Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

No she wasn't And BTW, the motivation DOESN'T say thst.

Yes it does.

 

[Kauffer]

It would seem that the initial impressions from Barbie et al. were correct. The court seems to have said that the investigation was so botched that really no answer to what occurred can legally be found. Also the anachronistic judicial system forced the second ISC section to rule to accept the judicial truth of the calunnia and all it implied.

It certainly appears that those PGP that said the verdict wasn't innocent but not guilty were correct. It also appears that they were correct that the calunnia is a judicial fact and they couldn't change it if they wanted.
Bill with all the FOA, IIP and Marriott behind your efforts, you haven't produced the volume of pro verdict/ pro kids editorial pieces I would have thought would be out there by now. Also are there more MSM cites or only the obscure ones.

We all knew this bit. The 1st section signed off the callunia. The 5th section only had the aggravation before them. Vacating the callunia conviction was the only thing the 5th section couldn't do.

We need to read the report in its entirety to see how it fits together before any sensible conclusions about its efficacy can be reached.

 

[Planigale]

It would seem that the initial impressions from Barbie et al. were correct. The court seems to have said that the investigation was so botched that really no answer to what occurred can legally be found. Also the anachronistic judicial system forced the second ISC section to rule to accept the judicial truth of the calunnia and all it implied.

It certainly appears that those PGP that said the verdict wasn't innocent but not guilty were correct. It also appears that they were correct that the calunnia is a judicial fact and they couldn't change it if they wanted.

Bill with all the FOA, IIP and Marriott behind your efforts, you haven't produced the volume of pro verdict/ pro kids editorial pieces I would have thought would be out there by now. Also are there more MSM cites or only the obscure ones.

This in the broader sense is the important message.

What they are saying is that if the forensic science is bad science, if the investigation is suspect-centric rather than crime-centric, then the police cannot achieve a safe conviction. If the police / prosecution proceed in this manner then guilty people will have to go free.

This is a direct challenge to what Mach said was Italian practice until now; that any forensic science results even if the methodology was suspect have to be considered as evidence. The cassation are saying if the science is not good science, it is not evidence. I think this may be the subject of articles in Italian criminal law / police journals in future. As the quoted articles above have said they are calling an end to dubious practice. This may be a step change.

So they are right, the evidence was crap, the investigation was crap, the police could not prove guilt. That is all that is ever said guilty / not guilty.

 

[Planigale]

I think Bruce Fischer is right. There is no point in responding to Vixen. Just freeze the vixen out. Vixen can't be bothered to know the basic things about the case. Vixen posts falsehoods. Vixen fails to recognise when proven wrong. It is pointless to engage.

The criminal case is over.

I am interested in the outcome of the callunia case, and the ECHR case. Further discussion of the criminal case is only responding to the fruitcakes. (Unless some interesting new facts arise as new documents are released.)

 

[Bill Williams]

It would seem that the initial impressions from Barbie et al. were correct. The court seems to have said that the investigation was so botched that really no answer to what occurred can legally be found. Also the anachronistic judicial system forced the second ISC section to rule to accept the judicial truth of the calunnia and all it implied.

It certainly appears that those PGP that said the verdict wasn't innocent but not guilty were correct. It also appears that they were correct that the calunnia is a judicial fact and they couldn't change it if they wanted.

Bill with all the FOA, IIP and Marriott behind your efforts, you haven't produced the volume of pro verdict/ pro kids editorial pieces I would have thought would be out there by now. Also are there more MSM cites or only the obscure ones.

Maybe the place to address this is to address your own expectations. I am not sure what else there is to add; other than the cite Machiavelli provided I cannot find an Italian language **anything**, obscure or otherwise, which says what folk like Nadeau or Machiavelli are saying. Those other **anythings** I regard as relatively "objective", more so than Nadeau who has always played the edges on this.

Truly I wish that, "all the FOA, IIP and Marriott," were "behind" my efforts. It gives it truly a more conspiratorial sound to the posts I have made! Once again, everyone has opportunity to ferret out all the "Marasca was wrong to acquit" voices, public or otherwise, which are coming out of Italy. I cannot find them. Maybe you can. Because you believe in the FOA conspiracy, maybe I am simply blocking people's access to the powerful anti-Marasca voice in Italy. Yes, that's it. It's a continuation of the PR conspiracy!

 

[Vixen]

How did they do this exactly? Romanelli's pal broke down the door - something the postale police were reluctant to do (maybe the postales are Rudy's co conspirators on the grounds that they "wilfully obstructed the finding of the body"). But, what did Amanda and Raffaelle do? Jump in front of the door in an attempt to stop it being broken down? You do make the most awfully silly comments.

Er, Mez died any time from 21:20-ish to 01:00. Amanda - who was definitely there and heard Mez' scream - and Raff - who, in all probability was there as established in legal fact in perpetuity, failed to inform the police or the ambulance, at all, except post-event of the postale police already having arrived, in order to try to establish a self-serving alibi, up to some 16 hours after Mez' death.

We can tell from the flippancy of yours and acbytesla's tone, that neither of you, deep down in your hearts, believe the pair are innocent (in the true meaning of the word).

For you, it's become a game of words and semantics. There's no conviction there.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have to say, I'm reading snippets of the partially-translated motivation elsewhere and there is plenty to soothe the guilter heart. They really do say she was present and this is proved by her accusation against Lumumba (inadmissible yet somehow strangely admissible too ) and that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood is also probative. I fear this motivation will cast a long shadow. Yet another fail.

I would hope you would discuss this in relation to what Mike1711 said way, way upthread when addressing machiavelli on this. Most of us have three barriers between us and the Marasca motivations report: language, legalese, and Italian-legalese.

You two perhaps are writing about this with only 1 1/2 of those barriers. (Mike 1711 says he is a South African lawyer coming from a Dutch legal tradition.)

In terms of law in many countries appeal courts may only overrule on "points of law". Some countries confine this limitation to the state only.

It is a fine line for courts but "they were not at the scene of the crime" is a point of law (it is a legal nonsense to guilty of an act of murder when the parties were not at the scene).

The "suspicion" that AK/RS were at the house (however ludicrously small) is a lower court finding which creates a "point of fact" (don't get me started on the meaningless translation of "judicial truth"). The "point of fact" remains as a legality, but only as a "suspicion". It should not necessarily be read to be an endorsement of the lower court finding.

The ISC merely repeats the suspicion (point of fact) but overrules the finding of guilt because on a point of law AK/RS cannot have committed a murder in absentia.

Machiavelli, you are twisting the way things work to make the sensible sound ridiculous. It is either ignorance or a failure to admit your failing, that drives you.

 

[Vixen]

I think Bruce Fischer is right. There is no point in responding to Vixen. Just freeze the vixen out. Vixen can't be bothered to know the basic things about the case. Vixen posts falsehoods. Vixen fails to recognise when proven wrong. It is pointless to engage.

The criminal case is over.

I am interested in the outcome of the callunia case, and the ECHR case. Further discussion of the criminal case is only responding to the fruitcakes. (Unless some interesting new facts arise as new documents are released.)

Oh dear, Planigale, you seem a bit cross at Bruno & Marasca's ruling.

You'll get over it, I'm sure.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes it does.

It is my understanding that nothing says she was there at the time of the murder, and earlier in that night but could have been when she left to meet RS. The just of it is that, she was not there when the crime was committed,

 

[acbytesla]

Er, Mez died any time from 21:20-ish to 01:00. Amanda - who was definitely there and heard Mez' scream - and Raff - who, in all probability was there as established in legal fact in perpetuity, failed to inform the police or the ambulance, at all, except post-event of the postale police already having arrived, in order to try to establish a self-serving alibi, up to some 16 hours after Mez' death.
We can tell from the flippancy of yours and acbytesla's tone, that neither of you, deep down in your hearts, believe the pair are innocent (in the true meaning of the word). For you, it's become a game of words and semantics. There's no conviction there.

You can tell that. What are you? Psychic or clueless? 6600 posts in 3 years and there is no conviction?
Is that a sample of your logic? No wonder you can't get a grasp on this.

 

[Grinder]

This in the broader sense is the important message.

What they are saying is that if the forensic science is bad science, if the investigation is suspect-centric rather than crime-centric, then the police cannot achieve a safe conviction. If the police / prosecution proceed in this manner then guilty people will have to go free.

This is a direct challenge to what Mach said was Italian practice until now; that any forensic science results even if the methodology was suspect have to be considered as evidence. The cassation are saying if the science is not good science, it is not evidence. I think this may be the subject of articles in Italian criminal law / police journals in future. As the quoted articles above have said they are calling an end to dubious practice. This may be a step change.

So they are right, the evidence was crap, the investigation was crap, the police could not prove guilt. That is all that is ever said guilty / not guilty.

I will wait for a more detailed reading since those that access are keeping it secret. From what I have read, they are saying that the investigation was bungled but so far I don't see them saying that it shouldn't have been considered at all. My current guess is they are saying was just so bad that even taking all of the pieces together by osmosis it still isn't enough.

I thought them focusing on the calendar box was odd as it really would be a far fetched place for contamination. I know the arguments.

While on this, someone was saying that since Amanda was with Raf no DNA should be expected in Meredith's room. Her DNA in Filomena's room and the hallways and the bathroom yes, but not Meredith's room. She did come back for clothes and to use her shower and was there Meredith's last day but none of her evidence in Meredith's room is explained because of Raf. I say they should have found her evidence in the room and it is also possible they missed other evidence as well. I think it is remarkable how positioned biased so much of the discussion is.

 

[Mike1711]

I have to say, I'm reading snippets of the partially-translated motivation elsewhere and there is plenty to soothe the guilter heart. They really do say she was present and this is proved by her accusation against Lumumba (inadmissible yet somehow strangely admissible too ) and that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood is also probative. I fear this motivation will cast a long shadow. Yet another fail.

I hope you're wrong.
I am sticking to one of the following, until the entire document is translated.

A - "Points of fact" lie outside of the ISC's domain in terms of Italian Jurisprudence. It can only rule on a "point of law" and not on a "point of fact" (Judicial Truth(?)). Despite being shackled to earlier Judgements (it's irrelevant as to the ISC's opinion on these Judgements and they may even recite or elaborate on parts of them) the two were never in the murder room. It is a legal impossibility for the two to have committed a crime of this nature in absentia, and therefore on a point of law they cannot be guilty.
OR..
B - The ISC may rule that even if the ISC were to be persuaded that suspicion exists (and indeed it might be so persuaded), that such suspicion amounts to nothing in light of the fact that the two were never in the murder room.

I hope the court won't botch it up completely by saying the case is such a monumental comedy of errors that they are simply dismissing it without referral on the basis that the ineptitude of the prosecution is so incredible that no court could possibly make a finding that would make any sense at all.

I doubt a sane court would make a declaration of fact (washing blood from hands) without a concession from the defence on such a matter at the initial preliminary hearing stage. If the court makes such a finding of fact it deserves less than no respect and owes RS, AK and MK an unqualified apology for being utterly inept.

Sadly the more I read about this case the more contempt I have for the Italian legal system, but I live in hope that I'm wrong. This case has hints of the Madeleine McCann case when the distraught parents were officially declared "suspects" by completely inept police, who then misdirecting their efforts at a crucial time...unforgivable. In the AK/RS the truth lies with Guede who should quite frankly be thrown to the lions for his innuendo, lies and concealments.

 

[Grinder]

Er, Mez died any time from 21:20-ish to 01:00. Amanda - who was definitely there and heard Mez' scream - and Raff - who, in all probability was there as established in legal fact in perpetuity, failed to inform the police or the ambulance, at all, except post-event of the postale police already having arrived, in order to try to establish a self-serving alibi, up to some 16 hours after Mez' death.

We can tell from the flippancy of yours and acbytesla's tone, that neither of you, deep down in your hearts, believe the pair are innocent (in the true meaning of the word).

For you, it's become a game of words and semantics. There's no conviction there.

Aha between 9:20 and 1 AM. What would have been happening between 9 and 1 am? Are you now discounting Nara and Antonella Monacchia? Do you believe that Lalli totally screwed up the digestion info? What did you think the odd call were? Did Meredith lie about needing to study and just laid on her bed for 3 1/2 hours? Where did the drink or two in her system come from?

Are you suggesting that the kids needed alibis for 3 hours and 40 minutes?

 

[Mr Fied]

Er, Mez died any time from 21:20-ish to 01:00. Amanda - who was definitely there and heard Mez' scream - and Raff - who, in all probability was there as established in legal fact in perpetuity, failed to inform the police or the ambulance, at all, except post-event of the postale police already having arrived, in order to try to establish a self-serving alibi, up to some 16 hours after Mez' death.

We can tell from the flippancy of yours and acbytesla's tone, that neither of you, deep down in your hearts, believe the pair are innocent (in the true meaning of the word).

For you, it's become a game of words and semantics. There's no conviction there.

At last you have something right.

 

[Kauffer]

Er, Mez died any time from 21:20-ish to 01:00. Amanda - who was definitely there and heard Mez' scream - and Raff - who, in all probability was there as established in legal fact in perpetuity, failed to inform the police or the ambulance, at all, except post-event of the postale police already having arrived, in order to try to establish a self-serving alibi, up to some 16 hours after Mez' death.

We can tell from the flippancy of yours and acbytesla's tone, that neither of you, deep down in your hearts, believe the pair are innocent (in the true meaning of the word).

For you, it's become a game of words and semantics. There's no conviction there.

This weary old chestnut has long been refuted by the evidence. This absurd window was initially proffered as a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the digestive science. Additionally, Sophie Purton's important testimony that Kercher, just before she walked home from her, was tired and wanted to go to bed is not consistent with Kercher remaining dressed in her outside clothes for 4 hours after her arrival at the cottage. Kercher was dead or dying by 9:20. No amount of invented mushrooms could ever change this reality.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have to say, I'm reading snippets of the partially-translated motivation elsewhere and there is plenty to soothe the guilter heart. They really do say she was present and this is proved by her accusation against Lumumba (inadmissible yet somehow strangely admissible too ) and that her DNA mixed with Kercher's blood is also probative. I fear this motivation will cast a long shadow. Yet another fail.

I hope you're wrong.
I am sticking to one of the following, until the entire document is translated.

A - "Points of fact" lie outside of the ISC's domain in terms of Italian Jurisprudence. It can only rule on a "point of law" and not on a "point of fact" (Judicial Truth(?)). Despite being shackled to earlier Judgements (it's irrelevant as to the ISC's opinion on these Judgements and they may even recite or elaborate on parts of them) the two were never in the murder room. It is a legal impossibility for the two to have committed a crime of this nature in absentia, and therefore on a point of law they cannot be guilty.
OR..
B - The ISC may rule that even if the ISC were to be persuaded that suspicion exists (and indeed it might be so persuaded), that such suspicion amounts to nothing in light of the fact that the two were never in the murder room.

I hope the court won't botch it up completely by saying the case is such a monumental comedy of errors that they are simply dismissing it without referral on the basis that the ineptitude of the prosecution is so incredible that no court could possibly make a finding that would make any sense at all.

I doubt a sane court would make a declaration of fact (washing blood from hands) without a concession from the defence on such a matter at the initial preliminary hearing stage. If the court makes such a finding of fact it deserves less than no respect and owes RS, AK and MK an unqualified apology for being utterly inept.

Sadly the more I read about this case the more contempt I have for the Italian legal system, but I live in hope that I'm wrong. This case has hints of the Madeleine McCann case when the distraught parents were officially declared "suspects" by completely inept police, who then misdirecting their efforts at a crucial time...unforgivable. In the AK/RS the truth lies with Guede who should quite frankly be thrown to the lions for his innuendo, lies and concealments.

I was hoping you two would get into it.

Because of what Machiavelli claimed, I ran the "forte sospetto" sections through a translator. It truly produced a muddy result, so ANY claim I make about what I interpreted out of it is about as provisional as it gets.

Still - it was not the full-on "strongly suspected" claim that Machiavelli said it was. All of us have been around the block dozens of times on basic-law, Italian nuance, vs. common sense to know that even a rock solid English translation doesn't always convey understanding of Italian legal documents (!).

Maybe you two can sort it out.

 

[acbytesla]

I was hoping you two would get into it.

Because of what Machiavelli claimed, I ran the "forte sospetto" sections through a translator. It truly produced a muddy result, so ANY claim I make about what I interpreted out of it is about as provisional as it gets.

Still - it was not the full-on "strongly suspected" claim that Machiavelli said it was. All of us have been around the block dozens of times on basic-law, Italian nuance, vs. common sense to know that even a rock solid English translation doesn't always convey understanding of Italian legal documents (!).

Maybe you two can sort it out.

Yea, I'm waiting for a non biased human translation. If it does say definitively that Amanda "was there" and "she washed her hands of Meredith's blood", then their whole judicial system is crazier than I thought. About the only sanity was Hellman and even he screwed up the callunia.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sadly the more I read about this case the more contempt I have for the Italian legal system, but I live in hope that I'm wrong. This case has hints of the Madeleine McCann case when the distraught parents were officially declared "suspects" by completely inept police, who then misdirecting their efforts at a crucial time...unforgivable. In the AK/RS the truth lies with Guede who should quite frankly be thrown to the lions for his innuendo, lies and concealments.

With JonBenét Ramsey, a case can be made for how it got off the rails so quickly. Her parents were unofficially, then officially, then unofficially declared suspects mainly on Police Detective Linda Arndt's and then Steve Thomas's "confirmation bias" and probable suspect-centricism over suspecting them way too soon.

Ardnt herself said that when the victim was discovered in a remote location in the house, then brought up to the living room, with herself and the father kneeling over the body, that looking into his eyes made her mentally-count the number of rounds she had for her weapon, and immediately think that no one was going to get out alive.

Thomas was another matter. However, early and obviously misplaced suspicion placed on the parents in all likelihood meant that that crime is unsolvable.

In that context, what does some future judge mean by "forte sospetto", in a judgement where the judge says they are not guilty?

 

[Mike1711]

I would hope you would discuss this in relation to what Mike1711 said way, way upthread when addressing machiavelli on this. Most of us have three barriers between us and the Marasca motivations report: language, legalese, and Italian-legalese.

You two perhaps are writing about this with only 1 1/2 of those barriers. (Mike 1711 says he is a South African lawyer coming from a Dutch legal tradition.)

South African Law is based on Roman Dutch Law. (Strangely the legal system in Scotland has similar ties). To be clear Italian Law is unknown to me, but I assume that the "Roman" part of Roman Dutch Law may mean there is something in common. But I don't know this factually,
The recent Oscar Pistorius trial created International focus and its a case that will create new legal precedent in in South Africa. The state has appealed the Pistorius case on a point of law (it cannot appeal on points of fact and is therefore shackled to any "factual finding" of the ruling court - a constraint based on a kind of double jeopardy I guess) in that it is contested that the Judge has misinterpreted a law called "Dolus Eventualis" or "legal intent".....(And it's pretty clear that she has messed it up, but Pistorius will likely be out on bail before the appeal is heard and just how a court re-imprisons someone after release will probably find its way to the SA Constitutional Court).

 

[Bill Williams]

South African Law is based on Roman Dutch Law. (Strangely the legal system in Scotland has similar ties). To be clear Italian Law is unknown to me, but I assume that the "Roman" part of Roman Dutch Law may mean there is something in common. But I don't know this factually,
The recent Oscar Pistorius trial created International focus and its a case that will create new legal precedent in in South Africa. The state has appealed the Pistorius case on a point of law (it cannot appeal on points of fact and is therefore shackled to any "factual finding" of the ruling court - a constraint based on a kind of double jeopardy I guess) in that it is contested that the Judge has misinterpreted a law called "Dolus Eventualis" or "legal intent".....(And it's pretty clear that she has messed it up, but Pistorius will likely be out on bail before the appeal is heard and just how a court re-imprisons someone after release will probably find its way to the SA Constitutional Court).

What I cannot get used to is judges, and esp. appeals' judges, get to reinvent both facts and the way facts are assembled.

Is this just me? Nencini (or probably more correctly Florence prosecutor Crini) gets direction from the 2013 ISC panel to reconsider the "sex-game gone wrong" theory/scenario.

What does Crini do? He completely ignores it. He cites the pooh in the toilet, the **other** toilet as touching off some imagined row that leads to murder. Toilet-flushing and culture lead to death.

What does Nencini do with this? Without it being entered into evidence at his Florence trial by anyone, he reverts to Rudy Guede's story that Meredith and Amanda row'ed over rent money! Nencini gets to say that Raffaele's DNA was found on the knife (I think I have that correct), something no one claimed.

I don't get it, I just don't get it. Here in Canada at Nyki Kish's appeal, the Ontario Appeal Court virtually says that one of the others at the street-fight should also have been charged and convicted of murder.