Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Mach, this silly farce has come to an end. The Italian judiciary and the Italian and the world public has had enough. It's over. Any extraneous legal cases will magically disappear, because no one wants to hear any more of this BS. Best wishes, have a good night.

Carbonjam what about your question on the Narducci and MoF cases?
All those cases are far from being over. The Kercher case is neither.

 

[Kauffer]

Carbonjam what about your question on the Narducci and MoF cases?
All those cases are far from being over. The Kercher case is neither.

The Kercher case is finished. Why on earth would you think otherwise?

 

[Diocletus]

So you didn't understand.

The Kerchers did not lose their civil case. Whether they decide to pursue a civil action is a question. If they pursue it, they will win it.

So what exactly is the status of the Kercher case? At last glimpse, it was a part and parcel of the criminal prosecution, with the Kercher's disgusting lawyer taking any and all possible potshots at the wrongfully-prosecuted, now acquitted, innocent kids. The criminal case has been abruptly ended, remand denied, apparently on the basis that, as a matter of law, it is impossible for the prosecution to sustain its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So is it reasonable to think that the Kerchers will undertake on their own devices a further attempt to prove that it's more probable than not that Knox/Sollecito committed the crime? I think not, as their lawyer has already said that the case is over. Let's assume for a minute, though, that they do pursue such a misguided lawsuit. How long would a judgment in their favor survive before the ISC?

Not only that. In fact many cases are still possible. Not just by the Kerchers, and not only against Knox and Sollecito.

It's also possible that Mignini does twosomes with Stefanoni and Commodi. However, I think not.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did Stefanoni withhold information about the TMB results?

You changed your version already - from "lied" to "withhold"?
No she did not withhold anything. Unless you also intend to accuse her of hiding that Knox's mop was positive to TMB.
Stefanoni said they made multiple tests on the luminol footprints, besides luminol, and that they turned out negative. She said that in Oct.2008.

As a scientist she made up information in a court of law. TRUE

False. All what you have is an opinion that some may argue about, and you are trying to spin it beyond all what's reasonable and honest.

What time did she hear a noise? What was the time of death? Was the noise proven to be from the crime?

Antonella Monacchia said it was around 23.

How can a letter from a "witness" be read in court, the witness not allowed to be cross examined, and the "evidence" entered as judicial fact?

You understand that this happened on defence initiative, don't you? It was the defence who called a witness (Alessi) to report hearsay from alleged Guede's confidential statements.
So Guede was called to be questioned about statements he said while in prison. The prosecution quoted another statement, a letter that was contradicting what Alessi said. Guede was questioned about what statements he said to Alessi, if he told those things or not, and what he said in the letter, if he actually wrote those things.
So there is cross questioning on the topic.
What's your problem?

Amanda claims to have been at Raff's apartment. A drug addled "witness" who cannot get the facts of the night correct, says he saw her (even though if he did see her at the times he stated he has provided her with an alibi), this is called a judicial fact.

Looks like you are changing topic. Actually, Knox and Sollecito told much more inconsistent and contradictory stories. Curatolo is not the one drug addicted who can't get his story straight. Someone else is.

A policeman says he never entered the murder room. A witness, who was known to have been at the scene, says that he saw him enter the room. But we have to assume Amanda is a liar and this is not a judicial fact.

If you believe that witness, you have to conclude Amanda Knox is a liar. It's exactly so.

Quintavelle changed his story from what he told the police to what he said in court. FACT.

False. It's again pro Knoxes making up stuff.

It is more correct to say that SC is the final court in the procedure and they have declared the accused not guilty.

No, this way you are not being honest. The SC Marasca decision is only one of the final decisions on the case. It does no find facts and it is not a judicial truth, since it's based on 530.2. It's final only as for criminal penalty effects, but not as truth finding.

 

[Mike1711]

So you didn't understand.

The Kerchers did not lose their civil case. Whether they decide to pursue a civil action is a question. If they pursue it, they will win it.

Not only that. In fact many cases are still possible. Not just by the Kerchers, and not only against Knox and Sollecito.

It's not over.

You really don't understand it.

Perhaps you should underwrite the Kercher's claim. If you are so convinced they will win they would be daft not to pursue it.

 

[Machiavelli]

So what exactly is the status of the Kercher case? At last glimpse, it was a part and parcel of the criminal prosecution, with the Kercher's disgusting lawyer taking any and all possible potshots at the wrongfully-prosecuted, now acquitted, innocent kids.

"Disgusting" is a term more appropriate to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (albeit in different ways) and to part of their families.

The criminal case has been abruptly ended, remand denied, apparently on the basis that, as a matter of law, it is impossible for the prosecution to sustain its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So is it reasonable to think that the Kerchers will undertake on their own devices a further attempt to prove that it's more probable than not that Knox/Sollecito committed the crime? I think not, as their lawyer has already said that the case is over.

You "think" on what legal basis?
Civil actions are well possible. Not only one kind of action. And not just against Knox and Sollecito.
And not only on the part of the Kerchers, by the way. Currently there is a case from private parties against Knox within a criminal case.

Let's assume for a minute, though, that they do pursue such a misguided lawsuit. How long would a judgment in their favor survive before the ISC?

Why shouldn't it survive?
There is no reason to assume in advance that civil legal actions won't be undertaken. I really see no reason for having your expectation.

Moreover, I also think criminal actions will be started against Vecchiotti and Conti, and probably Hellmann too.

 

[Machiavelli]

The Kercher case is finished. Why on earth would you think otherwise?

The OJ Simpson case was not finished with acquittal.
Why should I assume the Kercher case must be?

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

In the first trial Massei corrected Curatolo's times he saw the kids from just before midnight (what Curatolo said) to 11:30 based on the "fact" that Curatolo said the disco buses were there when he left and Massei said they were gone by 11:30 therefore he had to leave by 11:30.

Is this a judicial truth? Even though there were no disco buses that night, is it still a judicial truth?

Btw, before it became an issue Rudi stated in a deposition that there were no buses.

 

[Diocletus]

Moreover, I also think criminal actions will be started against Vecchiotti and Conti, and probably Hellmann too.

I couldn't imagine anything more entertaining.

However, going after C&V would open a can of worms that could be devastating for the Scientific Police, so this won't happen.

I really have no idea why anyone would go after Hellmann, who is just a judge whose decision was "nullified", but his grounds have now been fully vindicated by the ISC. So, I can't even see who would complain about him.

 

[Diocletus]

The OJ Simpson case was not finished with acquittal.
Why should I assume the Kercher case must be?

Because, obviously, the civil action against OJ wasn't a part of his criminal trial, unlike the Kercher case, where the Kerchers have already had their free punches.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. Romanelli's window does not present a face towards the street. It is offset, whereas the balcony does face the street. Moreover, by dropping down to the ground beneath the parking area, Guede would have been practically invisible as he climbed up to the window. For the balcony, any burglar would have been in full view of oncoming traffic from that side of the cottage as well as the buildings across the road. They would have been bathed in headlights. The various different views of the cottage including the aerial views make the best access point very clear indeed. Also, using Romanelli's window provided Guede with a ready made instant means of escape should he have needed it. With the balcony he would have been trapped.

Romanelli's window is fully exposed to the street, even if it's not facing the street directly. It's perpendicular to the street and the parking area, but this means it has at least a 180° exposure scope which includes the parking entrance where people walk.
Not to mention the area of the fence where the rock needs to be thrown from.
Then you should not overlook something to be regarded as element of first importance, that is close distance from the road. Only 7 meters from the window! A burglar would be really close to passers by.
The entrance is illogical. You can't help that.
Some may like to think it is irrelevant because they can easilly imagine that the alleged burglar wouldn't worry about it. But this is not a real argument. It's only a rationalization. The illogical point of entry is to be assessed based on the "natural" point of entrance for burglars that would be the rear balcony, this is a matter of fact that first thing just people should note.
Douglas says this is a red flag. It may not be sure evidence, but it's a red flag.
But there is a series of red flags here even just about evidence of staging alone, and this is just the first one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Because, obviously, the civil action against OJ wasn't a part of his criminal trial, unlike the Kercher case, where the Kerchers have already had their free punches.

Under a legal point of view, by Italian law the Kerchers have 100% green light for a civil trial independent from the criminal case.
If you think they don't, it's just because you don't know the law.

 

[Machiavelli]

I couldn't imagine anything more entertaining.

However, going after C&V would open a can of worms that could be devastating for the Scientific Police, so this won't happen.

I really have no idea why anyone would go after Hellmann, who is just a judge whose decision was "nullified", but his grounds have now been fully vindicated by the ISC. So, I can't even see who would complain about him.

No, he cannot be vindicated. Based on art. 628 of cpp, all the points of law decided against Hellmann are definitive. The Cassazione 5th section can't change them. They cannot vindicate Hellmann's grounds. It's impossible.

You bet Vecchiotti and Conti will be investigated and prosecuted.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

In the first trial Massei corrected Curatolo's times he saw the kids from just before midnight (what Curatolo said) to 11:30 based on the "fact" that Curatolo said the disco buses were there when he left and Massei said they were gone by 11:30 therefore he had to leave by 11:30.

Ak and RS are not "kids".

Is this a judicial truth? Even though there were no disco buses that night, is it still a judicial truth?

It has actually never been proven that there were no disco buses that night.
It was only proven that some discos didn't organize buses that night, and that some were not "officially" open.
But there are about 20 night clubs and discos in the Perugia suburbs.

 

[Diocletus]

You "think" on what legal basis?

Well, for starters, their lawyer said so. Unless you're calling him a liar.

 

[Bill Williams]

Romanelli's window is fully exposed to the street, even if it's not facing the street directly. It's perpendicular to the street and the parking area, but this means it has at least a 180° exposure scope which includes the parking entrance where people walk.
Not to mention the area of the fence where the rock needs to be thrown from.
Then you should not overlook something to be regarded as element of first importance, that is close distance from the road. Only 7 meters from the window! A burglar would be really close to passers by.
The entrance is illogical. You can't help that.
Some may like to think it is irrelevant because they can easilly imagine that the alleged burglar wouldn't worry about it. But this is not a real argument. It's only a rationalization. The illogical point of entry is to be assessed based on the "natural" point of entrance for burglars that would be the rear balcony, this is a matter of fact that first thing just people should note.
Douglas says this is a red flag. It may not be sure evidence, but it's a red flag.
But there is a series of red flags here even just about evidence of staging alone, and this is just the first one.

In a burglary, ALL entrance points other than the front door are illogical. In a burglary, ALL entrance points - including the front door - entail risk.

The unknowns are what trip up the burglar. Had Rudy ever been to the top floor of the cottage? Did he know that the front door needed to be locked so that the door would stay closed?

So it is there is **logical** reason to believe that a contributing reason to the horrible murder was that when the victim arrived home and locked the door - so that it would stay closed - Rudy was effectively cut off an escape route, and things escalated from there.

What with the pics posted above, the exposure of the balcony to the road, and the relative stealth of the area underneath Filomena's window..... as well as the Channel 5 demonstration, the entry through Filomena's window is not only doable, but probable.

Or would you rather believe Rudy himself? Meredith let him in because he claims they'd had a date?

 

[Diocletus]

Under a legal point of view, by Italian law the Kerchers have 100% green light for a civil trial independent from the criminal case.
If you think they don't, it's just because you don't know the law.

They obviously don't get a whole new trial against the innocents, since the Kerchers have already elected to proceed together with the prosecution.

Might the Kerchers have some sort of residual ability to try to prove that even though K/S aren't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it's still more probable than not that they're liable? Maybe. But they're not going to pursue it, because they would embarrass themselves even more and be quite expensive.

 

[Diocletus]

No, he cannot be vindicated. Based on art. 628 of cpp, all the points of law decided against Hellmann are definitive. The Cassazione 5th section can't change them. They cannot vindicate Hellmann's grounds. It's impossible.

You bet Vecchiotti and Conti will be investigated and prosecuted.

That's great, but they didn't definitively decide many points of law. All they did was say that he was "illogical" in making certain factual determinations. Real lawyers know that that's not a decision on a point of law, but rather, just a way of overturning Hellman on the facts. Basically, the 1st Section did exactly what you are saying the 5th Circuit is prohibited from doing. Hellman is now right, because the 5th Section agrees with him, so he gets the last laugh.

Bottom line is that the ISC does whatever it wants to do, and there is no real limit on their scope of review.

When will this great "investigation" of C&V start? Are the "investigators" still waiting for Stefanoni to shred her files?

 

[Kauffer]

Romanelli's window is fully exposed to the street, even if it's not facing the street directly. It's perpendicular to the street and the parking area, but this means it has at least a 180° exposure scope which includes the parking entrance where people walk.
Not to mention the area of the fence where the rock needs to be thrown from.
Then you should not overlook something to be regarded as element of first importance, that is close distance from the road. Only 7 meters from the window! A burglar would be really close to passers by.
The entrance is illogical. You can't help that.
Some may like to think it is irrelevant because they can easilly imagine that the alleged burglar wouldn't worry about it. But this is not a real argument. It's only a rationalization. The illogical point of entry is to be assessed based on the "natural" point of entrance for burglars that would be the rear balcony, this is a matter of fact that first thing just people should note.
Douglas says this is a red flag. It may not be sure evidence, but it's a red flag.
But there is a series of red flags here even just about evidence of staging alone, and this is just the first one.

Look at the aerial views and draw the lines of sight. It's perfectly obvious what the best means of ingress to the apartment is and perfectly obvious that the balcony is super exposed.

 

[Mike1711]

Under a legal point of view, by Italian law the Kerchers have 100% green light for a civil trial independent from the criminal case.
If you think they don't, it's just because you don't know the law.

Of course they do. You are absolutely correct. Anybody can sue anyone for anything......and if they have no case they will lose a lot of money.

The Kercher's have no doubt considered their options and decided to do the obvious.