Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

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

Ever seen a movie or tv show where the boy tosses a lil rock or 2 at night at the girls window to get her to come out + play? Maybe Rudy tried the door 1st, knocked, rang the door bell, yelled out for her, finally started throwin' lil' rocks, didn't work, finally tossed that big rock, boy, that'll get her attention!

Except Rudy did not know that it wasn't Meredith's window.

Lucky Filomena wasn't home,
she'da freaked out if Rudy had came climbin' thru her window and into her bedroom. But things like that never happen, it's only in the movies, right?

 

[RWVBWL]

Yes, I'm saying he did not commit any burglary at the cottage.

Le'ts point out there is zero evidence he ever broke into the cottage,
and let's recall he was also acquitted of the charge of theft.

Evidence of who was found on Meredith's purse/handbag?

Machiavelli,
Might the Kercher family like to know
who was it then that stole Meredith's rent $$$,
her cell phones, her credit cards and her keys?
Rudy Guede's accomplice?

 

[carbonjam72]

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

If the Kercher case is still not finished, then why did Maresca say he told the Kerchers it was done and there were no other avenues to follow? Did I misread that news?

I also had some follow up questions on your response for MOF and Narducci, I didn't see your response (sorry if I missed it).

Who is heading up the new MOF investigation? Giuttari?

And what's left of Narducci, aside from Brizzoli, who as I understand it, insisted on getting a verdict to clear his name, even though he could have had the charges dismissed due to statute of limitations.

How is Spezi doing? Is he done with cases against him, or does it just go on and on?

And what about Antonio Vinci, the true Monster of Florence serial killer, according to Spezi & Preston? IS there no effort to test the scopetti rag with modern DNA techniques?

 

[RWVBWL]

Nara told someone of hearing The Scream!!!

It is a judicial truth Nara doesn't know what time she thinks she heard a scream.

It is true. But it is also true that she knows what noises she remembered.

I stand corrected!
It appears from reading courtroom testimony in The Massei Trial
that Nara did indeed tell someone, that she heard a loud scream last night from this girl:

PM – DR. MIGNINI – Did you try and wake your daughter?
Answer – No, why? If the scream had gone on I could have got her to hear it, but …

Question – Then what happened that morning?
Answer – That morning while I was cleaning the house, I heard the boys coming downstairs running, saying: “Signora, signora, they have killed a girl over there in that cottage”; “Not really – I say – you lot are always carrying on!”, “No, no, I’m telling you the truth̀!” In fact they all ran to go and see, but I didn’t go because I’m not like that. Then after I went out to get the bread…

Question – About what time?
Answer – It would have been around eleven, and I stopped at the newsstand and there were already these posters which talked about this girl and then I said: “Oh God, I heard it then, it was this girl”


I hope that she wasn't mumblin' to herself!
Too bad the newsstand employee was not called to testify of this,
the worker mighta been able to confirm it, right?

I bet ol' Nara told everyone she knew that she heard The Scream.
Odd how no one came forward to verify this...

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Would the standard of proof be different in a civil trial if the Kercher's went forward?

In the US, a criminal case must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", but a civil case can be won based only on a "preponderance of the evidence" (meaning, "more likely than not").

HAsn't Maresca said this case is over? Would the Kerchers need to get a new lawyer?

By the way, are Raf & Gumbel's case due to start again in September 2015, and Amanda defamation case due to start again also in September 2015?

Aren't both of these cases nearing the statute of limitations? What consequences can there be if the cases exceed the statute of limitations?

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

There was a copy of a very recent law suit filed by Mignini, about two months after the 2015 acquittals. Do you know anything about that case?

 

[Ken Dine]

It is more correct to say the SC annulled the trials. But the SC dies (SIC) not make findings of facts. And still the SC set their decision under 530.2, which means the decision does not contain a judicial truth.

Two questions:

1 - I've read several news accounts of the Supreme Ct's March 27th acquittal announcement of Raffaele & Amanda, but I never saw a single direct quote where either 530.1 or 530.2 was directly mentioned in their acquittal announcement.

I did read one Italian media story which had mentioned 530.2 as the section which the author felt the Supreme Ct was basing their decision to acquit, but there were no direct quotes of the Supreme Ct actually mentioning any code sections in that Italian story?

Do you have a credible citation which would prove your Supreme Ct had actually mentioned any code sections in their March 27th acquittal announcement?

2 - you claim that the March 27th acquittal of Raffaele & Amanda did not contain a judicial truth, but it's my understanding that the March 27th acquittal would end all future actions (both civil and criminal) against Raffaele & Amanda relating to the murder of Meredith Kercher, which certainly seems to rise to the level of a new Judicial Truth by proclaiming that Raffaele & Amanda were NOT involved in Meredith's murder.

That certainly has all the hallmarks of a new Judicial Truth!

Care to comment?

 

[Ken Dine]

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.

As for the Kerchers still being able to sue Amanda civilly in Italy in a new separate lawsuit, I don't see how that would be possible since the Kercher clan has already sued Amanda, which is why Massei awarded the Kercher clan damages at the conclusion of that trial:

MASSEI Pg 397:

sentences KNOX Amanda Marie to compensate for damages in dealings constituted
by the plaintiff Patrick Diya Lumumba, to be liquidated in another trial and
awarding an executive immediate provisioning of 10,000 euro.

sentences KNOX Amanda Marie to pay the reimbursement of the legal costs
sustained by Patrick Diya Lumumba which liquidates in total to 40,000 euro in
addition to a lump-sum refund, Value Added Tax and CPA as required by law.

sentences KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele to compensate for
damages in dealings with the plaintiff constituted by Aldalia Tattanelli to be
liquidated in a separate hearing, and Lyle Kercher, John Ashley Kercher and Stephanie Arline Lara Kercher awarding to the same an immediately executive provisional [compensation] of 10,000 euro.

Hellmann's trial obviously had tossed any civil judgments by the parties, except for Lumumba's civil action, which is why the prosecution and the Kerchers had appealed Hellmann's decision.

On March 27th, seemingly all legal actions against Amanda were tossed for good, which would include the Kercher clan's civil action.

I don't see how the Kercher's could have standing to civilly sue Amanda in America. Not sure how the UK legal system would view such a civil claim against Amanda there, but I doubt if it would be possible?

A more likely target of a civil action would be Machiavelli sued by Raffaele in Italy since Raffaele has publicly stated he will no longer tolerate anyone accusing him of murder.

 

[Ken Dine]

If the Kercher case is still not finished, then why did Maresca say he told the Kerchers it was done and there were no other avenues to follow? Did I misread that news?

That's the way I read it too.

 

[acbytesla]

I have already shown your reasoning is plain wrong. Reality disproves you. The illogical point of entry is an indicator. The indicator exists, and what rational people have to do is accept it. You only object with a belief. But the element exists in reality, illogical point of entry is something objective, no matter what you believe or imagine Guede would do, what you have to do is to note an objective fact.

You may believe what you want. One cannot stop a fool from having foolish ideas. So I'm sure I can't stop you from having yours.

 

[Desert Fox]

When I read Machiavelli posts, they seem to be exercises in obscuration more than anything else and they actually say very little in actuality. They are close to content free while trying to read like something profound.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I have come to doubt every word of Machiavelli's posts. I have thought he had some expertise in Italian law. Now, I think his posts are a lot of hot air. A smart man admits what he does not know. And yet I never read any confessions of ignorance, just puffery and silly rants. This affair is over and done with. We all know it, even Machiavelli knows this, yet he goes on and on about there are more silly cases for Amanda to deal with.

I can't imagine it to be true, but I could never imagine the silly circus that engulfed these two INNOCENT young people for almost 8 years.

Still, I think not. The forum is tired of this play. The characters have worn thin on the audience. No more encores, the run is over. Time to take a bow and for a new show to take the stage.

 

[Mike1711]

I don't see how the Kercher's could have standing to civilly sue Amanda in America. Not sure how the UK legal system would view such a civil claim against Amanda there, but I doubt if it would be possible?

Ken. You are correct. My point (perhaps badly phrased) was that anybody can sue any for anything, provided you have the money and the (sometimes idiotic) inclination.

A case in point.....

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-sued-for-apartheid-court-rules/#.VcT9HoZXerU

 

[Bill Williams]

I have come to doubt every word of Machiavelli's posts. I have thought he had some expertise in Italian law. Now, I think his posts are a lot of hot air. A smart man admits what he does not know. And yet I never read any confessions of ignorance, just puffery and silly rants. This affair is over and done with. We all know it, even Machiavelli knows this, yet he goes on and on about there are more silly cases for Amanda to deal with.

I can't imagine it to be true, but I could never imagine the silly circus that engulfed these two INNOCENT young people for almost 8 years.

Still, I think not. The forum is tired of this play. The characters have worn thin on the audience. No more encores, the run is over. Time to take a bow and for a new show to take the stage.

When the law supports the defence, he argues "logic". When logic supports the defence, he argues "the law".

Sometimes he just plan makes things up. Like a silhouette on a balcony not being suspicious.... even if one could see clearly from across the road that this silhouette had **climbed** onto the balcony. Such witnesses could see if from the safety of their abodes across the street. Walkers past the cottage near Filomena's windows would leave audible footfalls for a burglar stealthily hidden below....

.... or did Nara hear footfalls or not?

I think it's now time for Machiavelli's fallback position - ad hominem about pro-Knox racists!!!!!

 

[Ken Dine]

Ken. You are correct. My point (perhaps badly phrased) was that anybody can sue any for anything, provided you have the money and the (sometimes idiotic) inclination.

A case in point.....

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-sued-for-apartheid-court-rules/#.VcT9HoZXerU

True, to file a lawsuit in America only takes a few hundred bucks in filing fees, and if the paperwork is in proper order, the clerk will accept if for filing.

HOWEVER, at least here in America, at some point the case will make it to a hearing before a judge, and if there are any reasons why the case isn't kosher, such as time-barred (Laches), lack of jurisdiction, already adjudicated to conclusion in another court (Res Judicata), etc. There are many such reasons why a trial judge could kick the case early on, and even assess a money sanction against the plaintiff and their attorney for wasting everyone's time.

 

[acbytesla]

True, to file a lawsuit in America only takes a few hundred bucks in filing fees, and if the paperwork is in proper order, the clerk will accept if for filing.

HOWEVER, at least here in America, at some point the case will make it to a hearing before a judge, and if there are any reasons why the case isn't kosher, such as time-barred (Laches), lack of jurisdiction, already adjudicated to conclusion in another court (Res Judicata), etc. There are many such reasons why a trial judge could kick the case early on, and even assess a money sanction against the plaintiff and their attorney for wasting everyone's time.

They can and sometimes do but that really is the exception. I'm curious though if the case could actually be sought in Perugia? Or would it have to be in the US. The plaintiffs being British and Amanda being American.

 

[Ken Dine]

Ken. You are correct. My point (perhaps badly phrased) was that anybody can sue any for anything, provided you have the money and the (sometimes idiotic) inclination.

A case in point.....

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-sued-for-apartheid-court-rules/#.VcT9HoZXerU

BTW – while those civil actions against corporations doing business with South Africa's former apartheid government had managed to persist for quite awhile in US courts, ultimately they were all dismissed after it was determined that our federal courts lacked jurisdiction over these civil actions:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/apartheid-lawsuit-idUSL2N0GM1R520130821

Most cases that lack jurisdiction are kicked much more quickly, but during the course of these "apartheid" cases the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co) which "plainly bars" such lawsuits.

 

[Mike1711]

They can and sometimes do but that really is the exception. I'm curious though if the case could actually be sought in Perugia? Or would it have to be in the US. The plaintiffs being British and Amanda being American.

The case is dead in the water.

A civil matter involving a British citizen suing a US citizen for an action in Italy is complex international law. The multiple borders will involve legal offices in three countries (maybe more - The Hague?). It will take a very brave (or stupid) person with plenty of money to pursue this, especially against a patently innocent Amanda Knox.

The Kercher's have a better chance recovering costs from Mignini for leading them up the garden path. If Maresca wants payment this would be my advice to him, slim as the chances of success might be.

 

[Mr Fied]

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.

Witholding evidence in order to deceive is lying.

The mop was positive to TMB? Is this the mop that was so correctly stored in wrapping paper?

I wouldn't say this woman was crooked, but if she swallowed a six inch nail she would pass a corkscrew.

 

[Diocletus]

Witholding evidence in order to deceive is lying.

The mop was positive to TMB? Is this the mop that was so correctly stored in wrapping paper?

I wouldn't say this woman was crooked, but if she swallowed a six inch nail she would pass a corkscrew.

Lol. "Knox's mop". The one that she didn't use for the non cleanup. The one with the suppressed dna profiles.