Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

No. The Kercher have not "elected" to proceed together with, this is not legal speaking. The Kerchers have chosen to be represented in a criminal trial. The criminal trial has not ended with a factual finding of innocence. There are no "innocents".
Tho implies by the law an independent and whom civil trial is entirely possible.
They haven't embarrassed themselves, they have only been offended, and they have plenty of good reasons for starting civil actions.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The Kerchers cannot decide anything unless at least a SC sentence exists. Currently it has not been deposited, so we don't even know what the SC points are.

 

[Diocletus]

No. The Kercher have not "elected" to proceed together with, this is not legal speaking. The Kerchers have chosen to be represented in a criminal trial.

Um. OK, sorry--I guess I was confused by all of the butt-licking.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

It is perfectly obvious that the contrary of your claim is true. The balcony is balcony, therefore a non suspicious entry point for its nature; this is a fact. It is also a fact that almost all break ins on "second' floors are from balconies or equivalent surfaces. And it is a fact that other entries by true burglars occurred at the cottage, and they were all through the balcony, therefore it must be a good entry point, was and safe.
It is false that the balcony is exposed. Distances speak for themselves actually. 35 meters is the closest point n the road, but nobody walks on the road, and cars won't notice the balcony because it's too much aside of the road, and even if they notice someone on a balcony they wouldn't become suspicious about it.
To all effects the balcony is a "rear" balcony, it has a hidden corner, I faces an area where there are no passers by and it appears distant from eyes she you are there.

 

[Machiavelli]

Um. OK, sorry--I guess I was confused by all of the butt-licking.

I think you are confused because you are a relative or friend of the Knox family.

 

[Mike1711]

The Kerchers cannot decide anything unless at least a SC sentence exists. Currently it has not been deposited, so we don't even know what the SC points are.

Of course they can. The civil claim and the criminal case are independent from one another (strangely for reasons unknown the cases were mixed and confused one with the other in the criminal case). There is of course an intertwined relationship, but there is nothing in law to stop the Kercher's from suing immediately. In fact the Ketcher's can sue the Italian State, (or even the USA or Obama or even China) should they so wish.

Even Mignini is allowed to sue whoever for whatever. He'll of course lose but there is no legislation preventing him from making himself into what we know he is....an idiot.

The Kercher's may well delay a final decision to sue or not, based on the ISC report, but that is a strategic issue not a legal one.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

No they don't. Read art. 628. The 5th section panel cannot overturn the findings of the 1st section. They cannot even rule on them.
They also apparently do not agree with Hellmann, insofar as they quoted explicitly 530.2. Hellmann is wrong and will be wrong forever, his reasoning and considerations have no place in judicial findings.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course they can. The civil claim and the criminal case are independent from one another (strangely for reasons unknown the cases were mixed and confused one with the other in the criminal case). There is of course an intertwined relationship, but there is nothing in law to stop the Kercher's from suing immediately. In fact the Ketcher's can sue the Italian State, (or even the USA or Obama or even China) should they wish to.

Even Mignini is allowed to sue whoever for whatever. He'll of course lose but there is no legislation preventing him from making himself into what we know he is....an idiot.

The Kercher's may well delay a final decision to sue or not, based on the ISC report, but that is a strategic issue not a legal one.

It's also a legal issue, because as long as the SC sentence is not deposited, legally it doesn't exist, and the criminal case is still formally not closed.
Ok there is also a strategic issue, but it is a must. They are practically forced to wait for thr issueing some documentation, it would be foolish to open a legal case before points are settled.

 

[Kauffer]

No they don't. Read art. 628. The 5th section panel cannot overturn the findings of the 1st section. They cannot even rule on them.
They also apparently do not agree with Hellmann, insofar as they quoted explicitly 530.2. Hellmann is wrong and will be wrong forever, his reasoning and considerations have no place in judicial findings.

The fifth section did rule. So tough. I don't hear the constitutional court making any objection. I don't hear anybody making any objection - lawyer, judge, legal academic.

 

[Kauffer]

It is perfectly obvious that the contrary of your claim is true. The balcony is balcony, therefore a non suspicious entry point for its nature; this is a fact. It is also a fact that almost all break ins on "second' floors are from balconies or equivalent surfaces. And it is a fact that other entries by true burglars occurred at the cottage, and they were all through the balcony, therefore it must be a good entry point, was and safe.
It is false that the balcony is exposed. Distances speak for themselves actually. 35 meters is the closest point n the road, but nobody walks on the road, and cars won't notice the balcony because it's too much aside of the road, and even if they notice someone on a balcony they wouldn't become suspicious about it.
To all effects the balcony is a "rear" balcony, it has a hidden corner, I faces an area where there are no passers by and it appears distant from eyes she you are there.

You just make things up when you lose an argument. Why have you not cited any evidence? Because you have no evidence. Photographs from a variety of angles have been posted here showing your claims to be ludicrous. There's none so blind as those who choose not to see.

 

[Desert Fox]

No they don't. Read art. 628. The 5th section panel cannot overturn the findings of the 1st section. They cannot even rule on them.
They also apparently do not agree with Hellmann, insofar as they quoted explicitly 530.2. Hellmann is wrong and will be wrong forever, his reasoning and considerations have no place in judicial findings.

So let us say that someone is convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence. Let us say that the evidence is even pretty decent at least at first. Their conviction goes all the way up to the ISC where it is confirmed.

A few years later, their is DNA evidence extracted and it proves that a known serial killer committed the crime. At the same time, an investigator for the defense tracks down video evidence and a sales receipt that the original defendant was in Norway at the time of the crime.

What you seem to be arguing is that no matter what, no Italian court can ever overturn the original conviction even with ironclad evidence of actual innocence because it had already been confirmed at the Italian highest court?

 

[Kauffer]

It's also a legal issue, because as long as the SC sentence is not deposited, legally it doesn't exist, and the criminal case is still formally not closed.

The dispositivo we know. You do not understand the process.

 

[Mike1711]

No they don't. Read art. 628. The 5th section panel cannot overturn the findings of the 1st section. They cannot even rule on them.
They also apparently do not agree with Hellmann, insofar as they quoted explicitly 530.2. Hellmann is wrong and will be wrong forever, his reasoning and considerations have no place in judicial findings.

So therefore, in effect, there is no such thing is an appeal in Italy. Courts are bound by previous stuff?? If any of that previous stuff is junk it's just tough but utterly prejudicial to any defendant/s rights.

I might believe you're right but for the complete preposterous nonsense that arises from such an absurd law. Both Hellmann and Marasca did exactly what you say they can't do, which makes me believe you are wrong in your interpretation/context.

 

[Kauffer]

It's also a legal issue, because as long as the SC sentence is not deposited, legally it doesn't exist, and the criminal case is still formally not closed.
Ok there is also a strategic issue, but it is a must. They are practically forced to wait for thr issueing some documentation,it would be foolish to open a legal case before points are settled.

You're right here in one regard: Amanda cannot take outstanding matters of human rights violations to the ECHR until the motivazione has been released.

 

[Mike1711]

It's also a legal issue, because as long as the SC sentence is not deposited, legally it doesn't exist, and the criminal case is still formally not closed.
Ok there is also a strategic issue, but it is a must. They are practically forced to wait for thr issueing some documentation, it would be foolish to open a legal case before points are settled.

Now we agree. It is perfectly legal to sue at any time. Foolish perhaps, but legal.

 

[Diocletus]

No they don't. Read art. 628. The 5th section panel cannot overturn the findings of the 1st section. They cannot even rule on them.
They also apparently do not agree with Hellmann, insofar as they quoted explicitly 530.2. Hellmann is wrong and will be wrong forever, his reasoning and considerations have no place in judicial findings.

So what do you think the 1st Section decided that the 5th Circuit will need to overturn? The 1st Section was prohibited from deciding facts, remember? Here are some things that the 1st Circuit decided:

1. Hellmann should have tested 36i--no problem for the 5th Section, this was actually helpful

2. Hellman failed to fully assess Curatalo's credibility--an interesting issue, since Nencini never even met this witness. But at the end of the day, based on the 1st Section's helpful precedent, the 5th Circuit need only look at the whole record and decide that on that record it's illogical to conclude that Curatalo is creditable. No problem.

 

[LondonJohn]

So therefore, in effect, there is no such thing is an appeal in Italy. Courts are bound by previous stuff?? If any of that previous stuff is junk it's just tough but utterly prejudicial to any defendant/s rights.

I might believe you're right but for the complete preposterous nonsense that arises from such an absurd law. Both Hellmann and Marasca did exactly what you say they can't do, which makes me believe you are wrong in your interpretation/context.

It's just more indication that Italian criminal justice is still horribly tainted by vestiges of fascism and totalitarianism. The whole system is a disgrace in a country that's supposed to be a modern liberal democracy. It needs to be root-and-branch changed to become fit for purpose.

And it's yet another eye-opener to many of the farcical and fantastical notions driving the whole European Union project. I am 100% in favour of minimal trade barriers, ease of currency exchange, freedom of movement and employment, and collective trade bargaining with other trade blocs, but all of this can only be done properly when all the countries involved are "singing from the same hymn sheet". How can it be possible that a country such as Italy - with its preposterous, anti-democratic, post-fascist legal system - can be part of the same federal body as somewhere like Germany, Sweden or the UK?

If the EU were ever going to work properly, I'd suggest that a fundamental and urgent action would be to align legal systems across member states, and bring them all up to a similar threshold level of acceptability (including liberal democratic laws and statutes, properly-functioning courts and police services, and proper accountability). That goes for civil as well as criminal courts (I know from second-hand experience that Italian civil courts are a total laughing stock and are a major barrier to any UK company looking to do business in Italy).

If the Knox/Sollecito fiasco has done anything positive, then it (along with the Berlusconi trial fiascos and the Costa Concordia trial fiascos) has brought the sheer incompetence and unfairness of Italian "justice" to a global audience. And if/when the ECHR issues an excoriating judgement on the Knox criminal slander conviction, plus a withering indictment of various key aspect of the murder charges, maybe (just maybe) internal and external pressures might conceivably force Italy's legislators and justice practitioners to tear up their unjust, outdated, undemocratic, anti-libertarian and unfit-for-purpose and start again.

 

[LondonJohn]

Now we agree. It is perfectly legal to sue at any time. Foolish perhaps, but legal.

I hope very strongly that the Kercher family will not be minded (either of their own volition, or under advice from that jackal Maresca) to pursue any further civil claims related to this case. All that will happen will be that they will end up owing even more money in legal fees. If Maresca had an ounce of human decency he'd either walk away from the case full-stop or - at the very least - agree to act on a conditional or pro-bono basis in any further action.

Actually, I have a horrible nagging thought that the issue of outstanding fees might well have an adverse impact on the process going forward. The Kerchers owe Maresca and his firm millions of Euros in fees, and they can't afford to pay him. It therefore might look (superficially) attractive for the Kerchers to pursue a multi-million Euro civil claim against Knox and/or Sollecito, with Maresca agreeing to waive all his ongoing fees (plus maybe a sizeable part of his fees to date) in return for a guaranteed hefty payment if the Kerchers were to win a civil judgement. I wonder, therefore, if for the Kerchers and Maresca alike, there's a horrible situation brewing where the optimum perceived strategy would be to plough on with civil action regardless?

I can only hope - deeply sincerely - that the Kercher family (and/or, perhaps by some miracle, Maresca himself) come to the considered conclusion that it's time to bring this thing to a close. They don't need to suffer any longer. They ought to know that they won't win any civil claim, so from a purely financial perspective it makes little sense either. And it morally makes no sense at all, either for them or for Knox/Sollecito or their families. Rudy Guede attacked and killed Meredith Kercher all by himself. The Kerchers truly need to come to terms with this, to realise that they were horribly misled and let down by Mignini, Maresca, Massei and Nencini, and to somehow achieve some level of what's fashionably termed "closure".

 

[Mike1711]

I hope very strongly that the Kercher family will not be minded (either of their own volition, or under advice from that jackal Maresca) to pursue any further civil claims related to this case. All that will happen will be that they will end up owing even more money in legal fees. If Maresca had an ounce of human decency he'd either walk away from the case full-stop or - at the very least - agree to act on a conditional or pro-bono basis in any further action.

Actually, I have a horrible nagging thought that the issue of outstanding fees might well have an adverse impact on the process going forward. The Kerchers owe Maresca and his firm millions of Euros in fees, and they can't afford to pay him. It therefore might look (superficially) attractive for the Kerchers to pursue a multi-million Euro civil claim against Knox and/or Sollecito, with Maresca agreeing to waive all his ongoing fees (plus maybe a sizeable part of his fees to date) in return for a guaranteed hefty payment if the Kerchers were to win a civil judgement. I wonder, therefore, if for the Kerchers and Maresca alike, there's a horrible situation brewing where the optimum perceived strategy would be to plough on with civil action regardless?

I can only hope - deeply sincerely - that the Kercher family (and/or, perhaps by some miracle, Maresca himself) come to the considered conclusion that it's time to bring this thing to a close. They don't need to suffer any longer. They ought to know that they won't win any civil claim, so from a purely financial perspective it makes little sense either. And it morally makes no sense at all, either for them or for Knox/Sollecito or their families. Rudy Guede attacked and killed Meredith Kercher all by himself. The Kerchers truly need to come to terms with this, to realise that they were horribly misled and let down by Mignini, Maresca, Massei and Nencini, and to somehow achieve some level of what's fashionably termed "closure".

If Maresca is worth anything he will be too busy to throw good time after bad money. However if he is the bottom feeder that he probably is he may well encourage the Kercher's to go on a "fishing expedition".

However the Kercher's surely cannot be blind to the fact that a loss in a civil action will likely include payment of the legal fees of the Knox/Sollecito legal team. The courts will probably accede to a demand by the Knox/Sollecito legal team for the Kerchers to put up guarantees should they lose the action. I doubt the Kercher's will have the spare cash to gamble on a million to one shot. Their odds are way better in a casino.

 

[RWVBWL]

You gotta be kidding me!

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.

Machiavelli,
you crack me up sometimes!

Man,
I know business owners who in years past had their front windows smashed + broken into
and the store ripped off at night on Main Street in Santa Monica.

And Main Street is well closer than 7 meters away to any business,
and it has many, many bright streetlights too!

I even had some dude, who used a metal pole, smash 1 of my old surfshops windows before, a window approx. 8 ft wide by 5 ft high, located along that same Main Street, with only a sidewalk separating it from the street.

He stole a coupla nice lookin' Casio watches and some Oakley Frogskins sunglasses. And I even had security bars on it, they were closed, and locked as usual that night...


Your arguments that it is illogical for Rudy to simply toss a rock at Filomena's window, as simple as free throwin' a basketball, and then hide to see if anyone came out to investigate, and then easily climb up and itno the residence are a joke to any person who has been the victim of a burglary...
My 2¢,
RW