Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Did they find blood or MK's DNA on the jacket?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I doubt truly that Machiavelli is actually a legal expert. Although he did seem to portray himself as one.

As for Vixen, perhaps she can enlighten us about her qualifications in Italian law.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Really? "might have" and "perhaps"? I thought you suggested that Amanda and Raffaele met up with Rudy at the Piazza because of her statement about Patrick?

This is the problem you and all the guilters have when discussing the actual evidence.

Nothing fits And in your attempts to make pieces fit, you actually screw up other pieces of the puzzle.

 

[Grinder]

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.

From what I've seen this description from the Seattle Times accurately sums up what Dalla Vedova said to Amanda - “Finished!” Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out late Friday. “It couldn’t be better than this.”

But we know a paragraph 1 would have been better.

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

And the Nencini verdict was on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. I'll assume you knew that. MB found the investigation seriously flawed; found Nencini' logic was seriously flawed, relying heavily on speculation and assumption, and it clearly states it did not remand the case to another court because it concluded there was no evidence to justify such an action.

 

[Bill Williams]

From what I've seen this description from the Seattle Times accurately sums up what Dalla Vedova said to Amanda - “Finished!” Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out late Friday. “It couldn’t be better than this.”

But we know a paragraph 1 would have been better.

If it "accurately sums it up," would it not be better to have the real quote to compare?

What it is that you "have seen" which makes you believe it is an accurate summation?

 

[Grinder]

If it "accurately sums it up," would it not be better to have the real quote to compare?

What it is that you "have seen" which makes you believe it is an accurate summation?

Amanda's afterword. It was one quote.

ETA - Here you go Bill from her own book - "Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Della Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!

So Bill it would seem Amanda understood the difference between para 1 and 2.

 

[Methos]

From what I've seen this description from the Seattle Times accurately sums up what Dalla Vedova said to Amanda - “Finished!” Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out late Friday. “It couldn’t be better than this.”

But we know a paragraph 1 would have been better.

Just one little thought about this Art. 530.1 vs Art 530.2 thing:
Given the procedure with detention hearings and appeals pre-trial, trial, appeal and revision, wouldn't you think that any cases of Art. 530.1 would have been sorted out before the trial stage?
In this case it was judge Micheli who ruled that there was evidence and that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should stand trial, so IMO any following judge would have to find this evidence "insufficient" in the case of an acquittal, my 0,02 Euro.

 

[LondonJohn]

From what I've seen this description from the Seattle Times accurately sums up what Dalla Vedova said to Amanda - “Finished!” Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out late Friday. “It couldn’t be better than this.”

But we know a paragraph 1 would have been better.

A Paragraph 1 acquittal would have been impossible in practice in this instance. As has been explained numerous times now, a 530.1 acquittal is, in practice, only ever used where the court determines either a) that no crime at all even took place, or b) that the defendant could more-or-less prove his/her innocence to the total satisfaction of the court. Neither applied in the case before Marasca's SC panel. Therefore the ONLY option available to it was 530.2 - which it duly issued, together with a written explanation that it was pretty much the strongest possible "flavour" of 530.2: one where there's zero credible, reliable evidence against the accused.

I realise this is a bit of a bete noir for you, but it's totally wrong to suggest that the Marasca SC verdict "less than totally exonerated" Knox and/or Sollecito. The two were entirely exonerated in respect of the murder (and the theft and the break-in).

 

[Grinder]

Just one little thought about this Art. 530.1 vs Art 530.2 thing:
Given the procedure with detention hearings and appeals pre-trial, trial, appeal and revision, wouldn't you think that any cases of Art. 530.1 would have been sorted out before the trial stage?
In this case it was judge Micheli who ruled that there was evidence and that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should stand trial, so IMO any following judge would have to find this evidence "insufficient" in the case of an acquittal, my 0,02 Euro.

I know what you mean. It would seem that the first trial would be the most likely to have such verdict. Then the next level more likely than the last level.

If we had an Italian legal expert it would help. I imagine somewhere there is a list of para 1 and para 2 dismissals.

Here after the prosecution presents its case, the defense can move for summary judgment which says that if all of the case is believed there is not enough to convict.

But clearly what DV told Amanda isn't true. She specifically asks if it was not enough evidence and he says no.

 

[Grinder]

A Paragraph 1 acquittal would have been impossible in practice in this instance. As has been explained numerous times now, a 530.1 acquittal is, in practice, only ever used where the court determines either a) that no crime at all even took place, or b) that the defendant could more-or-less prove his/her innocence to the total satisfaction of the court. Neither applied in the case before Marasca's SC panel. Therefore the ONLY option available to it was 530.2 - which it duly issued, together with a written explanation that it was pretty much the strongest possible "flavour" of 530.2: one where there's zero credible, reliable evidence against the accused.

I realise this is a bit of a bete noir for you, but it's totally wrong to suggest that the Marasca SC verdict "less than totally exonerated" Knox and/or Sollecito. The two were entirely exonerated in respect of the murder (and the theft and the break-in).

Why don't you cite something on this? It is not just I that doesn't agree with your assessment others including Cheli don't. Apparently Amanda understood the difference.

You have not demonstrated any high level understanding of the Italian system and certainly not to Cheli's level.

I would say it is more of a bete noir for you. Do you still maintain that the different paragraphs don't really exist except for jurists over 45?

 

[Vixen]

And the Nencini verdict was on the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. I'll assume you knew that. MB found the investigation seriously flawed; found Nencini' logic was seriously flawed, relying heavily on speculation and assumption, and it clearly states it did not remand the case to another court because it concluded there was no evidence to justify such an action.

Nope, Nencini was assessing the robustness of Massei's verdict.

 

[Vixen]

Amanda's afterword. It was one quote.

ETA - Here you go Bill from her own book - "Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Della Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!

So Bill it would seem Amanda understood the difference between para 1 and 2.

Yes, and she lies by telling the reader it is a para 1, when she knew it was not.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, and she lies by telling the reader it is a para 1, when she knew it was not.

Well in this case she was just recounting the event and Della telling her what he did tell her.

 

[Vixen]

I know what you mean. It would seem that the first trial would be the most likely to have such verdict. Then the next level more likely than the last level.

If we had an Italian legal expert it would help. I imagine somewhere there is a list of para 1 and para 2 dismissals.

Here after the prosecution presents its case, the defense can move for summary judgment which says that if all of the case is believed there is not enough to convict.

But clearly what DV told Amanda isn't true. She specifically asks if it was not enough evidence and he says no.

You might find a list by default of para 1 acquittals.

There is no such list for para 2, as evidence hunting is not in the supreme court's remit. A straight ISC would have remitted the case back to a lower court to assess the disputed fact/s. This is standard convention.

There is only one para 2 acquittal on record at this level and this was Bongiorno's Andreotti case. It differs from the Knox-Sollecito case in that the lower court did originally find Andreotti "not guilty".

Both Massei and Nencini, having assessed all the facts and evidence put to the court, found the pair solidly guilty.


This is why it is legally impossible for Bruno-Marasca to find them "innocent". Instead, they took the weaselly suggestion of Andreotti worshipper, Bongiorno, of using 530:2 as the escape clause.

Bongiorno deflected the case from first chambers to fifth chambers, who clearly have no clue about murder cases, which come under penal code 628 (check) and means in serious crimes, persons convicted cannot just be acquitted on a whim by a maverick supreme court.

This means even if you are the biggest mafia crook of a judge, you cannot play the system by perverse rulings.

 

[Vixen]

Well in this case she was just recounting the event and Della telling her what he did tell her.

Still lying by omission.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda's afterword. It was one quote.

ETA - Here you go Bill from her own book - "Does 'acquitted' mean not enough evidence to convict?" I asked him (Della Vedova) "Or did they find us innocent?" "They found you innocent, Amanda!" he said. "It's the best result possible!

So Bill it would seem Amanda understood the difference between para 1 and 2.

Thanks for this. It seems we're right back to the LondonJohn/Grinder war. I'll go back to lurking.

 

[Bill Williams]

Still lying by omission.

You really have a need to accuse people of lying!

 

[Bill Williams]

I know what you mean. It would seem that the first trial would be the most likely to have such verdict. Then the next level more likely than the last level.

If we had an Italian legal expert it would help. I imagine somewhere there is a list of para 1 and para 2 dismissals.

Here after the prosecution presents its case, the defense can move for summary judgment which says that if all of the case is believed there is not enough to convict.

But clearly what DV told Amanda isn't true. She specifically asks if it was not enough evidence and he says no.

The best suggestion here is the call for an Italian legal expert to comment.

 

[Grinder]

The best suggestion here is the call for an Italian legal expert to comment.

Do you not think Cheli is an expert?