacker scenario shouldn't even be a consideration.

The prosecution believed they had a woman's shoe print, wounds consistent with multiple attackers and evidence on the bra clasp. After review only the wounds holds up for PIP (and only for some) and only that and the bra clasp for PGP. Not much. What may bother some is what made Guede attack so viciously and fast.

What is the theory on the Filomena room evidence? Did the ICSI intentionally mess up the testing of what was found in that room or just good old incompetence?

The scream plays in most all scenarios. How do we know she screamed? We clearly don't believe it because of Amanda's statement. We clealry don't believe it because of Nara. Do we believe that Antonella Monacchia heard it? Or is the only reason the scream is believed is because of Guede's testimony?

I doubt that if DNA turned up they had found in the murder room of a accomplice of Guede that anyone would argue it had to be a single attacker.

Accounts I remember said there were fingerprints and DNA found in the house (room?) that weren't matched to anyone. Perhaps one of the DNA/Print experts can fill the memory in.

 

[Kauffer]

There is ambiguity, to my reading of the translation, in CPP Art. 617. The 30-day provision (in para. 2) may apply only to the brief description of the judgment or to the grounds of the judgment, and refers to the filing of the brief judgment or of the grounds of the judgment, not the delivery to the defendant.



In contrast, CPP Art. 544 gives an Italian court a maximum of 90 days to deliver the grounds of the judgment - 180 days if it is a conviction and there are complexities.

Yes. It looks like there are different terms for drafting and registering across these two articles - 15 and 30 days. It does seem that 90 days on the acquittal is operative, but they've exceeded this and as we know they exceeded it before.

What a dog's dinner! ....as we say in Britain.

 

[Grinder]

The Sollecitos and this news outlet seem to think that the March 27 exonerations were final. The Sollecitos, it seems, now believe that Mignini will simply withdraw his lawsuit against Raffaele and Gumbel.

Clearly, they are adopting a public posture of no fear of Mignini any more, "the great accuser".

Who was it who was asking for some media proof that Italians believe the March 27 verdict to be the correct one?

The proof was for all 63 million Italians supporting the verdict or some such hyperbole.

 

[MichaelB]

Remo Croci
Freedom of opinion! Someone should have the sense to keep quiet after what is' success. It 's time to stop. We put him on the cross with allegations that proved unfounded. Now it 'was acquitted! Stop it to ruin his life. The culprit of the crime he is serving his sentence!

 

[JREF2010]

Yes. It looks like there are different terms for drafting and registering across these two articles - 15 and 30 days. It does seem that 90 days on the acquittal is operative, but they've exceeded this and as we know they exceeded it before.

What a dog's dinner! ....as we say in Britain.

maybe they don't count weekends

 

[Bill Williams]

The proof was for all 63 million Italians supporting the verdict or some such hyperbole.

Sixty-one million. I don't count Italians living overseas.

I thought I'd conceded that what we were after was 60,999,950 and not all 61M?

 

[Numbers]

maybe they don't count weekends

Or lunch breaks (3 hour minimum).

 

[Anode]

Machiavelli/Yummi is tweeting the same thing. The two of them are thick as thieves.

It's probably because they are hoping there are problems with the legality of the rulings. I would say to them, be careful what you hope for. The delay could very well be because of disagreement on how hard to come down on the lower courts and prosecutors for messing it up so much. Time will tell?

 

[Kauffer]

Seems that Raffaele is writing a new book.

http://www.thelocal.it/20150703/sollecito-turns-the-page-with-new-business-and-book

 

[Bill Williams]

It's probably because they are hoping there are problems with the legality of the rulings. I would say to them, be careful what you hope for. The delay could very well be because of disagreement on how hard to come down on the lower courts and prosecutors for messing it up so much. Time will tell?

I started following this immediately after the Hellmann acquittals in 2011. Although there wasn't a lot of it, the then somewhat larger guilter cadre had a few predicting things as to what would be in Hellmann's MR.

Some said it would be expressed as a bare acquittal with lots of room for, "Knox isn't telling us all she knows," or there still being unanswered questions.

Then - Hellmann's MR came in two weeks early, and even Peggy Ganong said, "This reads like an FOA press release!" Of course the the PR-supertanker stuff got dusted off. Whatever.

There is something inherently dietrological about this case, and there's no reason to think the Marasca MR will be any different.

What's important is that Raffaele seems out of danger in Italy, and now free to tell his own story, within Italy.

AK is getting on with life. All that's left is for me and Grinder to agree, first, on an up to date Italian voters' list so that we can properly poll them as to their opinions.

So far I believe I'm winning!

 

[Grinder]

It's probably because they are hoping there are problems with the legality of the rulings. I would say to them, be careful what you hope for. The delay could very well be because of disagreement on how hard to come down on the lower courts and prosecutors for messing it up so much. Time will tell?

Wouldn't that be nice. I love the system, any system, to prove every PIP contention of framing and mishandling and cover up.

Could they possibly step up about DNA protocol and the need to record interrogations interviews?

I wonder how Italy does set up such things as forensic standards if they don't use precedent in the way we do.

Anyway I have hoped that the motivation would be strong and rip apart such things as Curatolo and Massei changing his testimony based on bad bus info in order to help their time frame.

I wonder if Curatolo's time frame became a judicial fact when Hellmann was overruled?

 

[Grinder]

There is something inherently dietrological about this case, and there's no reason to think the Marasca MR will be any different.

You know it just means conspiracy.

All that's left is for me and Grinder to agree, first, on an up to date Italian voters' list so that we can properly poll them as to their opinions.

So far I believe I'm winning!

Winning what? I have no idea what the mood of the Italian people is vis-à-vis the verdict in any way and I doubt you do.

 

[Desert Fox]

Wouldn't that be nice. I love the system, any system, to prove every PIP contention of framing and mishandling and cover up.

Could they possibly step up about DNA protocol and the need to record interrogations interviews?

I wonder how Italy does set up such things as forensic standards if they don't use precedent in the way we do.

Anyway I have hoped that the motivation would be strong and rip apart such things as Curatolo and Massei changing his testimony based on bad bus info in order to help their time frame.

I wonder if Curatolo's time frame became a judicial fact when Hellmann was overruled?

The way human minds work is that we tend to use our prior experiences as a guide to the future. It is human to use precedent to guide one's life. That is why I see an issue if they don't in actually use it in a defacto manner even if it is not written that way.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is something inherently dietrological about this case, and there's no reason to think the Marasca MR will be any different.

You know it just means conspiracy.

I do?

If the topic is what I know or don't know, the one thing I know is that dietrology is at best only a distant cousin to conspiratorializing.

What "I know"** is that to understand Machiavelli's posts here, and his tweets elsewhere, requires that one know the difference between those two things. Acc. to Douglas Preston (from whom I first ran into the idea) to know the difference between these two things is key to keeping up with how this whole thing went off the rails.

In my view, the only way to deconstruct Machiavelli's opinions, as well as the opinions of the non-nutty guilters, is to cope with the dietrological mind, which is not (really) a conspiratorial mind. Otherwise, we all will continually misunderstand him, and he will continually be pissed with us; just on this alone.

** then again, what "I Know" may be little.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's probably because they are hoping there are problems with the legality of the rulings. I would say to them, be careful what you hope for. The delay could very well be because of disagreement on how hard to come down on the lower courts and prosecutors for messing it up so much. Time will tell?

Nothing points more to Andrea Vogt's complete caving in to Giuliano Mignini and his fantasies than this. People try to defend Vogt on this point saying it ain't so and that she's "objective", but every once in awhile it just becomes completely bare and unadorned.