It's probably not good form for one CSC panel to criticize another. Also, the two panels are on the same judicial level, so such criticism would probably have no effect. It may be different if a United Sections CSC panel were to criticize a regular CSC panel, but I am not sure of Italian legal practice in such an event. The Italian Constitutional Court would have the authority to criticize a CSC panel judgment, but typically matters only reach the Constitutional Court on petition from an ordinary court (CSC or below).
-
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
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
It's probably not good form for one CSC panel to criticize another. Also, the two panels are on the same judicial level, so such criticism would probably have no effect. It may be different if a United Sections CSC panel were to criticize a regular CSC panel, but I am not sure of Italian legal practice in such an event. The Italian Constitutional Court would have the authority to criticize a CSC panel judgment, but typically matters only reach the Constitutional Court on petition from an ordinary court (CSC or below).
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
About 9.4.1.... can someone convene an interview with Marasca to ask him pointedly, how far the "modifier of facts to come," applies... namely how far into section 9.4.1 the introductory sentence reaches....
The answer to that "reach" question pivots Marasca's intention one way or the other on the business of him, allegedly, conceding that Knox was in the house at the time of the murder. What he is saying is that all this "was considered an established fact during the trial."
The answer to that "reach" question pivots Marasca's intention one way or the other on the business of him, allegedly, conceding that Knox was in the house at the time of the murder. What he is saying is that all this "was considered an established fact during the trial."
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Ok, there it is.... in 9.4.2. The "forte sospetto" that Raffaele was in the cottage, "on the night of the murder, albeit it has not been possible to determine when.
On the other hand, if Knox’s presence in the home was certain, it would hardly be credible that he was not with her."
Then in the very next paragraph, Marasca flirts with the possibility that this presence of the two of them, could have been in the morning, when Amanda claimed she'd gone alone for a shower. Sigh. And there's the bit about the court not being able to fathom Knox "being there" without calling her boyfriend, so he must have been there to begin with.
Sigh. The report is a stunning rebuke of the investigation and the Nencini court until the last three pages. Go figure.
However, this is now officially over - in both Italian and English.
On the other hand, if Knox’s presence in the home was certain, it would hardly be credible that he was not with her."
Then in the very next paragraph, Marasca flirts with the possibility that this presence of the two of them, could have been in the morning, when Amanda claimed she'd gone alone for a shower. Sigh. And there's the bit about the court not being able to fathom Knox "being there" without calling her boyfriend, so he must have been there to begin with.
Sigh. The report is a stunning rebuke of the investigation and the Nencini court until the last three pages. Go figure.
However, this is now officially over - in both Italian and English.
Last edited:
I think that the whole section you are referring to is described as hypothetical, and intended to show that even assuming guilt, the alleged evidence is contradictory and cannot support a finding of guilt. The hypothetical basis is stated in Paragraph 9.2 on page 47. At least, that is my reading of the document.
The very end of the MR, page 55 in the translation, again states:
For These Reasons {that is, the reasons presented in the Motivation Report}
Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n. 2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.
Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the crime of calumny in three years of confinement.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
I particularly like the beautifully understated part in the report which says:
"...the questionable choice of the scientific police’s geneticists..."
I did too but it doesn't mean what we would like to think. It means the choice between testing a sample, to see what it consists of, and testing it for DNA. The judges seem to have decided that only one of these was possble. Not sure C-V would agree with that.
anglolawyer
Banned
I have asked myself the same question. I think it's an aspect of their legal culture. Maybe it's something to do with the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. The Italians go for the latter while the common law is based on the former. Sort of, anyway. I'm generalising.
I suggest that it's more, when one's point is weak, or even wrong, "baffle them with BS".
Another suggestion: the judges believe that difficult and obscure writing conveys the intellectual and professional capability of the judges.
anglolawyer
Banned
I agree with this, especially your second point.
And why would the composition of the smoking matter be material?
Too bad the judges did not discuss explicitly the failure of the scientific police and prosecution to turn over copies of the raw data, especially the electronic DNA records, to the defense. That was truly a bad choice by the Italian authorities, a violation of equality of arms.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
One or two positive references to the ECHR, Numbers and they appear to reference Amanda's actual application in one para. I guess they must have seen it. Shame about the calunnia comments.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Wasn't there some dig at Stefanoni by comparing the performane of the cabinieri when they tested the last sample for Nencini?
I wasn't sure if Marasca mentioned the full performance, including their up front disclosure of all data, or just their multiple test of the LCN sample.
Question for Chris, or anyone who can answer.
Hellman declined to test the last sample, that Chieffi ordered tested, on the basis that it was too small (LCN).
And Chris had mentioned in a post, that this was the correct decision, not to test it, because the result would not have been reliable.
When it was retested by Cabinieri for Nencini (36i ?), even though this was an LCN lab, would the result still be dubious due to the earlier method of collection & storage?
If the previous sample from Kercher could have been the result of contamination, could not the retest of 36i have had a similar contamination?
Although Marasca said even if Kercher's DNA had shown up on the knife, as long as it wasn't from blood, it would not be incriminating.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
A really good post, Carbo. The report discusses Berti's test of 36i and the number of repeats - he says 2 tests, the defence consultant says 3.
Isn't the point about Kercher's DNA that it was never quantified for the knife, so questions of contamination are moot? But, it would seem to be correct to suggest that if there is a suspicion of contamination as a result of storage issues, then all of the knife results are questionable regardless of whether they are deemed incriminating or not.
I don't think Marasca makes this point, but you do. It's a good one. I wonder what the DNA people here think.
As I posted on a few occasions before, Clause 9 of the report has been disingenuously grabbed by the pro guilt lobby group and touted as proof of AK&RS being in the house at the time of the murder, AK having having heard screams, etc., etc., etc.
These claims are now shown, in the context of the overall report, to be utter nonsense and brings into question Machiavelli's abilities regard anything legal.
The below quoted section pertains to Clause 9 in its entirety which deals with points of fact from both sides of the argument. The Marasca Court does not necessary align itself with anything contained in Clause 9; a clause dispassionately debating hypotheses. Where the Marasca Report underpins findings from Court a Quo it does so purely on a hypothetical basis, and in so doing gives reasons as to why the Court a Quo was in these instances forgiven for certain conclusions or interpretations. In effect the Marasca Court offers some small form of olive branch to the prosecution for taking on board, such evidence as Knox's very own testimony.
"9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones."
The rest of Clause 9 is worth reading in the context of hypothetical scenario creation (which the court of appeal has to consider).
Clause 9 of the report does no damage whatsoever to the credibility of AK and RS case and quoting Clause 9 outside of its context is tantamount to lying.
Overall and coming from a different part of the world (South Africa and its Roman Dutch Law heritage) it's a fairly well written report, (translation issues aside).
The Report is as scathing of previous court rulings and findings as reports led us to believe, and scathing in a most intense way. The underlying contempt of earlier courts, other than Hellmann, is pretty horrendous.
If I were a Judge in an earlier court finding guilt, I would hang my head in shame, and ask for forgiveness from all involved.
As for Mignini, he played no small part in the scandalous case and should face legal prosecution...bordering on criminality.
All I can say is the case has been truly kicked right out of play in the most decisive of ways! It's a total defence victory...6-0, 6-0, 6-0!!!
These claims are now shown, in the context of the overall report, to be utter nonsense and brings into question Machiavelli's abilities regard anything legal.
The below quoted section pertains to Clause 9 in its entirety which deals with points of fact from both sides of the argument. The Marasca Court does not necessary align itself with anything contained in Clause 9; a clause dispassionately debating hypotheses. Where the Marasca Report underpins findings from Court a Quo it does so purely on a hypothetical basis, and in so doing gives reasons as to why the Court a Quo was in these instances forgiven for certain conclusions or interpretations. In effect the Marasca Court offers some small form of olive branch to the prosecution for taking on board, such evidence as Knox's very own testimony.
"9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones."
The rest of Clause 9 is worth reading in the context of hypothetical scenario creation (which the court of appeal has to consider).
Clause 9 of the report does no damage whatsoever to the credibility of AK and RS case and quoting Clause 9 outside of its context is tantamount to lying.
Overall and coming from a different part of the world (South Africa and its Roman Dutch Law heritage) it's a fairly well written report, (translation issues aside).
The Report is as scathing of previous court rulings and findings as reports led us to believe, and scathing in a most intense way. The underlying contempt of earlier courts, other than Hellmann, is pretty horrendous.
If I were a Judge in an earlier court finding guilt, I would hang my head in shame, and ask for forgiveness from all involved.
As for Mignini, he played no small part in the scandalous case and should face legal prosecution...bordering on criminality.
All I can say is the case has been truly kicked right out of play in the most decisive of ways! It's a total defence victory...6-0, 6-0, 6-0!!!
Last edited:
Wildhorses
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 230
Many thanks. I greatly appreciate the hard work you and others put into this translation.
[Finally! The last document I plan to read on this infernal, seemingly eternal trial. I'm half-tempted to express my joy/relief/freedom in emoticons.]
Clause 9.4.2 paragraph 3....
"However, the strong suspicion remains that he was present in the house on via della Peergola on the night of the murder, albeit it has not been possible to determine when."
Should it not be translated so....?
However strong the suspicion remains that he was in the house...it is still not possible to determine when."
Just a question.
"However, the strong suspicion remains that he was present in the house on via della Peergola on the night of the murder, albeit it has not been possible to determine when."
Should it not be translated so....?
However strong the suspicion remains that he was in the house...it is still not possible to determine when."
Just a question.
Wildhorses
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 230
AMAZEBALLS!
Gets a little flaky and contradictory at the end, but the beginning is SO good I can live with it.
I only hope that nasty trick Filomena is reading. (Yeah, I know she was far from the worst: I just always kinda wanted to smack her.)
Funniest phrase ever: It is, surely, undeniable the interpretative effort displayed by the fact finding judge in order to remedy the unbridgeable investigative gaps and the significant shortfalls of evidence. . .
OMG, cracks me up.
. . . it is all the same true that the reconstructive version chosen, even if compliant with the rules of ordinary logic, must, nevertheless, agree with the facts discovered at trial and be the result of a process of critical evaluation of the evidence acquired according to the procedure.
I'm crying laughing.
Gets a little flaky and contradictory at the end, but the beginning is SO good I can live with it.
I only hope that nasty trick Filomena is reading. (Yeah, I know she was far from the worst: I just always kinda wanted to smack her.)
Funniest phrase ever: It is, surely, undeniable the interpretative effort displayed by the fact finding judge in order to remedy the unbridgeable investigative gaps and the significant shortfalls of evidence. . .
OMG, cracks me up.
. . . it is all the same true that the reconstructive version chosen, even if compliant with the rules of ordinary logic, must, nevertheless, agree with the facts discovered at trial and be the result of a process of critical evaluation of the evidence acquired according to the procedure.
I'm crying laughing.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Section 9 is virtually ignored within Italy, so it seems, so I'm prepared to go with: "This is a reconstruction of something at trial, that doesn't even answer the question of 'when' these things were supposed to have occurred." They're not sweating it in Italy.....
Still, sections 1 thru 8 are an old-fashioned butt-kicking, as were the parts you highlighted. Add to that the delicious word, that part of Stefanoni's work were, "disturbing"........
....... and one gets the drift as to why most people are moving on.
Yes
Many, MANY, THANKS to ALL of them.
I feel like I have been in a knife fight with the guilters without a knife.
Clause 9 is merely an oversight of all the lower court trial stuff, their interpretations, where those interpreattaions make sense and where they don't. Where the lower courts made logical inferences and how and why those inferences are/aren't justified.
Clause 9 has little do do with the Marasca Courts thought process and a lot to do with previous courts' thought processes. If it justifies a thought process it does not mean it justifies the conclusion or the weighting of the evidence, just the thinking and whether it has logic, no matter how little.
- Status