• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
I particularly like the beautifully understated part in the report which says:

"...the questionable choice of the scientific police’s geneticists..."

:)
 
Grinder said:
Yay! Thanks to all the chefs. Except one proof-reader :p

ETA well first error they spell it Rudy in the translation but Guede Rudi Hermann in the Italian original .
Click to expand...

Error? It's a **translation**! Reverted to proper Engish usage which can handle the original French!
 
Wrong

"In fact, an eventual pronouncement by the European Court in favour of the same Knox, in the sense of a hoped-for recognition of her unorthodox treatment by the investigators, would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence, considering that the libelous accusations which the above-named defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures; and were also confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning; and were even repeated, some time later, during the validation of Lumumba's arrest, before the GIP [judge of preliminary investigation] who initiated the proceedings."

This is extraordinary. The report is suggesting that Amanda's "questioning" by Mignini in the early hours of the 6th was "a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures". But let's leave aside the fact that Mignini says he never asked a question....

Nor have they understood what she wrote in the memoriale and nor have they understood that she was in custody, without having had benefit of counsel.

Nor have they understood that an Art 6 violation not only undermines the judgement but compels its annulment.

Shocking stuff.
 
Last edited:
MichaelB said:
The Marasca-Bruno Report translated to English.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Marasca-Bruno-Motivations-Report.pdf
Click to expand...

Blimey. I've read a fair number of US and UK judgments and for the most part they are clear, well-written and persuasive, but just about every time I've looked at an Italian one (to be fair, that's only been in the context of this case) they've mostly been the exact opposite - unnecessarily wordy, obscure and verbose.

Why?
 
LondonJohn said:
I am more than happy to engage in honest debate/argument with anyone who holds opposing views on the Knox/Sollecito trials to mine. I am in fact very keen to have my opinions/conclusions challenged and questioned - that's one of the better ways to learn and advance. But when people more-or-less constantly engage in the invention, distortion and/or misrepresentation of factual evidence/testimony to support their argument, and/or when people deal the sanctimonious-moral-high-ground card from the bottom of the deck, it doesn't take me long to lose the will to engage: it's a total waste of time and effort.

Now, if someone can represent to me how all the available evidence* - and the lack of evidence - even indicates the participation of Knox and/or Sollecito in the murder (let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt), then I'll be happy to debate in good faith. I think many pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentators here feel the same way. But I'm/we're still waiting though, alas......

* That is to say: reliable, credible, robust, admissible evidence. Though again, I would welcome anyone having an honest debate about whether or not things like the DNA evidence in this case or the bathmat print evidence, or pretty much all the evidence gathered from the small bathroom, or the Knox "confession/accusation" and its follow-ups, or Curatolo's testimony, or Quintavalle's testimony, or Capezzali's testimony, or Monacchia's testimony, or "evidence" showing that the break-in was staged......... is reliable, credible, robust, admissible evidence/testimony. I believe there's more than enough reason to conclude that all of the above is - for one of a variety of reasons - fundamentally unreliable and thus of no probative value. But if anyone wants to argue otherwise - while retaining intellectual honesty and supporting data/scientific understanding/legal understanding - then I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

I would too LJ. But that seems to be a fantasy.
 
From the report page 54:
"The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which might have been useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by the careless actions of the investigators, causing a short circuit due probably to an erroneous power supply; and they cannot give any more information, given that the damage is irreversible."

Didn't someone here just assert quite adamantly that the disks were not destroyed?
 
Anode said:
From the report page 54:
"The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which might have been useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by the careless actions of the investigators, causing a short circuit due probably to an erroneous power supply; and they cannot give any more information, given that the damage is irreversible."

Didn't someone here just assert quite adamantly that the disks were not destroyed?
Click to expand...

That was Mach. He insisted all the information was recovered, except for one laptop, which he felt was irrelevant in any event.

Hopefully Mach will swing by if I've got him wrong. But I think he's busy gnashing his teeth over putting out his own translation, and the logic of the report is sinking in and giving him agitas.

Mach said he thought the report read like it had been written by a drunk person. Is there a 'drinking while writing' limit in Italy?
 
Matthew Best said:
Blimey. I've read a fair number of US and UK judgments and for the most part they are clear, well-written and persuasive, but just about every time I've looked at an Italian one (to be fair, that's only been in the context of this case) they've mostly been the exact opposite - unnecessarily wordy, obscure and verbose.

Why?
Click to expand...


There's a general cultural difference in writing style between the Anglosphere and continental Europe which is particularly visible in subjects like the humanities and law.
 
I was in a rush before when I posted it.

The translators were Teddy, FTMDave, Luca, David Anderson, AlexK and Kompoinsto...many thanks.
 
Ok, does this say what I think it says:

3.1. As we will see, the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being
heard], in further points, remains conditioned by the prospect of the factual profile
unexpectedly included in the annulled sentence; such that the stringent and
analytical evaluation of the Supreme Court might unavoidably become forced
towards affirming the guilt of the two accused. Misguided by this basic misunderstanding, the same judge is drawn into logical inconsistencies and obvious
errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] that are here reported.​
Click to expand...

....... that Nencini only thought that he'd been ordered to convict in Florence in 2014, and that he 2013 ISC, in fact, had not directed him to convict? And further, that this misunderstanding caused Nencini to necessarily skew evidence to make a guilt verdict fit?

Is the ISC now calling Nencini a boob? Or is the Marasca Section simply passing the buck, daring not to criticize the Chieffi Section?
 
Matthew Best said:
Blimey. I've read a fair number of US and UK judgments and for the most part they are clear, well-written and persuasive, but just about every time I've looked at an Italian one (to be fair, that's only been in the context of this case) they've mostly been the exact opposite - unnecessarily wordy, obscure and verbose.

Why?
Click to expand...

komponisto said:
There's a general cultural difference in writing style between the Anglosphere and continental Europe which is particularly visible in subjects like the humanities and law.
Click to expand...

Matthew Best said:
Well, they're wrong and we're right.
Click to expand...

Apparently, while the Italian judges consider themselves well-educated in humanism and juridical philosophy, they don't subscribe to the concept that writing that is succinct but clear is best.

Apparently there are no Hemingways or Orwells among the Italian judges.
 
Holey moley. The Marasca report trashes the "professionalism" of the folk involved in the collection and processing of the DNA evidence.

In the case in question, it is absolutely certain that those methods were not
complied with (cf., among others, ff. 206-207 and the cited requested findings of
the expert report Conte-Vecchiotti, ordered by the Perugian Court of Appeal).​
Click to expand...

In this regard it is enough to consider the methods of collection and storage of
the two objects of major investigative interest in the current judgment: the kitchen
knife (exhibit n. 36) and the bra clasp fastener of the victim (exhibit n. 165/b), for
which the sentence did not hesitate to qualify the work of the investigators in terms
of lack of professionalism (f. 207).
The big knife or kitchen knife, found in Sollecito’s house and considered the
murder weapon, was collected and then, preserved in a common cardboard box, of
the sort used to package Christmas gadgets, namely agendas which credit
institutions usually gift to local businesses.
More unusual – and disturbing – is the fate of the bra clasp.​
Click to expand...

Who knows if it applies in Italy... but when an Supreme Court calls something "disturbing".....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom