Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

You are still wrong. Italian judges are obliged to recreate the scenario. Bruno-Marasca having rubbished Nencini's and Massei's are legally bound to set up another one.

If they disputed a material point of fact, they were obliged to send it back to a fact-finding court.

Provide a cite for this as well. They weren't judging Rudi. What court should they have sent it back to?

They weren't obligated to set a scenario for a not guilty paragraph 2 verdict.

 

[Vixen]

Provide a cite for this as well. They weren't judging Rudi. What court should they have sent it back to?

They weren't obligated to set a scenario for a not guilty paragraph 2 verdict.

They have to provide a satisfactory narrative for the state prosecution, who, even if they disagree with it have to be able to accept it as legally sound.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no case precedent. Bruno & Marasca do not have the power to change the law. They did not consult with united chambers before setting legal precedent, as they are legally obliged to.

Again, what are your qualifications in Italian law? My guess is you are making this claim based upon what it says on one of the guilter websites. Are there articles in Italian legal journals or even the Italian media that suggest that the acquittal was illegal?

Please feel free to provide any references that you might find.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[TruthCalls]

The cctv does not show that. It shows Rudy entering after either Amanda or Mez, who, as Rudy said in his statement, let him in "with her key".

The CCTV footage shows Guede returning to the cottage - for the second time that evening - at 20:30. Meredith arrives at 21:00. There is no footage showing anyone entering the cottage, but the evidence AND common sense says Guede broke in prior to Meredith arriving home.

It wasn't Amanda or Mez - only one woman was seen approaching the cottage on CCTV and it's proven Meredith arrived at the cottage during that time frame. There is no reason to believe Meredith willingly let Guede in. To suggest otherwise is amazingly disrespectful to Meredith.

 

[Vixen]

Maybe she didn't know it was 'a deliberate lie'. Did Dalla Vedova utter this lie anywhere else? Is he being panned for it within the Italian legal community?

Come off it, Anglo. If it were you, you would be hounding your counsel for full details, together with the implications.

 

[TruthCalls]

They have to provide a satisfactory narrative for the state prosecution, who, even if they disagree with it have to be able to accept it as legally sound.

That's nonsense. The court is ruling on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. It ruled they were not involved. They were not reviewing evidence to determine number of attackers or who those attackers were. Amanda and Raffaele were not involved. End of ruling. If the prosecution believes more than one attacker was involved then it is is up to them to open the case again and continue investigating.

 

[Vixen]

The CCTV footage shows Guede returning to the cottage - for the second time that evening - at 20:30. Meredith arrives at 21:00. There is no footage showing anyone entering the cottage, but the evidence AND common sense says Guede broke in prior to Meredith arriving home.

It wasn't Amanda or Mez - only one woman was seen approaching the cottage on CCTV and it's proven Meredith arrived at the cottage during that time frame. There is no reason to believe Meredith willingly let Guede in. To suggest otherwise is amazingly disrespectful to Meredith.

She might have done if he explained he was waiting for Amanda. Perhaps she owed him money for drugs. Perhaps he was supplying her and Raff with some.

Italian newspapers reproduced the grainy cctv which showed someone fitting Rudy's description and clothing - a quilted jacket similar to the one he was wearing when arrested in Germany - following a female figure into the cottage.

 

[Vixen]

That's nonsense. The court is ruling on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. It ruled they were not involved. They were not reviewing evidence to determine number of attackers or who those attackers were. Amanda and Raffaele were not involved. End of ruling. If the prosecution believes more than one attacker was involved then it is is up to them to open the case again and continue investigating.

The supreme court was not ruling on guilt or innocence. It was ruling on the robustness of Nencini's verdict.

It is a legal error to substitute its own verdict, and having done so, means the Bruno-Marasca report is hugely defective and flawed.

 

[Mr Fied]

Note the serious three-year prison sentence your hero felon served for criminal lying.

Why do you have to resort to these childish comments?

So, Amanda is a convicted felon because the Italian courts say so, fair enough. Those same courts also say she is not guilty of murder.

Are you going to accept the courts verdicts or just the one that suits your pov?

 

[Vixen]

Why do you have to resort to these childish comments?

So, Amanda is a convicted felon because the Italian courts say so, fair enough. Those same courts also say she is not guilty of murder.

Are you going to accept the courts verdicts or just the one that suits your pov?

Now light dawns. It is nothing to do with whether you or I "like" the verdict, it is to do with its internal integrity, robustness and internal logic and consistency.

It fails resoundly on all levels.

 

[Mr Fied]

She might have done if he explained he was waiting for Amanda. Perhaps she owed him money for drugs. Perhaps he was supplying her and Raff with some.

Might, perhaps, perhaps. Pretty compelling evidence.

Perhaps he came to buy some drugs, there were drugs produced by someone downstairs.
Let me think, was it by Amanda's boyfriend and did Amanda have a key?

Italian newspapers reproduced the grainy cctv which showed someone fitting Rudy's description and clothing - a wuilted jacket similar to the one he was wearing when arrested in Germany - following a female figure into the cottage.

Where is this footage that shows the entrance to the cottage?

 

[Mr Fied]

Now light dawns. It is nothing to do with whether you or I "like" the verdict, it is to do with its internal integrity, robustness and internal logic and consistency.

It fails resoundly on all levels.

Yes I agree, there is no way Amanda should have been found guilty of callunia.

I am glad we finally agree on something.

 

[Vixen]

Again, what are your qualifications in Italian law? My guess is you are making this claim based upon what it says on one of the guilter websites. Are there articles in Italian legal journals or even the Italian media that suggest that the acquittal was illegal?

Please feel free to provide any references that you might find.

I won't be holding my breath.

Even if I did provide sound references

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0. Please consult the many modboxes on this thread, most recently here, which was posted less than two hours before your post.

 

[Vixen]

Might, perhaps, perhaps. Pretty compelling evidence.

Perhaps he came to buy some drugs, there were drugs produced by someone downstairs.
Let me think, was it by Amanda's boyfriend and did Amanda have a key?



Where is this footage that shows the entrance to the cottage?

Do a google search.

 

[Grinder]

They have to provide a satisfactory narrative for the state prosecution, who, even if they disagree with it have to be able to accept it as legally sound.

No they don't. Not even the convicting judges accepted the prosecution's case. They each made up their own theories.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the new Afterword in WTBH Amanda claims Velladova (sp?) assured her she was found completely innocent and exonerated, and in her dishonesty, she continues this deliberately false representation to her readers.


This demonstrates Amanda lies readily, and not only that, she is aware she does.

You are entirely entitled to your opinion. Yet what "Velladova" told her is correct, acc. to Italian law. Why you would then call her the liar for what an Italian legal expert told her is the biggest mystery of all.

 

[acbytesla]

Popular? You mean popular with the Amanda fan club who show dog-like daft fawning loyalty to their idol, no matter what the evidence.

Really? No matter what the evidence? It is the evidence that points to that speculation.

1. The CCTV camera catches what appears to be Rudy 3 times Before Meredith arrives home. First time 7:52 second 8:21.The third time, the time stamp is missing? But was reported to be before 9 PM.

2. Rudy always said Meredith let him in.
3. It's a break in. Rudy has history.
4. Rudy says he was on the John when some unknown stranger is let in by Meredith and this stranger killed Meredith. Many believe that this first part was real.

Now tell us that this is wild speculation NOT based on the evidence?

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe she didn't know it was 'a deliberate lie'. Did Dalla Vedova utter this lie anywhere else? Is he being panned for it within the Italian legal community?

Come off it, Anglo. If it were you, you would be hounding your counsel for full details, together with the implications.

Maybe she did... and the outcome of this "hounding" was being told she'd been exonerated. Those are the full details. The implication is that she is innocent, because under Italian law an accused never loses that status until the ISC signs off on a conviction.

Why does Anglo need to "come off" of anything?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not sure how you can say it was an "illegal" acquittal. I certainly am not an expert in Italian law. Are you? It's one thing to say that you are baffled by the decision, but you are arguing that something was illegal with no basis at all to come to that conclusion.

So far the only Italian legal expert who says this is an illegal acquittal is Machiavelli. There's a YouTube video floating around of Mignini's own interpretation of the Marasca acquittals....but at least Machiavelli has the veneer of being at arms' length.

I am sure that if this is an illegal decision, then people can post references from Italian sources saying that. I cannot find any - but as you know I am biased. I suppose I can also be blamed for no one else being able to find Italian sources which complain about Marasca's illegality.

So far we have "Vixen" claiming illegality. So that's two experts. When it gets to 10 experts, people who'll put their name to it anyways, maybe the ball can start rolling and the Italians will be well on their way to reversing things.

 

[acbytesla]

Even if I did provide sound references, you'd still be hurling yourself on the ground, rolling doglike at the feet of your cult heroes.

You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that if there was compelling evidence of their guilt that I would ignore and dismiss it.

This simply is not true.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 0