Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Who' s Tweedledee? Maybe it's time to look in the mirror. Or as Doyle Brunson says "if you can't tell who the sucker is within 5 minutes at the table, it's you."

Don't you get it? The Italian courts have ruled. I'm right and you're wrong. But it's quaint that you try so hard.

Real cute.

“When I look up, I see people cashing in. I don't see heaven or saints or angels. I see people cashing in on every decent impulse and every human tragedy.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

 

[Vixen]

What would you say? Illogical?

Judges have to write their motivation and receive handsome salaries of GBP120K plus. As long as there are no legal errors or perversity, they are free to pontificate to their hearts' content, referring to the facts found.

As you can only appeal on legal points, it's tough titties if the judge interprets the facts poorly.

 

[Kauffer]

Judges have to write their motivation and receive handsome salaries of GBP120K plus. As long as there are no legal errors or perversity, they are free to pontificate to their hearts' content, referring to the facts found.

As you can only appeal on legal points, it's tough titties if the judge interprets the facts poorly.

Not at 2nd instance. And in the appeal to the SC Amanda and Raffaele won.
There was no factual basis to decide that Guede witnessed Kercher complaint about Amanda stealing rent money.

 

[acbytesla]

Judges have to write their motivation and receive handsome salaries of GBP120K plus. As long as there are no legal errors or perversity, they are free to pontificate to their hearts' content, referring to the facts found.

As you can only appeal on legal points, it's tough titties if the judge interprets the facts poorly.

Hmmmm?I??? These are people's lives that are at stake. "Hey, I'll just find them guilty and incarcerate them for 25 years. What does it matter if my reasons are stupid?" Is that what you're saying Vixen?

 

[Vixen]

This is absurd postulating and does not answer the question you were asked.

There is case here in Texas, where there was blood but no DNA. The defendant appealed on the grounds his DNA was not found on the knife and if the jury had known this, they could not have convicted him.

Appeal denied on grounds plenty of other evidence.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...nwgTMzQ1mo738G-1A&sig2=-90x-e1sQUZnoNC4DdNIrg

 

[Vixen]

Hmmmm?I??? These are people's lives that are at stake. "Hey, I'll just find them guilty and incarcerate them for 25 years. What does it matter if my reasons are stupid?" Is that what you're saying Vixen?

They have to refer to evidence and facts. As long as their verdict falls within a reasonable range of decision no appeal court can argue against it or substitute its own verdict.

I look forward to the Bruno Marasca report because I do not see how they can legally argue their verdict.

 

[Mr Fied]

They have to refer to evidence and facts. As long as their verdict falls within a reasonable range of decision no appeal court can argue against it or substitute its own verdict.

I look forward to the Bruno Marasca report because I do not see how they can legally argue their verdict.

I would have thought that because there were no evidence or facts that prove Amanda or Raff guilty that legally they should have been found not guilty.

I know that might seem a bit wacky and I'm not a Mensa member, but maybe just maybe that will be the reasoning.

 

[Kauffer]

There is case here in Texas, where there was blood but no DNA. The defendant appealed on the grounds his DNA was not found on the knife and if the jury had known this, they could not have convicted him.

Appeal denied on grounds plenty of other evidence.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...nwgTMzQ1mo738G-1A&sig2=-90x-e1sQUZnoNC4DdNIrg

Um...no. "The State now argues that the trial prosecutor never represented to the jury that the knife found in Applicant’s car was the knife used by Applicant to stab Ashley Lee (the victim)."

This knife tested positive, presumptively for blood and DNA was recovered from it.

It's ridiculous that you've put this case forward to meet the challenge you were given - which was no blood found but DNA found.

"The results of the DNA testing performed on two stains (blood!!!) from the knife indicated that Ashley Lee was excluded as a possible source of, or contributor to, the DNA profile obtained from the knife."

 

[Antony]

That describes you precisely. The wholly innocent young woman just setting out on her life is Amanda Knox, whose life you want to see destroyed. You play with the truth by posting a torrent of known falsehoods, in the style of PMF and TJMK, in the hope of misleading the uninformed.

Well, I have news for you. I rather think there are no more of the uninformed reading this forum, and if there were, they would quickly come to see where the truth lies - and it isn't among those still clinging tenuously to belief in Amanda and Raff's involvement with the murder.

Of course, we know that by "wholly innocent young woman" you are referring not to Amanda, but to Meredith Kercher. I don't see any "callous disregard" among those supporting AK and RS. We are the ones wanting to see the truth told about Meredith's murder; that shows far better regard for her than those trying to manipulate the tragedy for their own personal ends - either career advancement in the case of the Italian agencies who pursued a groundless prosecution, or the morbid satisfaction of the hangars-on in instinctively take the side of anyone making accusations.

Lots of fallacies here: appeal to the crowd, "no true scotsman", mountbanking, If something is not A, it must be B.

And where would we put the fokkers and airbuses without the hangars?

I can't even see you this reply relates to my original comment.

 

[Antony]

They have to refer to evidence and facts. As long as their verdict falls within a reasonable range of decision no appeal court can argue against it or substitute its own verdict.

I look forward to the Bruno Marasca report because I do not see how they can legally argue their verdict.

It's going to be fascinating seeing you reply to Marasca point-by-point.

 

[Ken Dine]

There are two possible reasons for this: First, like Knox's swab the Meredith material isn't derived from blood and instead is a piece of tissue which TMB wouldn't detect. The second is that, returning to the LCN nature of the material, the amount of blood is simply below the sensitivity threshold of the test. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Double_DNA_Knife

Does this answer your question?

No, but it raises further questions since you admit that what Stefanoni claimed to have found on the knife was LCN (Low Copy Number) DNA.

You do realize that back in 2007 that Stefanoni's Rome lab was NOT designed (thus not capable) to even process LCN samples, right?

Under questioning, Stefanoni herself admitted her testing of the knife wasn't done according to scientifically accepted principles ...if I produce Stefanoni's testimony which admits that fact, will you finally admit that you're wrong and return to your bridge?

I also recall Stefanoni claiming to have found Meredith's LCN (literally, a cell or two) in a striation (scratch) on the knife's blade, which no other person saw. When asked to point out the scratch on the blade that she claimed to have found Meredith's LCN-DNA in, Stefanoni couldn't do it and her nose suddenly grew 3 inches longer.

 

[Vixen]

I would have thought that because there were no evidence or facts that prove Amanda or Raff guilty that legally they should have been found not guilty.

I know that might seem a bit wacky and I'm not a Mensa member, but maybe just maybe that will be the reasoning.

Mister Fied, let's use another case as an allegory to make it clear. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are convicted by a First Court in Italy and they have an automatic appeal to the Second Instance, who declare them innocent and let them go. The Supreme Court quashes the Second Court's verdict due to perversity and orders the case back to Second Instance, to look at two minor aspects only, which the previous Second Instance failed to deal with (prosecution appeal).

The reconvened Second Court deals with these two issues (Sample on knife and Witness Prosecution/ Witness Defense). Defendant DNA confirmed on knife blade near hilt (fact found already established, Victim's DNA on blade); Prosecution witness reinstated, Defence Witness worse than useless. Guilty verdict upheld.

The two relatively minor issues are in addition to facts already confirmed by all three stages.

The Supreme Court acquits the pair on the grounds evidence at First Court defective.

It does not have the jurisdiction. At best, it should have remitted either of the two remaining issues back. The defence witness would still be useless and the DNA would still be the defendant's.

 

[acbytesla]

They have to refer to evidence and facts. As long as their verdict falls within a reasonable range of decision no appeal court can argue against it or substitute its own verdict.

I look forward to the Bruno Marasca report because I do not see how they can legally argue their verdict.

Well, I'm confident that you know as little about Italian law as you do about the facts of this case, so what does it matter what you thin?. Broken watches seem to be right twice as much as you have been.

 

[Kauffer]

Mister Fied, let's use another case as an allegory to make it clear. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are convicted by a First Court in Italy and they have an automatic appeal to the Second Instance, who declare them innocent and let them go. The Supreme Court quashes the Second Court's verdict due to perversity and orders the case back to Second Instance, to look at two minor aspects only, which the previous Second Instance failed to deal with (prosecution appeal).

The reconvened Second Court deals with these two issues (Sample on knife and Witness Prosecution/ Witness Defense). Defendant DNA confirmed on knife blade near hilt (fact found already established, Victim's DNA on blade); Prosecution witness reinstated, Defence Witness worse than useless. Guilty verdict upheld.

The two relatively minor issues are in addition to facts already confirmed by all three stages.

The Supreme Court acquits the pair on the grounds evidence at First Court defective.

It does not have the jurisdiction. At best, it should have remitted either of the two remaining issues back. The defence witness would still be useless and the DNA would still be the defendant's.

What? Which facts are you suggesting the Chieffi court found to be confirmed following the Hellmann appeal? With direct citation please.

 

[Mr Fied]

Mister Fied, let's use another case as an allegory to make it clear. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are convicted by a First Court in Italy and they have an automatic appeal to the Second Instance, who declare them innocent and let them go. The Supreme Court quashes the Second Court's verdict due to perversity and orders the case back to Second Instance, to look at two minor aspects only, which the previous Second Instance failed to deal with (prosecution appeal).

The reconvened Second Court deals with these two issues (Sample on knife and Witness Prosecution/ Witness Defense). Defendant DNA confirmed on knife blade near hilt (fact found already established, Victim's DNA on blade); Prosecution witness reinstated, Defence Witness worse than useless. Guilty verdict upheld.

The two relatively minor issues are in addition to facts already confirmed by all three stages.

The Supreme Court acquits the pair on the grounds evidence at First Court defective.

It does not have the jurisdiction. At best, it should have remitted either of the two remaining issues back. The defence witness would still be useless and the DNA would still be the defendant's.

I thought a scientific fact needs to be proven to be a fact.

Even the reconvened Second Court were told that a test must be confirmed to be a fact.

Can you tell me where the claim that Meredith's DNA was on the knife was ever proven?

Anyway, all that aside what does any of this matter? Because the murder weapon has never been found, let alone tested.

 

[zotz]

A more interesting issue is what lessons will Italy, Europe, and the US learn from this case. As the ECHR has already determined, the rights of a suspect cannot be arbitrarily ignored simply by claiming that they are not a suspect. There is already a huge amount of evidence proving that the accused in this case were suspects long before Nov. 5. The Italian Supreme Court has to give better guidance to prosecutors and police as to what is and is not allowed. The out-of-control use of conjecture loosely connected to empirical evidence has led to farces such as the Kercher, Narducci, and Scazzi cases. One farce is an exception, two is a coincidence, but three farces means Italy has serious problems.

The extraordinary powers given to prosecutors (justified by the need to combat the mafia) have been abused in these cases and in the harassment of journalists. Why has Mignini been allowed to flout European human rights standards by his attempts to muzzle journalists and deny individual rights to the accused.

I wish Numbers or someone else that knows would tell me if the ECHR has ever addressed this issue of "judicial truths", especially in a case where a judicial truth established in a trial is applied to a different case with different suspects. That one really made my jaw drop.

 

[Vixen]

What? Which facts are you suggesting the Chieffi court found to be confirmed following the Hellmann appeal? With direct citation please.

All of them, except the issues still at hand. Conti & Vecchiotti tried to pervert the course of justice.

Alessi claimed he was bribed to fake his testimony (we can't see Bongiorno suing him!)

Hellmann perversely deleted Curatolo's upheld testimony, on ad hominem grounds; Nencini reestablished it as sound. As Mignini succinctly says, it would be nice if all witnesses were Nobel prizewinners.

Nencini wrote up his report accordingly, correcting Hellmann's perversities. He upheld all the prosecution evidence.

Chieffi of the prior Supreme Court underlined, these were the only two issues in dispute with the First Court's merits hearing finding of 'Guilty'.

Keeping up?

 

[Mr Fied]

All of them, except the issues still at hand. Conti & Vecchiotti tried to pervert the course of justice.

Alessi claimed he was bribed to fake his testimony (we can't see Bongiorno suing him!)

Hellmann perversely deleted Curatolo's upheld testimony, on ad hominem grounds; Nencini reestablished it as sound. As Mignini succinctly says, it would be nice if all witnesses were Nobel prizewinners.

Nencini wrote up his report accordingly, correcting Hellmann's perversities. He upheld all the evidence.Chieffi of the prior Supreme Court underlined, these were the only two issues in dispute with the First Courts merits hearing finding of 'Guilty'.

Keeping up?

Then it went to the higher court who found the defendants not guilty.

Keeping up?

 

[Vixen]

I thought a scientific fact needs to be proven to be a fact.

Even the reconvened Second Court were told that a test must be confirmed to be a fact.

Can you tell me where the claim that Meredith's DNA was on the knife was ever proven?

Anyway, all that aside what does any of this matter? Because the murder weapon has never been found, let alone tested.

It was accepted by the prosecution and the defence as Mez' indisputable DNA profile. It was within a microscopic scratch on the knife, not visible to the naked eye. Thus, despite having been thoroughly scrubbed to be strikingly shiny, when found by police, Mez' DNA spoke from beyond the grave.

Amanda precluded this finding by telling Mom she was really worried about the knife found at Raff's. Unknown to Raff, she confirmed to police Mez had never been at Raff's.

Raff wrote in a confiscated diary - also in an attempt to preclude the finding - that he had "pricked the back of Mez' hand" whilst cooking at his place.

Mez was found with many knife nicks, especially under the chin and on her hands.

Perhaps Amanda and Raff can foresee next week's lottery? No need for GoFundMe.

 

[Vixen]

Then it went to the higher court who found the defendants not guilty.

Keeping up?

...who did not have the authority nor power to set a precedent, especially in a murder case.

Clear now?