Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

It always has been. From the arrest until today. It was always the centerpiece and and fallback when any piece of evidence fell away or was challenged and took the form of "and all the lies" and "blame a poor black man".

When reading the parsimonious portion provided I noted the odd wording of
"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,"

they state it was a clear fact because it was a clear fact and later they say how could she know about the scream because she was the first to mention it but of course the "ear witnesses" did know that Amanda had mentioned the scream BEFORE they came forward, another reason not to accept their testimony.

Do they agree with the known fact or is it required they believe it?

 

[anglolawyer]

It always has been. From the arrest until today. It was always the centerpiece and and fallback when any piece of evidence fell away or was challenged and took the form of "and all the lies" and "blame a poor black man".

When reading the parsimonious portion provided I noted the odd wording of
"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,"

they state it was a clear fact because it was a clear fact and later they say how could she know about the scream because she was the first to mention it but of course the "ear witnesses" did know that Amanda had mentioned the scream BEFORE they came forward, another reason not to accept their testimony.

Do they agree with the known fact or is it required they believe it?

Assuming I understand your question then, as I read it, I would say they agree with it.

You say the accusation against Lumumba has always been at the centre of the case and, of course, I get that - in a way. However, in a jury system like yours and mine, the jury would never even have known about it. The judge and counsel would have argued over its admissibility in the absence of the jury and, if the ruling was for the defence, that would be the end of it. In the Italian system, I thought the professional and public judges had to put the accusation out of their minds when considering some aspects of the case but not others.

Her culpability for murder was one aspect for which, I thought, the accusation could not be used. So I don't know why they are even discussing it in the given context and drawing inferences from it, especially the ludicrous possibility that she actually was in the kitchen at the time (why? doing what? what about Curatolo? whose were the running feet if not hers and Guede's? where was Raffaele? etc etc)

 

[Numbers]

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.

I did write mostly. That is not a definitive quantity. Some big chunks of garbage in the Marasca panel CSC MR, I believe.

The Hellmann court MR calunnia decision was, I have argued in posts here, arbitrary and unfair. Its reasoning thus would be found a violation of Convention Article 6 by the ECHR, from my reading of case-law. I am happy that you appear to share this view, to whatever extent.

 

[Grinder]

Assuming I understand your question then, as I read it, I would say they agree with it.

You say the accusation against Lumumba has always been at the centre of the case and, of course, I get that - in a way. However, in a jury system like yours and mine, the jury would never even have known about it. The judge and counsel would have argued over its admissibility in the absence of the jury and, if the ruling was for the defence, that would be the end of it. In the Italian system, I thought the professional and public judges had to put the accusation out of their minds when considering some aspects of the case but not others.

Her culpability for murder was one aspect for which, I thought, the accusation could not be used. So I don't know why they are even discussing it in the given context and drawing inferences from it, especially the ludicrous possibility that she actually was in the kitchen at the time (why? doing what? what about Curatolo? whose were the running feet if not hers and Guede's? where was Raffaele? etc etc)

Not agreeing with them just trying to explain, I believe they used the voluntary memorials as their avenue to knowledge of her being there etc. And of course you are correct that all of that stuff shouldn't have been part of the trial. Neither should Curatolo, Quintavalle or Kokomani been allowed before the jury. The compatible footprints shouldn't have been allowed either. And more...

Crazy.

 

[Numbers]

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.

I believe center-piece is too strong; a side-circus might be better (you may be familiar with the "three-ring circus"). And there are related issues in the Marasca MR.

But I believe what all this means is that when the ECHR considers Amanda's calunnia against Lumumba case, they will take a hard look at the sections of the Marasca MR dealing with the so-called calunnia, and judge them a continued unfairness and thus a violation of Convention Article 6.

Note that the MR does indicate that Amanda maintains her statements were coerced, but nowhere in the MR is there any discussion of any investigation of such allegations, nor of the denial of a lawyer to Amanda in the period when she wrote her memoriales. Some of what the MR is also flat-out misstatement (IIUC, Amanda was silent at the arrest hearing on advice of counsel, and made no statement there about Lumumba or her interrogation).

 

[Numbers]

Assuming I understand your question then, as I read it, I would say they agree with it.

You say the accusation against Lumumba has always been at the centre of the case and, of course, I get that - in a way. However, in a jury system like yours and mine, the jury would never even have known about it. The judge and counsel would have argued over its admissibility in the absence of the jury and, if the ruling was for the defence, that would be the end of it. In the Italian system, I thought the professional and public judges had to put the accusation out of their minds when considering some aspects of the case but not others.

Her culpability for murder was one aspect for which, I thought, the accusation could not be used. So I don't know why they are even discussing it in the given context and drawing inferences from it, especially the ludicrous possibility that she actually was in the kitchen at the time (why? doing what? what about Curatolo? whose were the running feet if not hers and Guede's? where was Raffaele? etc etc)

This is what must be considered contrary to Italian procedural law and Constitution, as well as the Convention.

That's why it doesn't make sense. The Marasca CSC panel did not have the courage to state that Amanda's statements were unusable according to Italian procedural laws because they were obtained in violation of Italian procedural laws. And their use violated the Italian Constitution. And they were unusable to convict because they were obtained in violation of the Convention and ECHR case-law.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

Here's the passage from p.46, where Marasca says the prosecution must prove, and failed to prove, that the defendant's alibi is false. I know its foogled up, but try -


From page 46 -


Quote:
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) //end quote.


Just concentrate on the highlighted sentence fragment, and try to interpret its meaning in any other way, but to conclude that Marasca is acknowledging the defendants alibi has not been proven (with tranquility) to be false.

Once you accept that interpretation, it follows Marasca has not placed Amanda nor Raf at the house AT THE TIME of the murder.

--------------------

More generally -

This opinion seems extremely carefully written, and there are discussions of the acceptability of scientific evidence that strike me as terrific.

For example, the partial profile of Raf, is a nod to the problem of incomplete DNA profiles from LCN data. Marasca ties it to the requirement of specificity in evidence, and so rejects the use of partial DNA profiles to establish identity, because it is not fully certain.

It provides a discussion of why DNA is acceptable in some instances, and not in others, and how far it can be relied upon to prove a point.

What I'm saying is this opinion appears to have been very carefully written, and intended as an exemplary guide to other judges, prosecutors and other cases. This Is the A-team here. Are there some minor inconsistencies, owing to the need to harmonize with a previous cassations verdicts? Well yes. But in the main, this opinion seems to me pretty solid. That's how I read it, with google as my guide.

 

[anglolawyer]

Carbonjam72 - good luck to you. I have the advantage of reading sections of the translated version and I don't find even those particularly clear. Best to wait until we have the whole thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

It always has been. From the arrest until today. It was always the centerpiece and and fallback when any piece of evidence fell away or was challenged and took the form of "and all the lies" and "blame a poor black man".

When reading the parsimonious portion provided I noted the odd wording of
"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,"

they state it was a clear fact because it was a clear fact and later they say how could she know about the scream because she was the first to mention it but of course the "ear witnesses" did know that Amanda had mentioned the scream BEFORE they came forward, another reason not to accept their testimony.

Do they agree with the known fact or is it required they believe it?

Assuming I understand your question then, as I read it, I would say they agree with it.

You say the accusation against Lumumba has always been at the centre of the case and, of course, I get that - in a way. However, in a jury system like yours and mine, the jury would never even have known about it. The judge and counsel would have argued over its admissibility in the absence of the jury and, if the ruling was for the defence, that would be the end of it. In the Italian system, I thought the professional and public judges had to put the accusation out of their minds when considering some aspects of the case but not others.

Her culpability for murder was one aspect for which, I thought, the accusation could not be used. So I don't know why they are even discussing it in the given context and drawing inferences from it, especially the ludicrous possibility that she actually was in the kitchen at the time (why? doing what? what about Curatolo? whose were the running feet if not hers and Guede's? where was Raffaele? etc etc)

That is a good question. Where IS Raffaele? Is he simply assumed to have been there because he was always in Amanda's company - which he wasn't, not even on the previous evening? Is he simply assumed to have been there because they turned off their phones?

How does this reconcile with the bit where the report says that their alibi has never been disproven?

Is this a report that throws all remaining doubt Amanda's way, so as to shield Raffaele from doubt because he's the Italian national?

ETA - I just may throw my lot in with carbonjam72 and keep this at a Google-translate level. And at the risk of being seen to agree with Grinder: "crazy".

 

[Grinder]

That is a good question. Where IS Raffaele? Is he simply assumed to have been there because he was always in Amanda's company - which he wasn't, not even on the previous evening? Is he simply assumed to have been there because they turned off their phones?

How does this reconcile with the bit where the report says that their alibi has never been disproven?

Is this a report that throws all remaining doubt Amanda's way, so as to shield Raffaele from doubt because he's the Italian national?

ETA - I just may throw my lot in with carbonjam72 and keep this at a Google-translate level. And at the risk of being seen to agree with Grinder: "crazy".

Bill remember just after the ISC annulment of Nencini you and other PIP were insisting that the kids were not just found not guilty but innocent?

Are we sure they say that the alibi hasn't been proven false? If they say she was definitely at the cottage during the murder, clearly her alibi is false. That raises the question what would they need to prove it false. Clearly Curatolo proves it false. Do they throw Curatolo out.

I think both sides need to admit that the Italian justice system sucks and combined with dismal police work the case remains a mystery. The PIP will maintain it was Rudy alone and at best the PGP will maintain she was involved.

They would have been better served with yet another trial or even extradition and a full hearing here. While many PIP say all that matters is that they are free, I don't agree and I doubt any of those directly affected on both sides feel good about this end.

ETA - I'd guess they would put Raf as involved because he has given Amanda an alibi that couldn't be true if he were home and she was at the cottage.

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder, I only disagree because being free is likely so much better than being under the continued pressure of further expensive and uncertain litigation, even if without the ringing exoneration that is the only proper outcome. She must make do with the ECHR appeal which, if it goes as it should, will take most of the sting out of this latest affront to truth and justice.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill remember just after the ISC annulment of Nencini you and other PIP were insisting that the kids were not just found not guilty but innocent?

Are we sure they say that the alibi hasn't been proven false? If they say she was definitely at the cottage during the murder, clearly her alibi is false. That raises the question what would they need to prove it false. Clearly Curatolo proves it false. Do they throw Curatolo out.

I think both sides need to admit that the Italian justice system sucks and combined with dismal police work the case remains a mystery. The PIP will maintain it was Rudy alone and at best the PGP will maintain she was involved.

They would have been better served with yet another trial or even extradition and a full hearing here. While many PIP say all that matters is that they are free, I don't agree and I doubt any of those directly affected on both sides feel good about this end.

ETA - I'd guess they would put Raf as involved because he has given Amanda an alibi that couldn't be true if he were home and she was at the cottage.

I do remember.

I do disagree, though, on how the principals might "feel" bout all this. Everyone seems to be getting on with things, except for those of us who comment on webservices.

What folk are forgetting is that this motivations report completely excoriates the police, prosecutors, as well as the 1st Section of ISC. All of us, me included perhaps, are getting hung up on what "forte suspetto" might mean.

It's obviously not gaining traction here to repeat it.... but the direction the Marasca report is sending outlets in Italy is as noted. It's fast yesterday's news, and no one is pointing at the formerly alleged perps.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

You are consistent. Another lie, and more bizarre logic. One, no case as muddled as this "opens a window for successful litigation.
And two, they were found not guilty. Repeat after me, NOT GUILTY!

 

[Desert Fox]

You are consistent. Another lie, and more bizarre logic. One, no case as muddled as this "opens a window for successful litigation.
And two, they were found not guilty. Repeat after me, NOT GUILTY!

Even with the seeming bizarre logic, this is important.

 

[acbytesla]

Even with the seeming bizarre logic, this is important.

Is jt? I feel suckered in again. I really should put her on ignore.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

No you are wrong about AK being an accessory to murder.

My post below is with reference to anglolawyers partial translation. I have reread it several times and I'm still struggling to make complete sense, but...

The Marasca Report takes on board AK's "confession", which describes a traumatised AK witnessing a murder. It does not in any way suggest or imply that she is an accessory to murder.
Strangely the Marasca Judges struggle with the fingering of the wrong man by AK despite accepting her blocking her ears and sliding to the floor, suggesting trauma. AK's reported (strange?) behaviour and confusion following a finding of her being present at the murder of "her friend" (as quoted by the Marasca Report and I emphasise..."FRIEND") would be answered by "post traumatic stress syndrome".

On another note the Marasca Report does not say AK was at the house at the time of the murder as a fact as reported by the pro guilt people. What it does say is this...
"...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...".
"...during the trial...", is a rider which relates to the finding of the lower court. "...was a clear fact..." if correctly translated (and I acknowledge the difficulty if this) appears in the past tense because it refers to the previous courts ruling. The Marasca Report is therefore merely repeating the finding of a "legal fact" in the court a quo, and agreeing with it. The Report does not create the fact that AK was in the house as a statement of fact. This is simply untrue.
I'm still struggling to understand the Marasca Report piece from "anglolawyer" but it's by far the best I've yet seen.

 

[anglolawyer]

No need to put my name in quotes, Mike 1711. It's not my translation either but the work of a bunch of people (one of whom translated this section) who are co-ordinating on facebook. I get to see what they do because I am one of the proof readers. Seems to me it goes further than you are suggesting but maybe we can see better when we read the whole thing. As the ISC judges aren't that great at making themselves clear, maybe we won't.

 

[Desert Fox]

Is jt? I feel suckered in again. I really should put her on ignore.

We are about 95% sure what happened.

Rudy Guede broke into the cottage. Meredeth came home and surprised him. He threatened her with a knife and tried to force himself on her at some stage. Something happened and she was murdered.

During this entire time, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were at his apartment, playing on the computer and having sex.

In the morning, Amanda went home to get some stuff and take a shower. Did not notice anything suspicious initially but something bothered her.

Police were called and eventually the door to Meredeth's room was broken open where her body was found.

Over several days, Amanda was interrogated until she broke and said something vaguely suspicious. Rush to judgement and the police could not take it back. Later some poor forensic evidence was created as well.

I don't know if the Italian court believes what they wrote in their report or if it is covering somebody's backside but does it really matter? About the only thing I would argue is that Amanda really should stay out of Italy.

 

[acbytesla]

We are about 95% sure what happened.

Rudy Guede broke into the cottage. Meredeth came home and surprised him. He threatened her with a knife and tried to force himself on her at some stage. Something happened and she was murdered.

During this entire time, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were at his apartment, playing on the computer and having sex.

In the morning, Amanda went home to get some stuff and take a shower. Did not notice anything suspicious initially but something bothered her.

Police were called and eventually the door to Meredeth's room was broken open where her body was found.

Over several days, Amanda was interrogated until she broke and said something vaguely suspicious. Rush to judgement and the police could not take it back. Later some poor forensic evidence was created as well.

I don't know if the Italian court believes what they wrote in their report or if it is covering somebody's backside but does it really matter? About the only thing I would argue is that Amanda really should stay out of Italy.

I agree with all of this. This whole thing was and is absurd. The people who actually think they are guilty are either corrupt or stupid. I mean moron kind of dumb. I read the various posts from guilters on various forums and they insist on spewing forth disproven nonsense or they spend their time slut shaming. If they do attempt to argue the case on its merits it is a morass of logically inept thinking.

I do notice how some of them claim to be experts or people of high IQs. This too is almost always false as well. Hell, one of the most prominent guilters claims that he is a diety. (I'm pretty sure he's not god) Others claim to be lawyers. One, even claims to be a member of Mensa. Yeah right. That goes next to her claim that Amanda sent a barrage of desperate texts.

Pretty sure that none of this is true. I mean if there really was a case, they wouldn't spend so much time making everything up.

 

[Numbers]

No you are wrong about AK being an accessory to murder.

My post below is with reference to anglolawyers partial translation. I have reread it several times and I'm still struggling to make complete sense, but...

The Marasca Report takes on board AK's "confession", which describes a traumatised AK witnessing a murder. It does not in any way suggest or imply that she is an accessory to murder.
Strangely the Marasca Judges struggle with the fingering of the wrong man by AK despite accepting her blocking her ears and sliding to the floor, suggesting trauma. AK's reported (strange?) behaviour and confusion following a finding of her being present at the murder of "her friend" (as quoted by the Marasca Report and I emphasise..."FRIEND") would be answered by "post traumatic stress syndrome".

On another note the Marasca Report does not say AK was at the house at the time of the murder as a fact as reported by the pro guilt people. What it does say is this...
"...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...".
"...during the trial...", is a rider which relates to the finding of the lower court. "...was a clear fact..." if correctly translated (and I acknowledge the difficulty if this) appears in the past tense because it refers to the previous courts ruling. The Marasca Report is therefore merely repeating the finding of a "legal fact" in the court a quo, and agreeing with it. The Report does not create the fact that AK was in the house as a statement of fact. This is simply untrue.
I'm still struggling to understand the Marasca Report piece from "anglolawyer" but it's by far the best I've yet seen.

No need to put my name in quotes, Mike 1711. It's not my translation either but the work of a bunch of people (one of whom translated this section) who are co-ordinating on facebook. I get to see what they do because I am one of the proof readers. Seems to me it goes further than you are suggesting but maybe we can see better when we read the whole thing. As the ISC judges aren't that great at making themselves clear, maybe we won't.

Insofar as I understand the Marasca MR sections referenced, they are relying on the prior court's (Nencini) MR and that is relying on Amanda's coerced false interrogation statement, made without benefit of counsel, of being present in the cottage at the time of the murder. Since that statement is inadmissible for any purpose under Italian procedural law, strictly interpreted in accordance with Italian procedural law*, it should be considered as an invalid and arbitrary intrusion of inadmissible nonsense into the Marasca MR. It cannot ever have been considered a valid basis of suspicion.

*Rather than at the whim of a Italian judge or court. CPP Art. 191, para. 1: Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.