Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

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,

My reading of MArasca, on page 46 it states that Amanda and Raf's alibi was not disproven and could be true.

 

[Bill Williams]

delete

 

[Mike1711]

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.

In South Africa establishing motive is not essential to a finding of guilt. If the motive was blurred the state wouldn't introduce one.
The very reason it is logical that the state can only appeal points of law whilst the convicted can appeal on points of fact or points of law is simply that the accuseds right to a fair trial would be compromised if the state could appeal facts as this is a double jeopardy (in affect).
In fact the whole AK/RS case is such a disgraceful mess. It contradicts so many basic legal tenets that it borders on farcical.
I followed the case intently from the beginning of the year and was utterly convinced of innocence within a few weeks.
To be honest I am at a loss as to the workings of the Italian legal system. They seem to make it up as they go along. Introducing evidence from Guede's trial is disgraceful. Leading witnesses to the point of telling them what they meant to say! It's preposterous.
I hope I'm wrong about the Marasca Judgement but I fear it will be a "throw our hands in the air and get rid of this by acquitting and move on". They seem oblivious to the fact that they owe a care of duty to society, the accused, the deceased and family and to their own conscience.
Hellmann nailed it. They are simple innocent.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It was a common garden typo, immediately apparent to most people. Is that what you mean by slow-flooding?

 

[acbytesla]

My reading of MArasca, on page 46 it states that Amanda and Raf's alibi was not disproven and could be true.

Thanks CJ. I can't wait for a complete translation. My guess has been that the motivation summarizes the crime and possibilities and then says that nothing can be proven.

 

[Bill Williams]

In South Africa establishing motive is not essential to a finding of guilt. If the motive was blurred the state wouldn't introduce one.

Probably true in Italy as well. Yet motive was important enough in this case for the 2013 ISC to remand with motive being on the table. Motive was certainly important **enough** to the prosecution of this case that they invented thm by the sackful - because, it seems, without motive to tie stuff together, it just made no sense.

I hope I'm wrong about the Marasca Judgement but I fear it will be a "throw our hands in the air and get rid of this by acquitting and move on". They seem oblivious to the fact that they owe a care of duty to society, the accused, the deceased and family and to their own conscience.
Hellmann nailed it. They are simple innocent.

Ditto. Still, with all the caveats of an appeal to a document from Google translate... it still seems fairly conclusive.

They didn't do it.

I wish I could remember the name of the poster who said it, esp. the reference to the examples used. The poster said that as far as she was concerned the evidence against AK and RS was nearly all "judicially generated". Things like Stefanoni coming to court with her verbal summary of what she said convicted the pair, but without the EDF's it simply was something she was saying, not demonstrating.

Things like the "judicial facts" which migrated from Rudy's process.... those sorts of things. The ultimate was (IIRC) Nencini cherry-picking from Rudy's statements that the motive was rent-money; where Rudy was also saying that it had been Meredith letting him in, and their sexual activity was consensual.

Judicially generated in the sense that it was simply either prosecutor or judicial assertions, or in Stefanoni's case a judge who believed her simply on her say-so.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was a common garden typo, immediately apparent to most people. Is that what you mean by slow-flooding?

Nope, this post is not what I mean by slow-flooding. It actually addressed an issue at hand. Kudos.

Actually there was another typo in the Nencini report - that one was the sentence that said, "they are guilty."

ETA - I'm glad you both acknowledge its existence and its wrongness. However, it's a bit of a stretch to call a blatant misstatement of a material fact, a simple typo!

 

[carbonjam72]

Thanks CJ. I can't wait for a complete translation. My guess has been that the motivation summarizes the crime and possibilities and then says that nothing can be proven.

That's what it looked like to me, written in high Italian style, marvelously jumbled up in google translate. It's a mess, but I think the meaning is discernible.

It was pretty clear to me Marasca stated flat out that the defendants alibi had not been disproved, and could be true.

Also, it reconfirmed the statement from 1st section cassation, that the retest of the knife sample would be decisive. So no trace of Amanda or Raf in the murder room, meant they had to be acquitted. Stating their alibi could be true, can only mean it wasn't proven they were in the house either, at the time of the crime. The rest is window dressing.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Nope, this post is not what I mean by slow-flooding. It actually addressed an issue at hand. Kudos.

Actually there was another typo in the Nencini report - that one was the sentence that said, "they are guilty."

ETA - I'm glad you both acknowledge its existence and its wrongness. However, it's a bit of a stretch to call a blatant misstatement of a material fact, a simple typo!

I thought it had been agreed upon not to respond to trolling. I think that is a very wise request. Let's save the pixels for discussing the translated report and the ECHR ruling.

 

[acbytesla]

Nope, this post is not what I mean by slow-flooding. It actually addressed an issue at hand. Kudos.

Actually there was another typo in the Nencini report - that one was the sentence that said, "they are guilty."

ETA - I'm glad you both acknowledge its existence and its wrongness. However, it's a bit of a stretch to call a blatant misstatement of a material fact, a simple typo!

Isn't it amazing when she can no longer dispute her misstatements of fact that she says it's a typo or semantics or a simple misunderstanding.

But what I really don't understand is how in the face of us proving very conclusively 99 percent of the reasons she has used to come to the conclusion that A&R were guilty are false how she still clings to the idea that they are guilty? Huh?

Me, if discovered that I lad been lied to consistently, I'd start to disbelieve those people and that idea. But hey, that's just me.

 

[acbytesla]

That's what it looked like to me, written in high Italian style, marvelously jumbled up in google translate. It's a mess, but I think the meaning is discernible.

It was pretty clear to me Marasca stated flat out that the defendants alibi had not been disproved, and could be true.

Also, it reconfirmed the statement from 1st section cassation, that the retest of the knife sample would be decisive. So no trace of Amanda or Raf in the murder room, meant they had to be acquitted. Stating their alibi could be true, can only mean it wasn't proven they were in the house either, at the time of the crime. The rest is window dressing.

Thanks again CJ. I always felt that they would say basically that about the retest of the knife. It's nice to know I predicted something.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks again CJ. I always felt that they would say basically that about the retest of the knife. It's nice to know I predicted something.

Can you provide the section of the ISC report that said the retest of the knife would be decisive? My recollection is that they said C&V hadn't completed their mandate. It of course makes no sense for the retest coming out with more of Amanda's DNA proving anything one way or the other.

 

[acbytesla]

Can you provide the section of the ISC report that said the retest of the knife would be decisive? My recollection is that they said C&V hadn't completed their mandate. It of course makes no sense for the retest coming out with more of Amanda's DNA proving anything one way or the other.

Unfortunately I can't. I have all that data on my desktop PC back in Seattle in storage. I'm now operating with my tablet on the road....now presently in Carson City Nevada.

IIRC, the Cheiffi court said something to that effect but I'm not sure where. Maybe somebody else can help. My impression was that they scolded Hellman when he ruled that further testing of the knife was unnecessary. They basically demanded Nencini to review a few things. One was someone's testimony, the other was 36I and the third...I can't remember.

 

[bagels]

Can you provide the section of the ISC report that said the retest of the knife would be decisive? My recollection is that they said C&V hadn't completed their mandate. It of course makes no sense for the retest coming out with more of Amanda's DNA proving anything one way or the other.

This is the relevant portion from the Chieffi report:

[The Prosecutor General asserts] inconsistency and manifest lack of logic in the reasoning, the failure to obtain a decisive piece of evidence, in reference to the order of 7 September 2011 rejecting the request for a new test [on the knife blade].

If they meant it would prove decisive if it contained Meredith's DNA rather than actually decisive, they should have referred to it as "potentially a decisive piece of evidence." But I tend to agree they never meant to imply the test could prove innocence. I think from Cheiffi's viewpoint guilt was well established and he just assumed the knife would test positive for more of MK's DNA since it had obviously been in her neck, what with it not fitting any of the wounds or imprint or making sense to have been carried over there randomly, but Curatolo knew her eye color a year later.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's what it looked like to me, written in high Italian style, marvelously jumbled up in google translate. It's a mess, but I think the meaning is discernible.

It was pretty clear to me Marasca stated flat out that the defendants alibi had not been disproved, and could be true.

Also, it reconfirmed the statement from 1st section cassation, that the retest of the knife sample would be decisive. So no trace of Amanda or Raf in the murder room, meant they had to be acquitted. Stating their alibi could be true, can only mean it wasn't proven they were in the house either, at the time of the crime. The rest is window dressing.

Thanks again CJ. I always felt that they would say basically that about the retest of the knife. It's nice to know I predicted something.

That is one of the puzzles of the Nencini 2nd-grade court. All three referred issues went the defence's way. And that is my reading of the reasons for the 36I retest, too, that the resolution of it would be decisive - in the opinion of the 2013 ISC.

So Nencini did nothing, if not open he door wide for the 2015 ISC section to rule the way it did?

Following all of these issues through, what was left? What was left for the ISC to remand again to the 2nd Grade? That begins to look like the Italian judiciary was simply going to play "ping-pong" (as Bongiorno put it in 2013) until the convicted.

 

[acbytesla]

That is one of the puzzles of the Nencini 2nd-grade court. All three referred issues went the defence's way. And that is my reading of the reasons for the 36I retest, too, that the resolution of it would be decisive - in the opinion of the 2013 ISC.

So Nencini did nothing, if not open he door wide for the 2015 ISC section to rule the way it did?

Following all of these issues through, what was left? What was left for the ISC to remand again to the 2nd Grade? That begins to look like the Italian judiciary was simply going to play "ping-pong" (as Bongiorno put it in 2013) until the convicted.

I agree. However the tenor of 2013 ISC's ruling seemed almost to demand that Nencini come back with a guilty verdict.

 

[Grinder]

This is the relevant portion from the Chieffi report:



If they meant it would prove decisive if it contained Meredith's DNA rather than actually decisive, they should have referred to it as "potentially a decisive piece of evidence." But I tend to agree they never meant to imply the test could prove innocence. I think from Cheiffi's viewpoint guilt was well established and he just assumed the knife would test positive for more of MK's DNA since it had obviously been in her neck, what with it not fitting any of the wounds or imprint or making sense to have been carried over there randomly, but Curatolo knew her eye color a year later.

I think they didn't care what came out, but the rules needed to be followed and the mandate to C&V required them to run the test. It was a definitive reason by arcane Italian law to annul Hellmann.

 

[bagels]

I think they didn't care what came out, but the rules needed to be followed and the mandate to C&V required them to run the test. It was a definitive reason by arcane Italian law to annul Hellmann.

Well in the end the test did decisively prove how Amanda held the knife while she murdered Meredith.

 

[acbytesla]

Well in the end the test did decisively prove how Amanda held the knife while she murdered Meredith.

????? Huh??????????

 

[Grinder]

Well in the end the test did decisively prove how Amanda held the knife while she murdered Meredith.

????? Huh??????????

Go back and read "The Book of Bagels" and you may then understand.