Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

When the poster in question participates in a five-year internet campaign to convince the English-language online sites about something diametrically opposite to what the Italian courts eventually found, that poster is fair game to have that PR campaign addressed.

You will tell that on some other forum. The moderators will clean this one from this post too.

 

[Numbers]

Answer the pertinent question as to why Marasca used paragraph 2.
We know both are acquittal but it is quite clear that p.1 is a no doubt innocent whereas p.2 is not enough or conflicting evidence.

The reason for this was that there was absolutely no reliable evidence of the guilt of Knox or Sollecito.

In an earlier post, you expressed doubt about the translation of the short-form verdict that appears after the "For These Reasons" (abbreviated as P. Q. M. in the original Italian).

Here is the text in Italian:

Visto l'art. 620 lett. a) cod.proc.pen., annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine al reato di cui al capo b) della rubrica per essere Il reato estinto per prescrizione;
visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.
Ridetermina la pena inflitta alla ricorrente Amanda Marie Knox per il delitto di calunnia in anni tre di reclusione.

You can check this text against the original, which appears on Amanda Knox's blog, and bears the stamps of the CSC authorities and signatures of Marasca and Bruno.

Here is a translation to English, courtesty of Google Translate, with the relevant part highlighted:

In view of art. 620 letter. a) cod.proc.pen., canceled without the court judgment concerning the offense referred to in Chapter b) The crime of the address book to be extinguished by prescription;
having regard to Articles. 620 letter. I) and 530, paragraph 2 cod. proc. pen .; Excluding the aggravating circumstance of art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in connection with the crime of slander, cancels without referring the judgment under appeal in regard to the offenses referred to in Chapters a), d) and e) of section for the applicants have not committed the crime.
Restates the sentence imposed on the applicant Amanda Marie Knox for the crime of libel in three years' imprisonment.

Note that Google translates "non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto" as:

"the applicants have not committed the crime".

 

[Bill Williams]

When the poster in question participates in a five-year internet campaign to convince the English-language online sites about something diametrically opposite to what the Italian courts eventually found, that poster is fair game to have that PR campaign addressed.

You will tell that on some other forum. The moderators will clean this one from this post too.

We can now read in English what has been available to Italians since Sept 7 - the reasons why the Marasca-Bruno court annuled the Nencini convictions.

This is diametrically opposed to what you have been saying - in content - for five years. Agreed, this is not about you, it is about your opinions. Opinions which you are propagating on an English service which will do no good - that I can see - to the result you wish to achieve - unless the result is the slander you post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Posters in this thread have been warned about calling other posters liars.

Please do me a kindness - please remind me what you tweeted *about* Porta a Porta. I very well could me mistaken, but your last explanation sounded like an attempt to lobby Porta a Porta....

.... in the same manner you lobbied Katie Couric and Chris Cuomo. In fact the claim was that Couric closed with guilter talking points as a result of intervention.

I have never interacted with Couric or Cuomo in my life, as far as I can remember. I actually don't even know what they do and where they work.
Another falsehood addressing a poster on your part.

I never made attempts to lobby Porta a Porta, these are still just your own falsehoods and speculations. Indeed, you are mistaken. I maintain what I said about a Porta a Porta show, which has nothing to do with your statements.
Now let's nite that moderators should remove this off topic delusion as well.

 

[acbytesla]

METHINKS, since March 27th the "Guilters' have instead been trying to create some wiggle-room in the vague wording of CPP Article 530 (2).
Since Raffaele & Amanda were both adjudged to be 100% innocent, what difference does it make?

There were many Italian code sections cited in this opinion, so why dwell on one vague code section which could mean many things in different cases?

You are probably right. But it doesn't really matter.

Machiavelli suggests that the present ruling opens the door for civil litigation. But even if that were so it is highly unlikely there will be any.

The only people with standing are the Kerchers. Their own scumbag lawyer has said it is over. I'm guessing that he took this case on a contingency basis. If there was really a chance to still make money on this case do we really think he would abandon it? I don't.

Imagine if he has been billing the Kerchers all this time. Does anyone think that the Kerchers would want to throw good money after bad?

I'm convinced that these absurd objections and bizarre and twisted translations of the motivation is much much more about the nut jobs justifying and rationalizing their own disgusting behavior over the last 8 years.

They simply cannot accept the fact that they were wrong. Terribly wrong.

Imagine that you had just spent years villifying and writing horrible things about 2 good kids. Some of the things these people wrote are beyond disgusting. There have been in fact many veiled death threats.

No one thinks that they themselves are horrible people. Believe it or not, even many serial killers refuse to believe that about themselves.

If Amanda and Raffaele were truly innocent, what does that say about the guilters behavior?

For this sake, to them Amanda and Raffaele must be guilty. Otherwise they would have to take a long look in the mirror and they might not like what they see,

 

[Machiavelli]

Posters in this thread have been warned about calling other posters liars.

Please do me a kindness - please remind me what you tweeted *about* Porta a Porta. I very well could me mistaken, but your last explanation sounded like an attempt to lobby Porta a Porta....

.... in the same manner you lobbied Katie Couric and Chris Cuomo. In fact the claim was that Couric closed with guilter talking points as a result of intervention.

We can now read in English what has been available to Italians since Sept 7 - the reasons why the Marasca-Bruno court annuled the Nencini convictions.

This is diametrically opposed to what you have been saying - in content - for five years. Agreed, this is not about you, it is about your opinions. Opinions which you are propagating on an English service which will do no good - that I can see - to the result you wish to achieve - unless the result is the slander you post.

One could equally note that it is diametrically opposed to what the pro-Knoxes have been saying for years.
But all this is not interesting. My first post today was a fact about the law. The rest is the result of an immediate diversion by the pro-Knoxes, who react by steering and directing the discussion on the poster immediately. My responses to comments against me will be shooting aimed at your object of worship, by pointing out facts, this ruffs your feathers and you begin with this hysterical stuff.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have never interacted with Couric or Cuomo in my life, as far as I can remember. I actually don't even know what they do and where they work.
Another falsehood addressing a poster on your part.

I never made attempts to lobby Porta a Porta, these are still just your own falsehoods and speculations. Indeed, you are mistaken. I maintain what I said about a Porta a Porta show, which has nothing to do with your statements.
Now let's nite that moderators should remove this off topic delusion as well.

I'm not wanting to pursue this, really. It would simply make it all the more strange that the minority spin your guilt-opinions put on to things would be for this web-service and this web-service alone.

 

[Bill Williams]

One could equally note that it is diametrically opposed to what the pro-Knoxes have been saying for years.
But all this is not interesting. My first post today was a fact about the law. The rest is the result of an immediate diversion by the pro-Knoxes, who react by steering and directing the discussion on the poster immediately. My responses to comments against me will be shooting aimed at your object of worship, by pointing out facts, this ruffs your feathers and you begin with this hysterical stuff.

Hoots!

Wait a minute.... I thought you were going to report posters who made those kind of "address to post, not the poster" sorts of remarks!? Hoots!

The facts of this case in question are as per the Marasca-Bruno report, now available in English. The prosecutors, police, and former judicial officers of Italy's judiciary engaged in a massive blunder. Some of Stefanoni's work was disturbing, and that's a quote from the report.

Nencini, wrongly, took it from the 2013 ISC that he was ordered to convict, so he purposely stretched factoids into a guilt narrative which the facts could not sustain.

And on and on.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hoots!

Wait a minute.... I thought you were going to report posters who made those kind of "address to post, not the poster" sorts of remarks!? Hoots!

The facts of this case in question are as per the Marasca-Bruno report, now available in English. The prosecutors, police, and former judicial officers of Italy's judiciary engaged in a massive blunder. Some of Stefanoni's work was disturbing, and that's a quote from the report.

Nencini, wrongly, took it from the 2013 ISC that he was ordered to convict, so he purposely stretched factoids into a guilt narrative which the facts could not sustain.

And on and on.

Is Machiavelli or Vixen worth arguing with though?

 

[js202]

One could equally note that it is diametrically opposed to what the pro-Knoxes have been saying for years.
But all this is not interesting. My first post today was a fact about the law. The rest is the result of an immediate diversion by the pro-Knoxes, who react by steering and directing the discussion on the poster immediately. My responses to comments against me will be shooting aimed at your object of worship, by pointing out facts, this ruffs your feathers and you begin with this hysterical stuff.

So, with regard to your first post today being "about the law," you presumably are referring to this self-interested gibberish:

"Technically this verdict leaves the 'judicial truth' open, that effects possibility of legal actions or claims."


You mean this, to your way of thinking, optimistic spin you put on the ISC's final and definitive motivation? Correct? How much would you like to bet that the jackal Maresca is good and done with the Kerchers as clients, and that the Kerchers have no money or appetite to take on any other attorney, whatsoever, towards this longstanding losing cause and sucker bet?

In fact it's laughable spin like this you've been promulgating here for five years, with the expectation that posters with an actual modicum of reason and sense take seriously your assertions that you come here and "teach us lessons." And, er, defeat us.

Knox and Sollecito are free, moving about openly in society and getting on with their personal and professional lives. Meanwhile, the corner into which you are now boxed, as your last-ditch locus of victory and lesson-teaching, is vanishing fast.

 

[js202]

No, and absolutely, ...

Is Machiavelli or Vixen worth arguing with though?

most definitely, no.

But the first case has been, shall we say, grandfathered in, and at least goes back to a time when there was something of vital importance in the world to argue over. Now it comes down to more or less post-mortem, half-hearted pawing or poking with a stick in the subject's general direction to ascertain remaining signs of life. It is the paltry, final death throes of what was always a preposterous conversation, an unquestionable embarrassment to undertake.

 

[Bill Williams]

most definitely, no.

But the first case has been, shall we say, grandfathered in, and at least goes back to a time when there was something of vital importance in the world to argue over. Now it comes down to more or less post-mortem, half-hearted pawing or poking with a stick in the subject's general direction to ascertain remaining signs of life. It is the paltry, final death throes of what was always a preposterous conversation, an unquestionable embarrassment to undertake.

Oh crap, js202 is on to me.....

 

[js202]

Oh crap, js202 is on to me.....

Admittedly, I noticed your trespass earlier today, Bill. But even the mighty stumble.

 

[acbytesla]

Admittedly, I noticed your trespass earlier today, Bill. But even the mighty stumble.

I've been good...well sort of.

 

[moije2]

Agonal respiration

most definitely, no.

Snip

... Now it comes down to more or less post-mortem, half-hearted pawing or poking with a stick in the subject's general direction to ascertain remaining signs of life. It is the paltry, final death throes of what was always a preposterous conversation, an unquestionable embarrassment to undertake.

Beautiful.

After weathering so much partisan bloviating, it was a pleasure to read something so succinct. Perfect summary.

 

[moije2]

Translation Page 45: "the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations"


Well now. What must one add? Doesn't that just about sum it up in one concise sentence?

 

[anglolawyer]

No it was Raffaele Sollecito. Ever since his depression and reading violent mangas he started getting homicidal thoughts and planned to pull off a thrill killing. He targeted Amanda at the concert but maybe someone saw them together too soon so he had to come up with a plan B. He decided to use her as an alibi and kill one of her roommates with his longtime drug buddy Rudy Guede. On the night of the murder he learned everyone in the cottage was gone except Meredith, who was hanging out with her British friends but would likely be back in the evening. He drugged Amanda with a sedative so she wouldn't be aware of what was going on or notice him leaving. Then he met up with Guede and they proceeded to kill Meredith. This explains Raffaele's bloody print on the bathmat, his DNA on the bra clasp, why he lied about the kitchen knife, and why he gave Amanda up to the police so readily, because he knew she wouldn't have any information to give them (that she would be coerced into confessing to the police fantasy scenario never occurred to him) and Rudy's early story about the other male attacker (and Meredith's dying words about "aff" - ie "Raff"). The luminol is from Amanda's bathmat shuffle the next morning. This is also why he couldn't keep his story straight on whether Filomena's door was open or closed, why he said nothing was stolen, and why he hesitated to call the police after Amanda asked him to.

Give me some reasons why my theory isn't better than yours.

You might add that Raffaele made his bones when offing Kercher. She had failed to maintain her monthly instalment of protection money to the local crime family, headed by a local capo (Antonio Curatolo, no less) to whom his care had been trusted by capo di capi, Francesco, so she had to be rubbed out or made to sleep with some fish or something. Machiavelli doesn't know how close he came to the truth with his fish dinner theory, actually.

Rudy is a patzer or a peacemaker as Ergon said. Wholly innocent and the victim of a monstrous injustice. Free the Rudy one! He wasn't even there but unfortunately had no alibi that night being at home repairing computers as part of his charitable work for Africa.

Quintavalle is lieutenant of the Perugia family btw. in case that wasn't obvious already.

 

[Grinder]

You might add that Raffaele made his bones when offing Kercher. She had failed to maintain her monthly instalment of protection money to the local crime family, headed by a local capo (Antonio Curatolo, no less) to whom his care had been trusted by capo di capi, Francesco, so she had to be rubbed out or made to sleep with some fish or something. Machiavelli doesn't know how close he came to the truth with his fish dinner theory, actually.

Rudy is a patzer or a peacemaker as Ergon said. Wholly innocent and the victim of a monstrous injustice. Free the Rudy one! He wasn't even there but unfortunately had no alibi that night being at home repairing computers as part of his charitable work for Africa.

Quintavalle is lieutenant of the Perugia family btw. in case that wasn't obvious already.

No sleep and coffee to come, no doubt.

 

[anglolawyer]

No sleep and coffee to come, no doubt.

Indeed

 

[bagels]

You might add that Raffaele made his bones when offing Kercher. She had failed to maintain her monthly instalment of protection money to the local crime family, headed by a local capo (Antonio Curatolo, no less) to whom his care had been trusted by capo di capi, Francesco, so she had to be rubbed out or made to sleep with some fish or something. Machiavelli doesn't know how close he came to the truth with his fish dinner theory, actually.

Rudy is a patzer or a peacemaker as Ergon said. Wholly innocent and the victim of a monstrous injustice. Free the Rudy one! He wasn't even there but unfortunately had no alibi that night being at home repairing computers as part of his charitable work for Africa.

Quintavalle is lieutenant of the Perugia family btw. in case that wasn't obvious already.

That's true I failed to consider the plight of poor Rudy. Now I'm just confused. Isn't it interesting that if we imagine Rudy did break in and attack Meredith but the police began the investigation from the premise that the break-in must have been staged, the investigation may have looked remarkably similar to how it actually looked? But we know it couldn't have happened that way because no burglar would climb a wall and no man could ever kill a woman by himself. I'm back to square one.

BTW did you notice that Mach said even if my theory is true Amanda Knox still needs to be punished lol. I get the distinct impression he really doesn't much care for her and this may be influencing his views