Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Bearing in mind, 530 para 2, is not within the supreme court's jurisdiction.
Bruno & Marasca might just as well have thumbed their noses and waggled their fingers.

This is such a stupid comment.

Remember what I said yesterday, vixen. Before you go off parroting the nonsense some other pro guilter has parroted from someone else, it would be a really good idea actually to check that what you are saying is true.

Just like with the text messages. How embarrassing!

 

[Grinder]

Because the fact of annulment of the case comes before the acquittal, as a result thereof.

If they were innocent, they would just be acquitted.

As you know, no new evidence or legal point was put forward to demonstrate innocence.

Instead Bruno-Marasca have had to concentrate on mocking the police investigators as the basis of the annulment.

Using a box of the Christmas packaging type, etc. Wow, B-M's contempt for the police shines through.

Good for them, as there should be even more than contempt. These same cops later used the police data base to gain information to harass the ex or soon to be ex of good old Nappy and even slash the tires of his court appointed psychologist.

Perhaps had the ILE found MK's blood on the knife or in Raf's flat or car maybe the 1/500,000 of a grain of regular table salt alleged to be Meredith's DNA would have been deemed valid evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

If there was any functional or procedural differences between annulment and acquittal wouldn't they be in the prosecution's ability to retry the case? Which we know they cannot do here.

As I and others have mentioned a number of times, the Marasca SC effectively acquitted Knox and Sollecito in its annulment on charges A, D and E (the murder, the theft and the staging), since the basis of the annulment was that the applicants did not commit the crimes. It is, in a very real sense, a total exoneration, and is fundamentally equivalent to an affirmative declaration of factual innocence (as well, of course, as being a finding of legal innocence).

 

[Vixen]

This is such a stupid comment.

Remember what I said yesterday, vixen. Before you go off parroting the nonsense some other pro guilter has parroted from someone else, it would be a really good idea actually to check that what you are saying is true.

Just like with the text messages. How embarrassing!

How embarrassing Bruno & Marasca are top of your Christmas card lists, when in effect, they have permanently damned your idol as having been at the very least, present at a murder and immediately did...nothing...to help her , er, "friend".

 

[analemma]

ROFL. Thanks for giving me the best laugh of the day.

The whole thought of you providing references to any of your "facts" makes me laugh.

 

[Vixen]

B-M's contempt for the police shines through.
I agree with you on this: The contempt shines through on every Page, as it should.
The stupidity and bias of the Italian Police have made a laughing stock of Italy, and the ISC does not want the Italian Police to do it again, which is the purpose of both the content and tone of this Motivation.

No, analemma, that is not the purpose of both the content and tone of this Motivation.

The purpose of both the content and tone of this Motivation is to let the police know: the mafia rools, OK.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good for them, as there should be even more than contempt. These same cops later used the police data base to gain information to harass the ex or soon to be ex of good old Nappy and even slash the tires of his court appointed psychologist.

Perhaps had the ILE found MK's blood on the knife or in Raf's flat or car maybe the 1/500,000 of a grain of regular table salt alleged to be Meredith's DNA would have been deemed valid evidence.

Many of the police involved in this investigation - including very senior police officers and rank-and-file detectives - behaved in a variety of slipshod, incompetent, improper and neglectful ways. It is absolutely correct that they should be properly held to account for their actions and behaviour in this case. Who know, it might even make those of them who aren't sacked/prosecuted act more appropriately, professionally and honestly in any future investigations in which they might be involved.......

 

[Vixen]

Good for them, as there should be even more than contempt. These same cops later used the police data base to gain information to harass the ex or soon to be ex of good old Nappy and even slash the tires of his court appointed psychologist.

Perhaps had the ILE found MK's blood on the knife or in Raf's flat or car maybe the 1/500,000 of a grain of regular table salt alleged to be Meredith's DNA would have been deemed valid evidence.

Murderer washes blood off knife. Bruno's a flipping genius!

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and by the way: any court finding that a person was present at the scene of a murder and a) did nothing to help the victim, and b) subsequently lied to the authorities and perverted the course of justice in their investigation into the murder, would authorise new criminal charges on that basis, since both those things are criminal offences. Even in Italy. Ain't that strange

 

[Grinder]

If there was any functional or procedural differences between annulment and acquittal wouldn't they be in the prosecution's ability to retry the case? Which we know they cannot do here.

Bagels I don't know and I hope that was apparent. If a court annuls a lower court I interpret that to mean that verdict no lower stands. Usually IIUC the ISC would send the case back down and have a (new) appeals court retry the case. Or they could declare the defendants innocent under 530 (1).

It does seem clear now that they did use 530(2) which many PIP denied and many PGP contended. At the time I thought PIP were saying that it was (1) and they had been found innocent.

 

[Vixen]

Oh and by the way: any court finding that a person was present at the scene of a murder and a) did nothing to help the victim, and b) subsequently lied to the authorities and perverted the course of justice in their investigation into the murder, would authorise new criminal charges on that basis, since both those things are criminal offences. Even in Italy. Ain't that strange

Penny dropped yet? This report is as bent as a nine bob note.

 

[Grinder]

As I and others have mentioned a number of times, the Marasca SC effectively acquitted Knox and Sollecito in its annulment on charges A, D and E (the murder, the theft and the staging), since the basis of the annulment was that the applicants did not commit the crimes. It is, in a very real sense, a total exoneration, and is fundamentally equivalent to an affirmative declaration of factual innocence (as well, of course, as being a finding of legal innocence).

They used (2) and not (1) which would have been a clear verdict of innocent. Until we hear from an unbiased legally knowledgeable source I think they didn't give them a total exoneration, if that means they were innocent rather than not guilty.

 

[Mike1711]

It was never pleaded that Raff and Amanda were there, but not involved.

Bruno-Marasca have blundered by even pleading this.

You have misunderstood the report. They didn't and don't plead (Judges simply judge) and they have NEVER said RS or AK were there. If you think the Marasca Report says this then you have misunderstood it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh and by the way: any court finding that a person was present at the scene of a murder and a) did nothing to help the victim, and b) subsequently lied to the authorities and perverted the course of justice in their investigation into the murder, would authorise new criminal charges on that basis, since both those things are criminal offences. Even in Italy. Ain't that strange

This point settles the status of section 9 of the report. Sadly, it has left room for people like Stephanie Kercher to believe otherwise.

It's sad to contemplate that M-B simply contributed to the Kercher's grief, rather than **clearly stating** that it is time to move on from blaming Raffaele and Amanda.

On that alone, M-B should be docked half marks.

 

[Mike1711]

Really? Did you miss where it said the murder certainly was not carried out by an unknown burglar; that Amanda was there (fact, by her own account) and covering for Rudy (in case anyone saw him leave the house, and couldn't tell one black guy from another, even if one was young, slender and tall, and the other short, stocky and middle-aged, according to Bruno's brilliant armchair detective skills) and did wash off Mez' blood from her hands. That Raff was with her when she claimed to arrive 10:30 next morning.

In any case, Bruno will never be promoted beyond "Junior" judge, as his reasoning reads like a schoolboy dumping all his knowledge onto the examiner instead of doing what he's asked to, which is answer the question. All the waffle about Gallileo and the scientific method, as if to appeal to authority about the soundness of his logic, instead of actually applying it.

He spends reams trashing the bra clasp scientific method, but then says the DNA on the sweater found to be Rudy's is sound, despite this self-same sweater having lain on the same floor and same flying dust as the bra clasp, with furniture and fittings being moved around, which Bruno claims therefore abnegates the bra clasp evidence.

Bruno states at least five times the traces of Rudy were "numerous" and "abundant", when in fact, there were only about five traces.

Dreadful. I don't know how he passed his law exams.

His inability to grasp that small amounts of DNA are often small because perps are - hello? - cunning and aware of forensics (note to perps: in future, leave more DNA, otherwise the judge will acquit you. _Doh!).

Bruno's rantings about the illogicality of selective cleaning is a straw man, as the prosecution never did argue the perps selectively removed their own DNA. He fails to explain the luminol highlighted footsteps that were obtained. So not Professor Brainiac in the scientific method, after all.

He puts forward defense arguments for Amanda and Raff, which are nowhere to be found in the pleadings (a very elementary legal error). Apparently, although it is certain beyond reasonable doubt Amanda and almost certainly Raff (if perhaps, later) was present in the cottage when the murder was committed, that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.

He confirms it is beyond reasonable doubt Rudy could NOT have been the sole perpetrator, but says to connect Amanda who definitely was there, would be "illogical".

What a Bloody Fool!

He should be sacked, and Marasca with him, for signing off this pile of treacly garbage.

You have misunderstood the report. Honestly, Clause 9 is a presentation of the facts as presented by both camps. It's not to be read as an allegiance. It's a commentary.

 

[acbytesla]

It's apparent that someone around here can't read Italian. Me! And probably a few others as well.

I want to thank the people that worked hard to translate this so the rest of us could read it.

What's clear to me is that this document in fact DOES NOT say that Amanda and Raffaele were there at the cottage during the murder. It's damn clear that they are either repeating thoughts about the case or expressing a hypothetical. Why can I be so sure even though I don't read Italian?

Simple, I watched and read the news. No one other than the crazy guilters.. (Barbie too) are saying that they were there during the murder.. Not in the worldwide media or the Italian media. Why would we think that this media that jumped at the opportunity to publish anything and everything about this case would ignore such a salacious idea as that?

Just as in most science experiments one can reasonably determine how something occurred by observing the results.

I know by watching ice melt that the temperature has risen above 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

These guilters are like Vizzini in The Princess Bride as Wesley aka:the dread pirate Roberts chases him through eel infested waters, INCONCEIVABLE, up the sheer cliffs of insanity, INCONCEIVABLE ... besting his swordsman Inigo Montoya... INCONCEIVABLE... his giant Fezzik INCONCEIVABLE!!!

As INCONCEIVABLE as it might seem to them, the fact is that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found Not Guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher. And no amount of revisionist history or cries of INCONCEIVABLE will ever change that.

The only real question left is will the Mensa members share the same fate as Vizzini. Remember he too thought he was smart. It turned out he was just in denial.

INCONCEIVABLE!!!!

 

[Mike1711]

Bearing in mind, 530 para 2, is not within the supreme court's jurisdiction.

Bruno & Marasca might just as well have thumbed their noses and waggled their fingers.

Once again, you're wrong. You simply don't have a correct understanding of the report. It is really largely well written, sensible and succinct.
Please ignore Clause 9 unless you read it in its correct context which is as a summary of the arguments of fact from both angles.
Clause 9 cannot be used as an argument for or against the Marasca report. Clause 9 is simply spotlighted as a frame of reference to be considered.
It's the "devils advocate" clause in the document.

 

[toto]

They used (2) and not (1) which would have been a clear verdict of innocent. Until we hear from an unbiased legally knowledgeable source I think they didn't give them a total exoneration, if that means they were innocent rather than not guilty.

"The appellants did not commit the act." was certainly enough to considerably cheer up A and R!

 

[Mike1711]

How embarrassing Bruno & Marasca are top of your Christmas card lists, when in effect, they have permanently damned your idol as having been at the very least, present at a murder and immediately did...nothing...to help her , er, "friend".

Oh boy! The report does NOT say this.

 

[LondonJohn]

They used (2) and not (1) which would have been a clear verdict of innocent. Until we hear from an unbiased legally knowledgeable source I think they didn't give them a total exoneration, if that means they were innocent rather than not guilty.

Nope, I think this is an incorrect interpretation of 530.1 vs 530.2. Since the legislative reforms in Italy, 530.1 can now only be used where the judgement is that there was no crime committed (upon the victim). For example, suppose there was a rape trial where the state argued that Mr A raped Ms B, but Mr A argued that the sex was consensual. If the court agreed with Mr A's defence, then it would find him not guilty under 530.1 since it found that the crime of rape was not in fact committed (by Mr A, or by anyone else) upon Ms B.

In this instance, The court fully finds that Kercher was murdered and sexually violated, that certain things of hers were stolen, and that there was a break-in. But it finds that Knox and Sollecito bear no responsibility for those crimes (while others not before this court committed the crimes). Therefore the only acquittal option is 530.2. (i.e. the crimes under discussion WERE committed, but not by those before this court).

(In former times, 530.1 was effectively equivalent to "not guilty" and 530.2 was effectively equivalent to "not proven". But not any longer. In Italian law and criminal codes now, there is only guilty or not-guilty - and the accompanying presumption that not-guilty = innocent.)