Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

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.

Not trying to be a fussbudget. Just trying to penetrate the high florentine writing style. Admittedly, very challenging.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

What the Marasca report has revived, is not the "they are guilty" crowd, but the "there are strong suspicions" crowd. Is this crowd moronic, too? That seems to be the only lingering question once competent, English translations become available.

 

[toto]

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.

That's just factual reporting of what the motivations said. I suspect Bill is interested in editorials or commentary that are sceptical at least or outraged that A and R have wrongly got off. Also I can't help thinking that the phrase "if not certainly at least tranquiliser reliability" suggests lack of certainty. I would also add that most people thought that the SC would just rubber stamp the guilty verdict, so a Not Guilty verdict is pretty good. Only a handful of people post in the pro guilt sites. We need to get this in proportion. (In my view)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Yes - the fundamental basis of what would appear to be a partial incrimination contained in the translated section is entirely illegal, if what we are seeing is indeed contextually accurate. Nothing to do with the 5th/6th interrogation is useable either in Italian law or convention law (which is Italian law). These people, apparently, do not understand the dictates of their own constitution.

The ECHR judgement, when it comes, will send shockwaves through Italian justice. It behoves all those who advocate for the wrongfully convicted, in whatever way we do it, to make as much quality noise about it when it comes.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
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.

Unfortunately, I suspect that no mention is made of showing one's work--i.e., produce the EDFs for the defense's perusal. The 'trust me' defense of one's work does not comply with scientific community standards.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Yes if there is a strong ECHR ruling and it is publicized then all will as good as it gets. I was mostly disappointed that the PIP take after the ISC verdict turns out to be spin or worse and once again many of the PG points turn out to be true.

 

[acbytesla]

What the Marasca report has revived, is not the "they are guilty" crowd, but the "there are strong suspicions" crowd. Is this crowd moronic, too? That seems to be the only lingering question once competent, English translations become available.

Well suspicion ISN'T PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt which is the bar you have to cross.

Still, that's stupid too. The only reason to suspect Amanda are the so called confessionals which were made in duress. And did any of these morons actually read them? It's DAMN clear that Amanda doesn't believe the nonsense she is saying. And NONE of it was right!

So how does anyone have any faith in them? If Patrick had left those footprints fine, Amanda would be guilty. Not of murder, but probably as an accessory. But it's not Patrick that killed Mez but Rudy.

There are no texts back and forth to Rudy and Amanda was supposed to work that night.There is no logical link to Rudy. None, No credible motive for Amanda or Raffaele. Lastly, there is NO EVIDENCEthat puts Amanda Knox in that bedroom on the night of the murder. In fact, they can't prove that Amanda or Raffaele even left his apartment.

So why do these MORONS believe Amanda killed Meredith? Oh I forgot, they think Amanda's a slut and Rudy likes Japanese comic books.

 

[Grinder]

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!

Were they? I haven't seen the translation, have you?

I believe some reports have them annulling Nencini and saying the case was so botched that it would be useless to have another trial.

Clearly I don't know exactly what the ISC said.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Under the Italian constitution this is simple. Unless guilt confirmed by cassation they are innocent.

 

[acbytesla]

Were they? I haven't seen the translation, have you?

I believe some reports have them annulling Nencini and saying the case was so botched that it would be useless to have another trial.

Clearly I don't know exactly what the ISC said.

I admit Grinder, I don't know precisely a complete and contextually correct translation of the motivation. But, by force and effect the ISC declared definitively that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher and there will be no more trials for that charge.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Yes - the fundamental basis of what would appear to be a partial incrimination contained in the translated section is entirely illegal, if what we are seeing is indeed contextually accurate. Nothing to do with the 5th/6th interrogation is useable either in Italian law or convention law (which is Italian law). These people, apparently, do not understand the dictates of their own constitution.
The ECHR judgement, when it comes, will send shockwaves through Italian justice. It behoves all those who advocate for the wrongfully convicted, in whatever way we do it, to make as much quality noise about it when it comes.

The reason for the inclusion of the suspicions from Amanda's Nov. 5/6 coerced interrogation is indeed not the Italian courts do not understand the Italian Constitution and Italian procedural law, but that they are choosing to violate those laws to protect the police and prosecutor from prosecution under criminal law charges.

The conviction for calunnia against Lumumba and the suspicions of Amanda and Raffaele being present in the cottage at the time of the murder are both dependent on the failure of the Italian courts to enforce the Italian procedural law against the use of evidence gathered by methods prohibited by law (CPP 191). The ECHR will necessarily address the Marasca CSC panel MR when it reviews Amanda's case against Italy for the calunnia conviction, since in a sense the Marasca CSC MR reiterates the conviction in confirming the sentence, which was already served.

 

[Grinder]

That's just factual reporting of what the motivations said. I suspect Bill is interested in editorials or commentary that are sceptical at least or outraged that A and R have wrongly got off. Also I can't help thinking that the phrase "if not certainly at least tranquiliser reliability" suggests lack of certainty. I would also add that most people thought that the SC would just rubber stamp the guilty verdict, so a Not Guilty verdict is pretty good. Only a handful of people post in the pro guilt sites. We need to get this in proportion. (In my view)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

yes and I did provide one such article. The position of this segment has some editorial value itself. It is my opinion that Italians are very used to terrible verdicts and while we pay attention to this case it ain't a big deal there.

 

[Grinder]

I admit Grinder, I don't know precisely a complete and contextually correct translation of the motivation. But, by force and effect the ISC declared definitively that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher and there will be no more trials for that charge.

You may be correct but I haven't seen enough of the yet to be released translation to know if they were found not guilty or the court merely said we don't accept Nencini and there will be no more trials, which isn't the same as being found not guilty, which isn't the same as being found innocent.

 

[acbytesla]

You may be correct but I haven't seen enough of the yet to be released translation to know if they were found not guilty or the court merely said we don't accept Nencini and there will be no more trials, which isn't the same as being found not guilty, which isn't the same as being found innocent.

I never said that the court ruled them innocent. I said "not guilty". Frankly, I find this whole "not guilty vs innocent to be absurd.

What is that? From a practical perspective the courts offer a "binary" ruling, the rest is frosting on the cake.

 

[Bill Williams]

yes and I did provide one such article. The position of this segment has some editorial value itself. It is my opinion that Italians are very used to terrible verdicts and while we pay attention to this case it ain't a big deal there.

I agree with this, one of the things of engaging in "the game" of trying to suss out the buzz in Italy is that there is not just more of it.

Certainly this is where supporters get caught in a confirmation bias, not even so much that the buzz'ers take the "right" position, but that at least everyone should pay attention! So far no one really is particularly interested in the "forte sospetto" parts, just the parts that excoriate judges and police!

That said, maybe it has also been a confirmation bias which has prevented some from even finding those editorials or commentary that express outrage that Marasca allowed people to get away with murder. That was the basis for having Machiavelli have a peek - he's there, speaks Italian and has a firm bias ( read: point of view) of his own.

So far, crickets. Is this because Italians simply don't care about the latest judicial-inanity? I don't know. It's why it's thrown in here, even if it's received no traction.

What's for sure - a competent English translation of Marasca is guaranteed to get us to the 25th continuation here. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[carbonjam72]

Unfortunately, I suspect that no mention is made of showing one's work--i.e., produce the EDFs for the defense's perusal. The 'trust me' defense of one's work does not comply with scientific community standards.

Actually, it was pretty much a smackdown of Stefanoni on her methods and proofs. Marasca not only cited C &V as debunking Stefanoni, but also pointed to Berti in their insistence that LCN required at least 2 and possibly 3 repeats to prove reliable. I don't have it in front of me, but I think Marasca included a comparison of the way the cabinieri methods and the way they turned over their work, as compared with Stefanoni - but I'd want to double check and read that more closely. Stefanoni got completely trashed for incomplete and invalid work product, and was especially critical of Stefanoni's assertion that the Knife MUST be the murder weapon, when it tested negative for blood, which Marasca stated flatly opposes the idea that it was used as the murder weapon.

It was a pretty stunning put down on Stefanoni, IIRC even suggesting that had Meredith's DNA actually been on the knife - but testing negative for blood - that in itself would still not necessarily be incriminating because it was in the vicinity of the students and could have been used or deposited there innocently by Meredith. The failure of Stefanoni to recognize the absence of blood on the knife was inconsistent with the theory it was the murder weapon, was considered a huge, unforgivable, inexplicable, and blameworthy blunder on the part of Stefanoni.

I don't recall if it specifically discussed suppressed results and withheld DNA data, but came pretty close, IIRC.

 

[Bill Williams]

I never said that the court ruled them innocent. I said "not guilty". Frankly, I find this whole "not guilty vs innocent to be absurd.

What is that? From a practical perspective the courts offer a "binary" ruling, the rest is frosting on the cake.

The absurdity is that they by definition began the process as innocent, and Marasca has ruled - in effect - that nothing in the last eight years justifies the movement from that status.

 

[acbytesla]

The absurdity is that they by definition began the process as innocent, and Marasca has ruled - in effect - that nothing in the last eight years justifies the movement from that status.

Exactly. They come into the court presumed to be innocent and unless the court rules that they are guilty they are supposed to leave that way.

 

[Bill Williams]

The absurdity is that they by definition began the process as innocent, and Marasca has ruled - in effect - that nothing in the last eight years justifies the movement from that status.

Exactly. They come into the court presumed to be innocent and unless the court rules that they are guilty they are supposed to leave that way.

The "long shadow of uncertainty" that anglolawyer fears Marasca's report may leave is perhaps not to be ignored. Yet from this seat the principals are getting on with life..... so is it really confirmation bias to say that innocent they were and innocent they remain? Or is there some other axe being grindered to keep some other bias alive?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I must say, this is all very depressing. The last few months I've been laboring under the blissful delusion that there was reason for my faith in Italy to be restored. Apparently not.

I'm not saying this to insult Italians in general, but I have spent a great deal of time in Italy, and all of the insanity of this case is a perfect reflection of the chaos and disorder that are endemic to the entire country. It's really in many ways like a third world country.