Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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!

I really don't know what you've trying to prove in these back and forths with Mach but I played your game and put Marasca "Amanda Knox" .it and an article from http://firenze.repubblica.it/ came up with this near the top:

According to the Supreme Court, if it were not for these defaillance investigation, and if the investigation had not been affected by these "guilty omissions", it would "in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to outline a framework, if not certainty at least tranquilizer reliability, a view you want the guilt of foreignness "of Knox and Sollecito respect to the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on November 1, 2007.

Obviously Google but it would seem to say that had the investigation not been so bungled most likely Amanda and Raf would have been found guilty.

I doubt that the Italians in general are very concerned about this case. The article I put up a while back seemed to say that it was just another case where victims are not given their due.

 

[bagels]

Lol the new report says the murder is incompatible with a thief breaking in and then sexually assaulting and killing Meredith when she unexpectedly returns. It says while it's possible a thief would be overcome by sexual urges at the site of a defenseless woman, it would make no sense to kill her after he was finished, unless he was a serial killer, and there are no serial killers in Perugia.

I guess this is how Italians think? Does this make sense in their country? I thought Massei, Nencini, and Cheiffi were outliers, but this schizophrenic logic appears to be the norm.

 

[Bill Williams]

I really don't know what you've trying to prove in these back and forths with Mach but I played your game and put Marasca "Amanda Knox" .it and an article from http://firenze.repubblica.it/ came up with this near the top:

According to the Supreme Court, if it were not for these defaillance investigation, and if the investigation had not been affected by these "guilty omissions", it would "in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to outline a framework, if not certainty at least tranquilizer reliability, a view you want the guilt of foreignness "of Knox and Sollecito respect to the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on November 1, 2007.

Obviously Google but it would seem to say that had the investigation not been so bungled most likely Amanda and Raf would have been found guilty.

I doubt that the Italians in general are very concerned about this case. The article I put up a while back seemed to say that it was just another case where victims are not given their due.

Whether the same one or not, I saw one that said the victims were not given their due. But not sure where the hostility comes from.... but that Republicca article was one I posted a whole ago. You played my "game"? No matter. It's quite some "game" to go to sources within Italy to see what the buzz is there. I suppose to you it is a game. No matter.

Here's the Sept 8 Repubblica article run through Google translate, in total. I'm not trying to prove anything, I was hoping Mach would let us in on why the apparent guilt-like things in Marasca that Anglo is reading, competently translated, have not at all been eflected in Italy, where they've been reading it in Italian for 11 days. It is as you say, "Italians in general are very concerned about this case."

Mez, the Supreme crushes the investigation "Resounding errors"
ROME.

Blatant errors. Contradictions. Remains unusable. Tests that do not dispel doubts. Amnesia. Guilty failures to investigate.

Five months after obtaining of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, the Supreme Court, in the written judgment, it breaks years of investigations and trials on the murder of Meredith Kercher. Leaving open doubts, suspicions and questions on that Halloween night of 2007, when Meredith, English student at the University of Perugia, was killed with a knife to her throat, in the house she shared with her friend American Amanda Knox. Beyond the guilt of Rudy Guede, established by the evidence, considered the author of the crime, Amanda and Raffaele, writes the Supreme Court, there is no "evidence together marked by evidence beyond beyond reasonable doubt".

So there is no evidence of the irrefutable presence of Amanda and Raffaele, at that time engaged, the "crime scene." And even it is assuming that the two were in the house on Via della Pergola, the "absolute lack of biological traces in their related 'rules out' their material interest to the murder." But above all the entire investigation into the death of Meredith he would have "a process wavering, with sensational defaillance amnesia or investigation." So a chain of mistakes and approximations that besides Rudy Guede would not allow to identify other culprits. To the judges of the Supreme Court it did not stay so that fulfill the two young and uphold the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Florence. "It is now clear: I was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice that will go down in history," said Raffaele Sollecito, while Amanda Knox has said to be "very relieved." Hot reactions, two young people who after the ruling of the Supreme Court in April, have recovered life.

In fact the judges explain that the acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele is the daughter of an investigation that has not proved the guilt, rather than establish his innocence. And among the most glaring errors there are those related to the finds and genetic investigations. In practice the two items of "greater investigative interest", namely a kitchen knife and a bra clasp of Meredith, would be collected and stored in ways entirely inappropriate, making scientific analyzes unusable. In particular, the kitchen knife, found in the house of Raffaele Sollecito, was consevato in a "common cardboard box" of Christmas gadgets. Even worse the "fate" of the hooks, abandoned at the scene for a full 46 days, and then "walked and moved 'before being collected and analyzed. Not to mention pcs Raffaele and Amanda, "burnt by careless maneuvers of the investigators." The Supreme Court then tip your finger on too much "hype."

So, after years of inconsistent verdicts, the death of poor Merdith Kercher remain for the Supreme Court two certainties. The guilt of Rudy Guede, one murderess and the just condemnation of Amanda Knox for slander against Patrick Lumumba, whom she falsely accused dell'omidicio Metz. The rest is the bitterness of Kercher: "Justice Italian wanted to write the final word on this matter."

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2015/09/08/mez-la-cassazione-stronca-linchiesta-clamorosi-errori16.html?ref=search

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

See pg 46. I've posted the chunk up thread. Seems to make it clear that their alibi had not been "disproven with tranquility". I can only read that as, they may have actually been at Raf's apartment all night, just as they have always claimed - not including the coerced statements.

Luca C has said the document is a compromise. I agree they hit the 'what if's' pretty hard. But in the end, they said the case wasn't there, and their alibi may be true. So its all splooge, IUAM.

 

[Numbers]

Lol the new report says the murder is incompatible with a thief breaking in and then sexually assaulting and killing Meredith when she unexpectedly returns. It says while it's possible a thief would be overcome by sexual urges at the site of a defenseless woman, it would make no sense to kill her after he was finished, unless he was a serial killer, and there are no serial killers in Perugia.

I guess this is how Italians think? Does this make sense in their country? I thought Massei, Nencini, and Cheiffi were outliers, but this schizophrenic logic appears to be the norm.

Logic and philosophical musings can be so important in these Italian judicial reasonings that evidence, experience, and common sense may be neglected. The Hellmann court motivation report was an exception; it was very clear, except for the conclusion on the calunnia conviction. I am hoping that the Marasca panel CSC MR will mostly make sense after a clear translation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Logic and philosophical musings can be so important in these Italian judicial reasonings that evidence, experience, and common sense may be neglected. The Hellmann court motivation report was an exception; it was very clear, except for the conclusion on the calunnia conviction. I am hoping that the Marasca panel CSC MR will mostly make sense after a clear translation.

I think you will be disappointed.

Hellman totally screwed up calumny (apparently, according to him, in a highly unjudicial attempt to throw a bone to the rabid prosecutors) and made other errors too, for example, when attempting to explain the bathmat print. I agree, he did not descend into the ridicluous legalese favoured by the ISC which brings me out in spots every time I read it. You need two translations for these lousy motivations: Italian to English and then English to English English.

 

[LondonJohn]

See pg 46. I've posted the chunk up thread. Seems to make it clear that their alibi had not been "disproven with tranquility". I can only read that as, they may have actually been at Raf's apartment all night, just as they have always claimed - not including the coerced statements.

Luca C has said the document is a compromise. I agree they hit the 'what if's' pretty hard. But in the end, they said the case wasn't there, and their alibi may be true. So its all splooge, IUAM.

I think that this is the critical point. It was immensely important for the Marasca SC panel not to contradict or criticise previous SC rulings - to have done so would have opened up a judicial and constitutional can of worms. And to a lesser extent, it was important for the Maresca SC panel to minimise contradiction with appeal-level judgements (though criticism of this level was easier).

And the reason for such a strategy should be obvious. Justice systems can only function if they are perceived to have legitimacy. And legitimacy comes through the perception of fairness, competence, consistency, robustness and absolute authority. If one SC panel starts contradicting and overruling another SC panel, the system opens itself up to charges of inconsistency, incompetence, and diminished legitimacy. In addition of course, any contradiction in SC rulings would mean a complicated revisit to the previous ruling in order to try to square the circle.

So I think that for philosophical and judicial reasons, Marasca's SC panel could not contradict (or even challenge) the earlier SC rulings about Guede not acting alone and about Knox committing aggravated criminal slander (which in itself implied that she had to have been present in order to know that Lumumba wasn't there). And I think that this is precisely why the Marasca report reads so strangely: he needed to be explicit in showing that his court's acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was wholly compatible with all previous SC rulings. I believe Marasca and his panel know full well that the ECHR will demand fair remedy on the Knox criminal slander conviction (which in practice will necessarily entail annulment of the conviction), and they've indicated as such in their report, but they knew that this was not their remit or their problem so they understandably declined to address it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Some extracts from the translation

I have limited permission to reproduce a few paragraphs from the section I have been referring to in recent posts:

9.4.1. Given the above ['the above' refers to the part of the discussion which excludes their involvement in the murder by Eason of the absence of traces in the victim's room] the position of Amanda Knox is now considered, her presence in the home, where the murder took place, was a clear fact during the trial, following her own admissions, contained also in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s heartbreaking scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so she could hear no more. Regarding the same, the decision by the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] that this was reliable is certainly shared referring to this part of the accused’s story, to the plausible effect that it was she who first mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s heartbreaking scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an examination of the body or of the post-mortem nor witness information later taken regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others). In particular we refer to the appellant’s declarations of 6.11.2007 (f, 96) in the police station. On the other hand the calumnious statements regarding Lumumba, which led to her guilty verdict, with a ruling already reached, had as part of the story the presence of the young American in the via della Pergola home, a fact which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quotation f. 96)

....

Another element against her is, certainly, the calumny against Lumumba, which has already been referred to.

It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these grave accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the via della Pergola home. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would have then led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.

Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents a clue against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, who she would have had interest to protect due to retaliatory accusations against her. All is underpinned by the fact that Lumumba, like Guede, is black, hence the reliable reference to the former, in case the other was seen by someone coming into or going out of the flat.

I wish I could reproduce it all but the full translation will soon be out and those working on it are entitled to our patience and appreciation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you will be disappointed.

Hellman totally screwed up calumny (apparently, according to him, in a highly unjudicial attempt to throw a bone to the rabid prosecutors) and made other errors too, for example, when attempting to explain the bathmat print. I agree, he did not descend into the ridicluous legalese favoured by the ISC which brings me out in spots every time I read it. You need two translations for these lousy motivations: Italian to English and then English to English English.

If the Knox/Sollecito trials fiasco has been good for anything, it's been to show just how horribly broken the Italian criminal justice system is at every level. It's self-evidently a confused and confusing mess, where patronage, politics and face-saving play a disgracefully prominent role. And there's very obviously a hideous inability to address the last vestiges of fascist legislation and judicial practices. It's clear that Italian courts of all colours are still unable and/or unwilling to adopt the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" and the associated burden of proof rules. Associate with this, there is an improperly close relationship between public prosecutors and judges, with the default position seeming to be that both these parties are "on the same side". And the multi-court system is a sick joke which leads to less effective justice and a crazily elongated judicial process.

Quite simply, Italy needs to be kicked into sorting out its justice system. It needs to rewrite legislation, to separate prosecutors from courts and judges, and to find a way of instigating legitimate first-instance courts whose verdicts are binding barring clear grounds for appeal.

 

[bagels]

9.4.1. Given the above ['the above' refers to the part of the discussion which excludes their involvement in the murder by Eason of the absence of traces in the victim's room] the position of Amanda Knox is now considered, her presence in the home, where the murder took place, was a clear fact during the trial, following her own admissions, contained also in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s heartbreaking scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so she could hear no more. Regarding the same, the decision by the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] that this was reliable is certainly shared referring to this part of the accused’s story, to the plausible effect that it was she who first mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s heartbreaking scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an examination of the body or of the post-mortem nor witness information later taken regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others). In particular we refer to the appellant’s declarations of 6.11.2007 (f, 96) in the police station. On the other hand the calumnious statements regarding Lumumba, which led to her guilty verdict, with a ruling already reached, had as part of the story the presence of the young American in the via della Pergola home, a fact which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quotation f. 96)

Is this some sort of weird circular time loop reasoning that Amanda's statements about being in the house establish an American was in the house, and since this is established, Amanda making statements about an American being in the house proves she has inside information?

 

[anglolawyer]

Is this some sort of weird circular time loop reasoning that Amanda's statements about being in the house establish an American was in the house, and since this is established, Amanda making statements about an American being in the house proves she has inside information?

You tell me. The in your post is totally appropriate. Far from being 'unusable' her accusation against Lumumba has now morphed into the centre-piece of the judgment, trumping everything else.

 

[anglolawyer]

If the Knox/Sollecito trials fiasco has been good for anything, it's been to show just how horribly broken the Italian criminal justice system is at every level. It's self-evidently a confused and confusing mess, where patronage, politics and face-saving play a disgracefully prominent role. And there's very obviously a hideous inability to address the last vestiges of fascist legislation and judicial practices. It's clear that Italian courts of all colours are still unable and/or unwilling to adopt the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" and the associated burden of proof rules. Associate with this, there is an improperly close relationship between public prosecutors and judges, with the default position seeming to be that both these parties are "on the same side". And the multi-court system is a sick joke which leads to less effective justice and a crazily elongated judicial process.

Quite simply, Italy needs to be kicked into sorting out its justice system. It needs to rewrite legislation, to separate prosecutors from courts and judges, and to find a way of instigating legitimate first-instance courts whose verdicts are binding barring clear grounds for appeal.

All of the above plus a disease of hyper-intellectualism which infuses every ISC judgment as well as documents like the Galati appeal (of its kind, probably a masterpiece).

 

[Samson]

If the Knox/Sollecito trials fiasco has been good for anything, it's been to show just how horribly broken the Italian criminal justice system is at every level. It's self-evidently a confused and confusing mess, where patronage, politics and face-saving play a disgracefully prominent role. And there's very obviously a hideous inability to address the last vestiges of fascist legislation and judicial practices. It's clear that Italian courts of all colours are still unable and/or unwilling to adopt the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" and the associated burden of proof rules. Associate with this, there is an improperly close relationship between public prosecutors and judges, with the default position seeming to be that both these parties are "on the same side". And the multi-court system is a sick joke which leads to less effective justice and a crazily elongated judicial process.

Quite simply, Italy needs to be kicked into sorting out its justice system. It needs to rewrite legislation, to separate prosecutors from courts and judges, and to find a way of instigating legitimate first-instance courts whose verdicts are binding barring clear grounds for appeal.

All that is so, and in a similar case Sabrina and Cosima Misseri have had their appeal rejected, with no recourse to international scrutiny. But Luca Cheli has no doubt in that case, they are innocent. Nothing will be done.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You think acquittal is the main issue (or,rather, annulment)?

If the pair remain "almost certainly guilty of being accessory to murder, but we don't want our Italian citizen serving 25 years whilst the American can gallivant around freely", then that is vindication of a sort for the prosecution, and leaves a window for successful litigation by the Kerchers for the defendants' culpability in their daughter's death.

It never was about sentencing. It was about the moral issue of the guilty being found guilty and the innocent, innocent.

That is what people want the Judiciary to get right.

 

[Vixen]

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).

In the Andreotti case, he was initially found not guilty at the merits hearing first instant court. This is a precedent, as Amanda and Raff were never found not guilty at either of the two hearings (merits and appeal). ISC really have acted beyond their legal powers.

 

[carbonjam72]

[/HILITE]

In the Andreotti case, he was initially found not guilty at the merits hearing first instant court. This is a precedent, as Amanda and Raff were never found not guilty at either of the two hearings (merits and appeal). ISC really have acted beyond their legal powers.

You've forgotten about Hellman, which found them innocent. And which Marasca did indeed reference.

 

[anglolawyer]

A good thing about the ISC putting the accusation against Lumumba front and centre of its decision is that the while thing will collapse if and when the ECHR removes that building block. It's not as good as it would be if they had simply said 'all the so-called evidence is utter crap, fit only for the gullible and simple-minded' but there it is.

 

[carbonjam72]

I have limited permission to reproduce a few paragraphs from the section I have been referring to in recent posts:

9.4.1. Given the above ['the above' refers to the part of the discussion which excludes their involvement in the murder by Eason of the absence of traces in the victim's room] the position of Amanda Knox is now considered, her presence in the home, where the murder took place, was a clear fact during the trial, following her own admissions, contained also in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s heartbreaking scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so she could hear no more. Regarding the same, the decision by the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] that this was reliable is certainly shared referring to this part of the accused’s story, to the plausible effect that it was she who first mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s heartbreaking scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an examination of the body or of the post-mortem nor witness information later taken regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others). In particular we refer to the appellant’s declarations of 6.11.2007 (f, 96) in the police station. On the other hand the calumnious statements regarding Lumumba, which led to her guilty verdict, with a ruling already reached, had as part of the story the presence of the young American in the via della Pergola home, a fact which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quotation f. 96)

....

Another element against her is, certainly, the calumny against Lumumba, which has already been referred to.

It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these grave accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the via della Pergola home. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would have then led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.

Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents a clue against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, who she would have had interest to protect due to retaliatory accusations against her. All is underpinned by the fact that Lumumba, like Guede, is black, hence the reliable reference to the former, in case the other was seen by someone coming into or going out of the flat.

I wish I could reproduce it all but the full translation will soon be out and those working on it are entitled to our patience and appreciation.

Anglo, the chunk of the opinion you left out, is the part that states/ameliorates the argument that they may have been in the house, and on the next page (46) flatly states their alibis may be true. Here is the full quote, via google translate, containing the last sentence before your edit, and the first sentence you pick up after it, so th full passage can be seen in context.

Looking at both pieces below, it's pretty clear to me that this is saying the prosecution had an obligation to prove, and failed to do so, that the defendnats' alibi was false. Hence, their presence in the house at the time of the murder has not been established. They may have been at Raf's, according to Marasca.

---------------
The full quote from your spoiler - courtesy of google translate -

Via della Pergola, a fact of which no, at that time - except, of course, other people in the house - were in the knowledge (cit. f. 96).
According to say slanderous of Knox, in the company of Lumumba, met by chance in Piazza Grimana, she had returned home in Via della Pergola and there, coming up Kercher, her companion had addressed sexual attention to the young Englishman, with whom it was so secluded in the room itself, which was then came the agonizing scream. In short, it was Lumumba killing Meredith and what could say this because she was at the scene, albeit in different room.
Another thing against him is represented by the traces of DNA mixed, and his victim, the "small bathroom" to eloquent proof that it was, however, coming into contact with the blood of the latter, who tried to wash (it apparently, the blood washed away, while the notches would refer to her biological consequent rubbing epithelial).
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.Additional element against him is, of course, represented by the same slanders against Lumumba, of which it was said.

----------

And then from page 46 -

Nevertheless, the profiles of intrinsic contradictions and poor reliability of the witnesses, several times as exceptions in the process of merit, not attributing unconditional credit to its versions, is to prove, with certainty tranquilizer, it failed, and then the falsehood, of 'alibi offered by the accused, who claimed to have been in the home of her boyfriend in the late afternoon of 1 November until the morning of the next day. Curatolo (enigmatic character: homeless, drug addict and drug dealer)

--------
As I say, the tough talk about incriminating circumstances is gussied up to appear convincing, or add a dark color, in the context of the paragraphs where it appears. But the court ultimately does not take those steps of saying the defendants could not be completely innocent, and mere victims of a runaway prosecution.

Yes, they comment on the caunnia conviction, but they also accept it was under duress, and as Diocletus noted, seemed to have tee'd it up for the ECHR to reverse, and indeed, anticipate such an outcome.

So a compromise document, yes. But not an overtly conflicted one as Mach has over zealously claimed, IMO.

Big question for you my friend, is the choice of editing the quote in your spoiler.

 

[carbonjam72]

Marasca did not find 'aggravated' slander, nor that presence in the house was proven.

I think that this is the critical point. It was immensely important for the Marasca SC panel not to contradict or criticise previous SC rulings - to have done so would have opened up a judicial and constitutional can of worms. And to a lesser extent, it was important for the Maresca SC panel to minimise contradiction with appeal-level judgements (though criticism of this level was easier).

And the reason for such a strategy should be obvious. Justice systems can only function if they are perceived to have legitimacy. And legitimacy comes through the perception of fairness, competence, consistency, robustness and absolute authority. If one SC panel starts contradicting and overruling another SC panel, the system opens itself up to charges of inconsistency, incompetence, and diminished legitimacy. In addition of course, any contradiction in SC rulings would mean a complicated revisit to the previous ruling in order to try to square the circle.

So I think that for philosophical and judicial reasons, Marasca's SC panel could not contradict (or even challenge) the earlier SC rulings about Guede not acting alone and about Knox committing aggravated criminal slander (which in itself implied that she had to have been present in order to know that Lumumba wasn't there). And I think that this is precisely why the Marasca report reads so strangely: he needed to be explicit in showing that his court's acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was wholly compatible with all previous SC rulings. I believe Marasca and his panel know full well that the ECHR will demand fair remedy on the Knox criminal slander conviction (which in practice will necessarily entail annulment of the conviction), and they've indicated as such in their report, but they knew that this was not their remit or their problem so they understandably declined to address it.

LJ, I mostly agree, and I think your logical analysis of 'aggravated slander' implying a presence in the house, is correct.

However, Marasca did not agree with aggravated slander, it rejected aggravated slander, and reconfirmed Hellman's original slander, and original 3 year sentence.

Hellman - innocent murder & simple calunnia (not in house)

Nencini - guilty of murder & aggravated slander (present in house)

Marasca - innocent of murder & simple (not aggravated) slander (not proven to be in house - so may have been at Rafs.)

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, the chunk of the opinion you left out, is the part that states/ameliorates the argument that they may have been in the house, and on the next page (46) flatly states their alibis may be true. Here is the full quote, via google translate, containing the last sentence before your edit, and the first sentence you pick up after it, so th full passage can be seen in context.

Looking at both pieces below, it's pretty clear to me that this is saying the prosecution had an obligation to prove, and failed to do so, that the defendnats' alibi was false. Hence, their presence in the house at the time of the murder has not been established. They may have been at Raf's, according to Marasca.

---------------
The full quote from your spoiler - courtesy of google translate -



----------

And then from page 46 -


--------
As I say, the tough talk about incriminating circumstances is gussied up to appear convincing, or add a dark color, in the context of the paragraphs where it appears. But the court ultimately does not take those steps of saying the defendants could not be completely innocent, and mere victims of a runaway prosecution.

Yes, they comment on the caunnia conviction, but they also accept it was under duress, and as Diocletus noted, seemed to have tee'd it up for the ECHR to reverse, and indeed, anticipate such an outcome.

So a compromise document, yes. But not an overtly conflicted one as Mach has over zealously claimed, IMO.

Big question for you my friend, is the choice of editing the quote in your spoiler.

Forgive me if I shrink from trying to fathom a google translation of an Italian judgment. The idea alone gives me the shivers. I glanced out of the corner of my eye out of politeness but did not see anything about their alibi not being disproved. I will await the full document before developing, or abandoning, my theme that it will cast a long shadow over their lives.