Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

The same thing happened with Chieffi. All I heard was it was just a minor procedural matter for "further review", when the reality was it was a total and complete repudiation of Hellmann and was essentially saying no court should ever have acquitted them due to the overwhelming evidence (such as Curatolo knowing her eye color a year later, my favorite part if you haven't guessed).

So true. Still the court ended it all. The only people who seem to care are on the Internet.

Yes bagels. It has been this way the whole time, mostly. Over and over the PIP side makes statements that turn out to be incorrect. If Vixen made them here Tesla et al. would call them lies. One of the reasons I've been reticent to cheer along. Once again we are now getting a different story than the days after the verdict.

Tesla the court didn't end it. While few of us follow it like we do, people here do follow it.

Btw you recently maintained you never claimed they were innocent but using the power of memory and search to verify here is one example for you

So so silly. But of course there was a trial and they were found innocent. it was the prosecution that decided to try their case in the press. They were the ones who held a press conference saying "case closed". You have been a perfect example of their press campaign quoting Richard Owens and his unnamed sources.

I'm sure I can find other examples as well as the fact that you think a court finding them "not guilty" is the same as the court finding them "innocent". IIRC the Italian system expressly has the the two verdicts (even more) and that PIP were arguing that this ISC had ruled innocent. The argument was over whether it was .2 or .3 or some such difference and it looks like it wasn't what PIP's claimed again.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes bagels. It has been this way the whole time, mostly. Over and over the PIP side makes statements that turn out to be incorrect. If Vixen made them here Tesla et al. would call them lies. One of the reasons I've been reticent to cheer along. Once again we are now getting a different story than the days after the verdict.

Tesla the court didn't end it. While few of us follow it like we do, people here do follow it.

Btw you recently maintained you never claimed they were innocent but using the power of memory and search to verify here is one example for you



I'm sure I can find other examples as well as the fact that you think a court finding them "not guilty" is the same as the court finding them "innocent". IIRC the Italian system expressly has the the two verdicts (even more) and that PIP were arguing that this ISC had ruled innocent. The argument was over whether it was .2 or .3 or some such difference and it looks like it wasn't what PIP's claimed again.

...... and the agenda at this point for going after the PIP (of which you are one) like this is............................... !?

 

[Vixen]

You think this is like that? More moronic logic. The Goldman family sued OJ after the criminal trial. They also had additional damning evidence that wasn't presented in the first trial.

The Kerchers already pursued their civil suit against Amanda and Raffaele and LOST. Tough if not impossible to get another bite of the apple. Even their lawyer for the last 7 years says that it's over. Oh, I forgot, being a Mensa member, you understand Italian law better than their lawyer.

Lastly, the evidence is against them.

I'm only a bean counter, and speak no Italian, except perhaps a round of Santa Lucia, but the case has only just finished now. There is no ruling the two are innocent, merely the case annulled, with some damning statements about the pair's culpability.

Far from bringing closure to the case, Bruno and Marasca have left it wide open.

One good thing is reform; politicians like Marasca and Bruno will no longer be able to don their robes, whilst active in government, open to lobbying and vote-catching, and then go and sit in chambers manipulating the outcome.

For all its faults, the UK/US adversarial system is superior IMV, despite the acrimony involved, because the judge's decision is final and that brings closure.

This case's latest saga is a right crock of ****.

 

[Vixen]

For the first time I now need to entertain the thought that Vixen, Machiavelli and Me are now on the same side of the fence, as perhaps part of a dwindling number of weirdos who even follow this - at ANY level of detail!!!!

Vixen, Machiavelli and Me - a good film title.

As for the Kerchers, I can only wish closure for them; which is sometimes impossible to achieve 100% even in less arduous odysseys than what they've been through these last 8 years.

Already been done. 'Liar, Liar.'

 

[Mike1711]

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.

You've pretty much nailed it.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Surely, a legal ruling of "a clear fact", becomes ipso facto a legal fact?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes bagels. It has been this way the whole time, mostly. Over and over the PIP side makes statements that turn out to be incorrect. If Vixen made them here Tesla et al. would call them lies. One of the reasons I've been reticent to cheer along. Once again we are now getting a different story than the days after the verdict.

Tesla the court didn't end it. While few of us follow it like we do, people here do follow it.

Btw you recently maintained you never claimed they were innocent but using the power of memory and search to verify here is one example for you



I'm sure I can find other examples as well as the fact that you think a court finding them "not guilty" is the same as the court finding them "innocent". IIRC the Italian system expressly has the the two verdicts (even more) and that PIP were arguing that this ISC had ruled innocent. The argument was over whether it was .2 or .3 or some such difference and it looks like it wasn't what PIP's claimed again.

Fine, but to me they are the same thing. A rose by any other name. Your nitpicking but I guess that is what we do here.

I don't really acknowledge the difference as some people have seemed to embrace. As I said earlier. They walk into the courts presumed innocent and unless they are found guilty they walk out that way.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm only a bean counter, and speak no Italian, except perhaps a round of Santa Lucia, but the case has only just finished now. There is no ruling the two are innocent, merely the case annulled, with some damning statements about the pair's culpability.

Far from bringing closure to the case, Bruno and Marasca have left it wide open.

One good thing is reform; politicians like Marasca and Bruno will no longer be able to don their robes, whilst active in government, open to lobbying and vote-catching, and then go and sit in chambers manipulating the outcome.

For all its faults, the UK/US adversarial system is superior IMV, despite the acrimony involved, because the judge's decision is final and that brings closure.

This case's latest saga is a right crock of ****.

No, it was a crock of **** to begin with.

 

[Grinder]

Fine, but to me they are the same thing. A rose by any other name. Your nitpicking but I guess that is what we do here.

I don't really acknowledge the difference as some people have seemed to embrace. As I said earlier. They walk into the courts presumed innocent and unless they are found guilty they walk out that way.

You actually don't remember that after they ruled there was a big debate as whether they found her not guilty or innocent?

 

[Bill Williams]

Already been done. 'Liar, Liar.'

I genuinely gaffawed! Good one! Can mutual understanding be far behind?

 

[Methos]

[...]

Anyway, next up....Edgardo Giobbi is asked to take Amandas picture off his wall and put up Rudy Guede's....Rudy to be charged with blaming his crime on those found innocent can proceed with the ISC blessing.

Rudy is already there:

The one below has to go.

 

[acbytesla]

You actually don't remember that after they ruled there was a big debate as whether they found her not guilty or innocent?

I do, although I think it is irrelevant.

 

[Grinder]

I do, although I think it is irrelevant.

In Italy verdicts are not binary. The court did not find her innocent but rather found that the evidence was insufficient or even worse that it wasn't handled correctly but had it been they would have been found guilty. I'd say that it is relevant.

 

[acbytesla]

In Italy verdicts are not binary. The court did not find her innocent but rather found that the evidence was insufficient or even worse that it wasn't handled correctly but had it been they would have been found guilty. I'd say that it is relevant.

Like you and me, are they presumed innocent?
Like you and me, have they been found guilty?

I rest my case.

 

[Grinder]

Like you and me, are they presumed innocent?
Like you and me, have they been found guilty?

I rest my case.

Before the trial starts they are presumed innocent (at least here) but after the trial they have more than one or zero, black or white, and guilty or innocent.

It is one part of their system I appreciate the most. Was OJ innocent of murder or just found not guilty because they couldn't find him guilty BARD. I like the fact that they have different categories of not guilty. I believe there was a discussion here about a Scottish verdict of not proven another example of more than binary.

 

[js202]

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.

Well, I can say first hand that Milan, Tuscany, Rome and Positano are in no way third world, that I can perceive. Ultra-civilized people (especially in Milan), architecture, and cuisine; and, except for a few cranky exceptions in Rome, juxtaposed against my Italian experience, the characters in this case baffle me.

Now, certain sections of Bologna, and, especially, Naples, okay.

 

[Desert Fox]

When a higher court in the US court overturns a lower court, including when they make a permanent judgement such as Derick Tice, they don't tend to speculate but just argue the law.

 

[acbytesla]

Before the trial starts they are presumed innocent (at least here) but after the trial they have more than one or zero, black or white, and guilty or innocent.

It is one part of their system I appreciate the most. Was OJ innocent of murder or just found not guilty because they couldn't find him guilty BARD. I like the fact that they have different categories of not guilty. I believe there was a discussion here about a Scottish verdict of not proven another example of more than binary.

No, not really. They cannot be tried for the offense again.

As for liking that idea, I don't. The system, the plaintiffs and the defendants deserve finality. This farce has gone on for 8 bloody years. Should it really go on for another 10? Who does that help but lawyers? While I do believe that OJ was guilty, I despise the idea that defendants have to defend themselves forever.I strongly believe in laws that protect citizens from double jeopardy

 

[toto]

As far as I can see, A and R were found Not Guity (non colpevole) and had an acquittal (assoluzione) because the defendants did not commit the action they were alleged to have committed, but that action did take place (Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso) (whatever the plural version of that is). Am I wrong? I cannot see any other possibility looking at the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure on Wikipedia.

If it was Non doversi procedure (which WIKIPEDIA explains as “There is a cause that prevents the Judge from actually deciding whether the defendant was guilty (e.g. an amnesty has been passed, the statute of limitations has expired, the injured party did not submit a criminal complaint etc.)”, then that would be very depressing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Verdicts

 

[Grinder]

No, not really. They cannot be tried for the offense again.

As for liking that idea, I don't. The system, the plaintiffs and the defendants deserve finality. This farce has gone on for 8 bloody years. Should it really go on for another 10? Who does that help but lawyers? While I do believe that OJ was guilty, I despise the idea that defendants have to defend themselves forever.I strongly believe in laws that protect citizens from double jeopardy

Tesla - AFAIK at this time they annulled Nencini and said the investigation was so messed up that they wouldn't allow another trial. A finding of not proven or something less than innocent doesn't mean the case isn't over. I find no issue with a more nuanced verdict but then I didn't live in a zero or one world.

Perhaps you don't understand that the trials can be ended with less than a full innocence verdict, at least that's what the different paragraphs indicated.