Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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

There's a book?

 

[Grinder]

There's a book?

Aargh.

 

[anglolawyer]

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,

The judgment says she was in the kitchen at the time of the murder. I'll post the translated segment if permitted by the group that's working on the motivation.

It says other things that will surprise you, and not in a good way. I begin to see why Mach has gone ape- ****.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

You will find that you are indeed wrong. Amen to the rest of the highlighted bit. I am as disgusted as Mach, but from the other end of the spectrum.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Yes, they say there exist grounds for strong suspicion, which aren't enough to put her in the room.

Listen folks, I am not being mysterious, just courteous to those who are translating. They may not want various unedited drafts floating about on the internet.

 

[Numbers]

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.

acby,

It was the great, ingenious DOCTOR* STEFANONI who developed the theory of identifying how a knife handle was held and how used, based on the position of fragments of user's DNA found thereon. And has applied it only in the Amanda Knox case, and it's a perfect match to the prosecution's theory of the crime, "surprisingly".**


* In the Italian cultural sense - meaning, has the equivalent of a BS degree.

**See Dr. Peter Gill's chapter on the DNA analysis of the AK-RS case for some critical commentary of DOCTOR* STEFANONI's great and unique discovery. (Unique in that real DNA experts don't accept it.)

***The issue may also be thoroughly discussed in "The Book of Bagels", otherwise Grinder would not write it. {ETA}

 

[Grinder]

It's too bad that certain elements promoted the idea that they were found innocent rather than not guilty. The more that comes out, the more it sounds like Mach has much of it correct and the judgment may well not conform with Italian law.

I really do wonder what the average Italian thinks of this specific case and the judiciary in general.

I don't get why the prosecution/police lovin' PGP don't see what a bad job was done and how ridiculous the Novelli "contamination must be proven" bull.

As I write the PGP are quoting as gospel the judges they like while not seeing any issues. They still don't believe DNA can fly but can't explain why the labs need positive pressure hoods...oh well.

 

[acbytesla]

The judgment says she was in the kitchen at the time of the murder. I'll post the translated segment if permitted by the group that's working on the motivation.

It says other things that will surprise you, and not in a good way. I begin to see why Mach has gone ape- ****.

That's too bad. Still, it really doesn't matter since they acquitted them. But you know who it's really too bad for besides A&R? The Kerchers. No wonder they're confused when the court sends such mixed signals.

 

[acbytesla]

It's too bad that certain elements promoted the idea that they were found innocent rather than not guilty. The more that comes out, the more it sounds like Mach has much of it correct and the judgment may well not conform with Italian law.

I really do wonder what the average Italian thinks of this specific case and the judiciary in general.

I don't get why the prosecution/police lovin' PGP don't see what a bad job was done and how ridiculous the Novelli "contamination must be proven" bull.

As I write the PGP are quoting as gospel the judges they like while not seeing any issues. They still don't believe DNA can fly but can't explain why the labs need positive pressure hoods...oh well.

No offense Grinder but they are synonymous.

 

[carbonjam72]

Decisive, yes decisive...

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.

Not sure if you were asking for Chieffi or Marasca, but here's the quote from Marasca that I interpreted, courtesy of google translate (P.45):


The figure is strongly suspected, but not decisive, apart from the well-known considerations for safe and traceable nature of the tracks in question.
Nevertheless, even in some considered the attribution, the element of the case would not unique, as well as a demonstration posthumously contact with the blood, perhaps seeking to remove the most obvious traces of what happened, perhaps to help someone or to ward off by self suspects, without this help give certainty of its direct involvement in the homicidal. Any further and more meaningful value would, in fact, still resisted by the fact - this decisive yes - that no trace of her was found and refers to the place of the crime or the victim's body, so that the - all grant - the contact with blood the same would happen at a later time and in another room of the house.

 

[Bill Williams]

You will find that you are indeed wrong. Amen to the rest of the highlighted bit. I am as disgusted as Mach, but from the other end of the spectrum.

I'm not asking anyone to explain it, but I've just gone to Google.IT, and done a search for the latest Italian language **anything**. Google allows for limits to searches for the last 24 hours or so.....

If both your own and Machiavelli's disgust is justified, why is that not reflected there? Everyone can try it......

http://www.giurisprudenzapenale.com/2015/09/08/processo-meredith-depositate-le-motivazioni-della-corte-di-cassazione-cass-pen-360802015/

Penal Jurisprudence (8 Sept): the full text of the Maasca report is available for download, but the intro makes no mention of anything detrimental to the defence, save for the calunnia.

http://www.giulemanidallajuve.com/newsite/articoli_dettaglio.asp?id=4411

Giu le Mani Dalla Juve (9 Sept): compares Marasca's findings with another case where a former Supreme Court ruling should not be regarded as gospel.

http://solonews.net/29211/news/meredith-per-la-cassazione-clamorose-omissioni-nellinchiesta.html

Solo News (16 Sept): save for reporting about the "certainty of the calunnia", the case was marked by, "Among the reasons of the judges, it is stressed that the entire procedure has had "a process objectively wavering, whose oscillations are, however, also the result of sensational defaillance or" amnesia "investigative and guilty omission of investigations".

http://ilcentro.gelocal.it/chieti/cronaca/2015/09/16/news/terna-si-affida-all-avvocato-bongiorno-1.12103724?refresh_ce

Il Centro (16 Sept): about Bongiorno's next case!

I'm not asking anyone to explain it........ perhaps others can try their own Italian language Google searches, maybe my own confirmation bias is biasing the keypresses!

This has been in Italian in Italy for two weeks. Rhetorical question..... well, you know what that question is.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, they say there exist grounds for strong suspicion, which aren't enough to put her in the room.
Listen folks, I am not being mysterious, just courteous to those who are translating. They may not want various unedited drafts floating about on the internet.

And that Raffaele must be there too because they both turned off their phones and the two of them were always in each others' company?

 

[bagels]

It's too bad that certain elements promoted the idea that they were found innocent rather than not guilty. The more that comes out, the more it sounds like Mach has much of it correct and the judgment may well not conform with Italian law.

I really do wonder what the average Italian thinks of this specific case and the judiciary in general.

I don't get why the prosecution/police lovin' PGP don't see what a bad job was done and how ridiculous the Novelli "contamination must be proven" bull.

As I write the PGP are quoting as gospel the judges they like while not seeing any issues. They still don't believe DNA can fly but can't explain why the labs need positive pressure hoods...oh well.

It probably conforms to Italian law. Didn't RandyN or someone say that for every law Italy has, they have an equal and opposite law.

 

[acbytesla]

acby,

It was the great, ingenious DOCTOR* STEFANONI who developed the theory of identifying how a knife handle was held and how used, based on the position of fragments of user's DNA found thereon. And has applied it only in the Amanda Knox case, and it's a perfect match to the prosecution's theory of the crime, "surprisingly".**


* In the Italian cultural sense - meaning, has the equivalent of a BS degree.

**See Dr. Peter Gill's chapter on the DNA analysis of the AK-RS case for some critical commentary of DOCTOR* STEFANONI's great and unique discovery. (Unique in that real DNA experts don't accept it.)

***The issue may also be thoroughly discussed in "The Book of Bagels", otherwise Grinder would not write it. {ETA}

Why do these people do this kind of nonsense? I don't get a scientist song that? Don't the know that DESTROYS their credibility? Like the Medical examiner in the Kayak case saying the cause of Death was homicide because plugs were removed from the kayak. One cannot determine that through an autopsy.

People really piss me off. What the hell is wrong with saying what you actually know and leaving it at that?

 

[Numbers]

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.

Mike,

The Italian CSC may pretty much do what it wants; it doesn't answer to any institution.

There are some rules laid out, that it is supposed to follow, in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), and probably it sometimes mostly follows the Italian Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights case-law.

In a sense, some of the rules it is supposed to follow are really rules governing how appellants present their cases. The CSC will lawfully indirectly consider evidence under an appeal that a lower court judgment was based on grounds that were lacking, contradictory, or manifestly illogical (CPP Art. 606 para. 1 (e)). Otherwise, CPP Art. 606 directs the CSC to consider points of law.

One would think that an appeal court judgment, even by a Supreme Court of Cassation (which is not a constitutional court), would deal primarily with the questions before it on appeal, but Italian CSC judgments may come with additional narrative as part of the Italian judicial tradition.

I am awaiting a clear translation of the ruling before I make any additional possibly unjustified snide remarks.

 

[carbonjam72]

The judgment says she was in the kitchen at the time of the murder. I'll post the translated segment if permitted by the group that's working on the motivation.

It says other things that will surprise you, and not in a good way. I begin to see why Mach has gone ape- ****.

Respectfully, I disagree with this reading.

While Marasca indicates many reasons for 'strong suspicions', it does state that the defendants' alibi has not been disproven (P.46, IIRC). It may state the 'suspicions' in a strident tone when doing so, but ultimately acknowledges that the defendants alibi may well be true, hence one (me) presumes the presence of reasonable doubt.

With the presence of reasonable doubt, Marasca holds the defendants must be acquitted, under 530, para 2. So I would expect to start seeing 530 para 2 acquittals in the near future in Italian 'zero evidence' cases. (Like Misseri).

(So far in Italy, IIRC, only this case and Bonjourno's other case with Andreotti(?), resulted in 530 para 2 acquittals).

 

[anglolawyer]

And that Raffaele must be there too because they both turned off their phones and the two of them were always in each others' company?

No, I didn't see that but I haven't read the whole thing, just bits and pieces as they come out.

Carbonjam72 - there may be other parts of the report that provide some kind of ameliorating context, I don't know.

 

[Grinder]

No offense Grinder but they are synonymous.

Oh Tesla.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's too bad that certain elements promoted the idea that they were found innocent rather than not guilty. The more that comes out, the more it sounds like Mach has much of it correct and the judgment may well not conform with Italian law.

I really do wonder what the average Italian thinks of this specific case and the judiciary in general.
I don't get why the prosecution/police lovin' PGP don't see what a bad job was done and how ridiculous the Novelli "contamination must be proven" bull.

As I write the PGP are quoting as gospel the judges they like while not seeing any issues. They still don't believe DNA can fly but can't explain why the labs need positive pressure hoods...oh well.

Spend some time on Italian Google.

I just found another which is the first one that has departed from the more general tone of representing the Marasca report as a condemnation of the prosecution and former courts. It focussed on issues of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Still the very next one which came up wondered why anyone ever wondered why the murderer has never been found? Rudy Guede is in jail.

There was another one about the reaction of the English family of the victim.

Another says that to read the motivations report "critically" puts an end to this story. Yet it regrets that the report contained no sanctions, because then nothing would change.

And on and on. What does the "average" Italian think? Well, maybe the "average" Italian is beyond the reach of even Google.IT!

 

[Numbers]

Why do these people do this kind of nonsense? I don't get a scientist song that? Don't the know that DESTROYS their credibility? Like the Medical examiner in the Kayak case saying the cause of Death was homicide because plugs were removed from the kayak. One cannot determine that through an autopsy.

People really piss me off. What the hell is wrong with saying what you actually know and leaving it at that?

Once it is decided that the suspect is guilty - because only a guilty person would be suspected - then it becomes clear that all the evidence, even the non-evidence, supports the guilt of that person. Isn't that the official suspect-centric method?

Does that method destroy credibility? Probably the practitioners are immune to that concern.