Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

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!!!!

Again as I and many other have pointed out, I think the Marasca SC had to tread an extremely fine judicial and political line here. It had to be extremely careful not to contradict or question the judgements of other previous SC panels related to this case (specifically the Guede SC panel, and the previous SC panel in Knox/Sollecito). And it clearly wanted to minimise the level of criticism that it directed at the various lower courts involved in this case. On top of all that, it had to be careful not to make any findings of fact (all of its damning over-rules of the lower courts are entirely based on what it sees as grotesque misapplication of law).

 

[analemma]

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.

I KNEW it would get to the MAFIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What about the space aliens and the Ninja Turtles?

 

[Mike1711]

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!!!!

It's simple. They are expressing a hypothetical, as you stated. There are no other interpretations.
To read it any other way means:-
A - Marasca court were all stark raving mad.
B - Marasca court don't understand law.
C - Both of the above

 

[Mike1711]

After reading this extremely well translated document it is difficult to see any problem with it other than minor and expected issues which I sincerely believe are those lost in translation.
It's a damning report. It tears down the prosecutions case and destroys it.
The only crumb for the doubters to grab at, is Clause 9, which read in the correct context and allowing for difficulties in translation is largely sensible and sane. To grab at anything in Clause 9 to underpin anyone's argument either for or against, without reading the entire document, is dishonest.

 

[Mike1711]

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

The report doesn't say this. You're inventing things.

 

[Numbers]

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.)

Your statements are all correct, as far as I know.

Those misunderstanding the 530.1 v 530.2 issue should read the last page, which restates the verdict:

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.

 

[Grinder]

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.)

The law interpretation I gave was from a 2011 book that I cited.

Could you cite when the law was changed and exactly what it now says?

ETA - My searching finds a change in 1989 over twenty years before the book was published. Has there been more recent changes?

 

[Grinder]

Your statements are all correct, as far as I know.

Those misunderstanding the 530.1 v 530.2 issue should read the last page, which restates the verdict:

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.

Yes I read the last page. It would be more interesting to actually cite the law rather than an interpretation of a translated Italian court document.

 

[acbytesla]

The report doesn't say this. You're inventing things.

In other words.
Vixen: "INCONCIEVABLE!"
Mike1711: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, judges do not plead, hence the IRONY of Bruno "pleading" on behalf of the defense, grounds that were never in the pleadings, nor even the appeal, which is, "the defendants' case, in the alternative, is that even if the court finds they were there, this in itself does not prove they were involved".

Hence, as Bruno does state this, they are in elementary legal error.

Clear now?

Bruno does indeed confirm Amanda was there as a legal fact.

 

[Vixen]

The report doesn't say this. You're inventing things.

I think you are. Bruno complains there's no blood on the knife.

 

[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".

Not true. Read Clause 9 within its correct context.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

It was lovely Christmas wrapping, and Marasca and Bruno were very mean to say otherwise.

The knife had a red ribbon tied around it as Manuella Commodi promenaded it around the courtroom, like a prized piglet at a local fair, with being herself the only one allowed to touch the divine relic.

Why on earth would anyone question the veracity of evidence so apparent in such a solemn, and indeed elegant display?

Marasca points out that the DNA sample from Kerchner could not be considered as evidence, due to poor collection, handling and transport, and sub standard professionalism in processing the evidence.

But Manuella Commodi did a wonderful job dancing that evidence around the courtroom and parading it in front of the jury. That's one more lasting image from these trials I for one shall cherish.

And don't think for a minute that jury isn't highly discerning. Each and every member of that jury is required by Italian law to at least have completed middle school (8th grade), which is no small accomplishment in Italy.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I wasn't referring to clause 9. Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.

I read the whole report, contrary to your slur.

 

[Mike1711]

I think you are. Bruno complains there's no blood on the knife.

It's not a complaint. It's a statement of fact.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Ken Dine]

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.

I've had the same thoughts about Filomena. She apparently liked Amanda well enough before the murder, and even for several days afterwards, but once all the LIES about Amanda & Raffaele were leaked to the press, then apparently Filomena stupidly believed what she read, instead of what she knew about Amanda on a one-to-one level.

With friends like Filomena, who needs enemies?

 

[Vixen]

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!!!!

That's a volte face. Yesterday you were saying they were INNOCENT and EXONERATED.

 

[Grinder]

Current code from http://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

Art. 530.
Judgment of acquittal.

1. If the crime does not exist, if the defendant has not committed, if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the offense was committed by a person not bring charges against or punished for another reason , the court shall render a judgment of acquittal on their cause in the device.

2. The court shall render a judgment of acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused committed it, that constitutes a criminal offense or the offense was committed by the person responsible.

3. If there is evidence that the act was committed in the presence of a justification or a personal cause for exemption from punishment or there is doubt about the existence of the same, the judge shall render a judgment of acquittal pursuant to paragraph 1.

Seems very clear that 530(2) exists and in the way I thought it did.

What is it you demand of Vixen...?

 

[Mike1711]

I wasn't referring to clause 9. Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.

I read the whole report, contrary to your slur.

If you read and understood the report you will understand this:-
Clause 9 is a presentation of the pros and cons of the case from both sides. Clause 9 reflects the arguments raised and how they are dealt with. It contains the trail of events as perceived by the court a quo.
The conclusion of the beliefs of the Marasca Court lies in the verdict...
NOT GUILTY.
In other words after considering the arguments of both sides as summarised in Clause 9 the ISC rejects the arguments of the prosecution in favour of the defence.
Contemplations of fact in Clause 9 are nothing more than legal musings considered by the ISC with reference to the court a quo.
In the end the arguments and pleadings as reflected in Clause 9 are considered. The ISC threw the arguments as presented by the prosecution and adopted by the court a quo (as per Clause 9)out of court and incorporated the defence arguments into their verdict,
which was???