Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Sergei Walankov]

After a full week with no activity, I was beginning to think Amanda and Raffaele were finally free.

 

[cullennz]

Know absolutely nothing about the case but I just watched a half an hour documentary and she is guilty

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bill Williams]

Know absolutely nothing about the case but I just watched a half an hour documentary and she is guilty

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Which documentary. The Italian courts have cleared both of them.

 

[cullennz]

Which documentary. The Italian courts have cleared both of them.

Not sure. Missed the last twenty minutes


OK

I'll admit it was a bad joke set up on a serious thread




Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

 

[toto]

Not sure. Missed the last twenty minutes


OK

I'll admit it was a bad joke set up on a serious thread




Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Well, I got the joke!

 

[Bill Williams]

Not sure. Missed the last twenty minutes


OK

I'll admit it was a bad joke set up on a serious thread




Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

Ah. A Haka in the thread meant to restart it!

Congrats to the All Blacks. Totally dominating.

 

[Grinder]

So what is it that still keeps your interest in this case and what more would you like to know or discuss which hasn't already been done?

As I said, I looked in here and elsewhere and found it humorous that the most discussion was going on about this case on a site sponsored or moderated by a person that had come here several times saying we should stop talking about this case on this site.

Since I'm not posting about the case regularly at all, perhaps you should ask those that are filling the ether with back and forth on issues discussed for 7 years over at IIP.

Only because you asked I will admit that I'm still interested in what the ruling meant precisely and have contacted an Italian law professor about 530 and what it means legally and commonly. No answer yet. I'm also interested in whether anything will be done regarding the bungling of the case, what will happen in the still open cases, whether either or both of the kids sue people, whether the ECHR takes up any part of the case and what happens to Rudi.

 

[Bill Williams]

Only because you asked I will admit that I'm still interested in what the ruling meant precisely and have contacted an Italian law professor about 530 and what it means legally and commonly. No answer yet. I'm also interested in whether anything will be done regarding the bungling of the case, what will happen in the still open cases, whether either or both of the kids sue people, whether the ECHR takes up any part of the case and what happens to Rudi.

All worthy questions. Please let us know what the Italian law professor says.

IIUC Raffaele is trying to engage some supervisory body of judges which, it is claimed, can do some sort of investigation into the bungling of the case. That's all I know.

Keep reading at IIP and join in! Don't be shy!

 

[Grinder]

All worthy questions. Please let us know what the Italian law professor says.

IIUC Raffaele is trying to engage some supervisory body of judges which, it is claimed, can do some sort of investigation into the bungling of the case. That's all I know.

Keep reading at IIP and join in! Don't be shy!

I will leave that thread to you and the others. I believe that it is perfectly fine for the PIP and the PGP to have their "own" sites. If there is something that comes up of new interest please do put it here.

Sadly you and others will most likely only come here if some PGP troll shows up.

Another reason for me not posting over there is that I just don't have the time to make all the corrections needed there

 

[Bill Williams]

I will leave that thread to you and the others. I believe that it is perfectly fine for the PIP and the PGP to have their "own" sites. If there is something that comes up of new interest please do put it here.

Sadly you and others will most likely only come here if some PGP troll shows up.

Another reason for me not posting over there is that I just don't have the time to make all the corrections needed there

It is bizarre that this bias can be seriously entertained.

No matter, if only biased people post there that's another reason why you should join in. We can always use one more!

Besides, Bruce Fisher docks my pay if I post here!

 

[toto]

As I said, I looked in here and elsewhere and found it humorous that the most discussion was going on about this case on a site sponsored or moderated by a person that had come here several times saying we should stop talking about this case on this site.

Since I'm not posting about the case regularly at all, perhaps you should ask those that are filling the ether with back and forth on issues discussed for 7 years over at IIP.

Only because you asked I will admit that I'm still interested in what the ruling meant precisely and have contacted an Italian law professor about 530 and what it means legally and commonly. No answer yet. I'm also interested in whether anything will be done regarding the bungling of the case, what will happen in the still open cases, whether either or both of the kids sue people, whether the ECHR takes up any part of the case and what happens to Rudi.

I am interested in these things too. I do hope you post if you get a response to 530. I assume any ECHR info will be years off and guess that TJMK will be the first to report on any adverse judgements re A and R and IIP on anything good for them. I am just waiting for the pro guilt translation to be finally completed (they certainly have been dragging it out) and seeing whether TJMK actually translate the words "did not commit the act" or just leave it for their wiki, and also how much it differs from the IIP version. Then I am looking forward to de-bookmarking all these websites and just returning every few months or so.

 

[Grinder]

I am interested in these things too. I do hope you post if you get a response to 530. I assume any ECHR info will be years off and guess that TJMK will be the first to report on any adverse judgements re A and R and IIP on anything good for them. I am just waiting for the pro guilt translation to be finally completed (they certainly have been dragging it out) and seeing whether TJMK actually translate the words "did not commit the act" or just leave it for their wiki, and also how much it differs from the IIP version. Then I am looking forward to de-bookmarking all these websites and just returning every few months or so.

ETA - I'm not holding my breath and may try others in terms of the 530 issue. I reread Marasca/Bruno and they seem clear on what it means.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am interested in these things too. I do hope you post if you get a response to 530. I assume any ECHR info will be years off and guess that TJMK will be the first to report on any adverse judgements re A and R and IIP on anything good for them. I am just waiting for the pro guilt translation to be finally completed (they certainly have been dragging it out) and seeing whether TJMK actually translate the words "did not commit the act" or just leave it for their wiki, and also how much it differs from the IIP version. Then I am looking forward to de-bookmarking all these websites and just returning every few months or so.

I'm waiting to see how they deal with Section 9.2 of Marasca/Bruno. How will they translate "synoptic".

 

[Grinder]

I'm waiting to see how they deal with Section 9.2 of Marasca/Bruno. How will they translate "synoptic".

Perhaps if you used the Italian word that was translated that would make more sense. Since the Italian is sinottico, it would be hard to give it a much different translation but maybe summary would do.

I'm glad that people now recognize that everything in a MR isn't necessarily what the court believes. For example some kept pointing to Nencini's statement that as a professional burglar Rudi would have just picked the front door lock BUT he was saying that in the context that if the defenses' statements about Rudi were true. Not that the court knew Rudi was a professional burglar.

After writing sinottica they go on to state that the presence of the kids at the cottage during the crime is not proof of guilt, which implies to me that they do believe they were there.

During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in
itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of
evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in
mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation
in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established
by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.
On this point, it is ius recepitum [well established rule] that the distinction lies in
the fact that the former assumes that the agent maintains a purely passive
behaviour, without contributing to the crime, while the latter requires a positive
participation - of a moral or material nature - to the criminal activity of others, also
in ways facilitating or reinforcing the criminal intent of the associate

They don't seem to use the word hypothetical as the PIP translation indicates but rather assumption - hard for me to know if that's a distinction without a difference.

It is clear that what they wrote is not clear in meaning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps if you used the Italian word that was translated that would make more sense. Since the Italian is sinottico, it would be hard to give it a much different translation but maybe summary would do.

I'm glad that people now recognize that everything in a MR isn't necessarily what the court believes. For example some kept pointing to Nencini's statement that as a professional burglar Rudi would have just picked the front door lock BUT he was saying that in the context that if the defenses' statements about Rudi were true. Not that the court knew Rudi was a professional burglar.

After writing sinottica they go on to state that the presence of the kids at the cottage during the crime is not proof of guilt, which implies to me that they do believe they were there.

During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in
itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of
evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in
mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation
in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established
by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.
On this point, it is ius recepitum [well established rule] that the distinction lies in
the fact that the former assumes that the agent maintains a purely passive
behaviour, without contributing to the crime, while the latter requires a positive
participation - of a moral or material nature - to the criminal activity of others, also
in ways facilitating or reinforcing the criminal intent of the associate

They don't seem to use the word hypothetical as the PIP translation indicates but rather assumption - hard for me to know if that's a distinction without a difference. It is clear that what they wrote is not clear in meaning.

Indeed, that's where it sits. Given that here in judge-alone trials they write "reasons for judgement", it is hard to fathom a judge wanting to be anything less than crystal clear.

 

[Grinder]

Bill here is a small example of something that I don't understand why people do it and why others let it go. This is the sort of stuff that becomes "fact" when actually is false and therefore a factoid.

Given the "friendly" connection between Stefanoni and Monica Napoleoni as well a being colleagues, when your kids are college pals etc., I can understand why they might support, or cover for one another, regardless of the facts. This isn't just a problem in Italy, holding the line, a "them versus us" position appears to be a global policy. Not just with police but with others in the legal profession. Some strange events surround this case, in particular the hit and run manslaughter of a young American girl Alison Owens who was riding her bike, by Pietro Stefanoni, from the same locale as Patrizia, occurred around the time Ms Knox and Mr. Sollecito were acquitted by the Hellman court. Pietro was defended by Maresca, (he was eventually convicted) the lawyer working for the Kerchers. Perhaps just a coincidence, but it does demonstrate the close knit environment within that policing and legal community, which may put it in perspective for those finding it hard to understand what took place in this case.

I have never heard of this relationship between Steffy and Nappy. That doesn't make it false but later inaccuracies makes one wonder. They weren't colleagues as Steffy worked in Rome and Nappy in Perugia.

The girl that was killed wasn't on bike she was running. Doesn't make any difference but clear that the writer didn't check for accuracy. The fact it happened during a 7 year trial means absolutely nothing. Was the driver from the same local as Steffy? I doubt it.

The body of Allison Owens, a 23-year-old tour guide from Columbus, Ohio, was found in a canal days after she was hit Oct. 2 near San Giovanni Valdarno, between Florence and Arezzo.

It remains my impression Steffy worked in Rome and I doubt she commuted from Florence. Maresca is from Florence so his being the lawyer doesn't seem odd at all. In fact his work with the Kerchers would have made him well known.

Then we get to the piece-de-resistance: Perhaps just a coincidence, but it does demonstrate the close knit environment within that policing and legal community, which may put it in perspective for those finding it hard to understand what took place in this case.

So absolutely nothing except a last name being the same as a CSI lab tech and lawyer for a victim being involved in the case "demonstrates" the close knit environment. Pure bull. This was supposed to explain why Steffy did what she did.

This isn't about PIP or PGP but rather just what garbage is posted and how it is allowed to become a judicial truth

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill here is a small example of something that I don't understand why people do it and why others let it go. This is the sort of stuff that becomes "fact" when actually is false and therefore a factoid.

Given the "friendly" connection between Stefanoni and Monica Napoleoni as well a being colleagues, when your kids are college pals etc., I can understand why they might support, or cover for one another, regardless of the facts. This isn't just a problem in Italy, holding the line, a "them versus us" position appears to be a global policy. Not just with police but with others in the legal profession. Some strange events surround this case, in particular the hit and run manslaughter of a young American girl Alison Owens who was riding her bike, by Pietro Stefanoni, from the same locale as Patrizia, occurred around the time Ms Knox and Mr. Sollecito were acquitted by the Hellman court. Pietro was defended by Maresca, (he was eventually convicted) the lawyer working for the Kerchers. Perhaps just a coincidence, but it does demonstrate the close knit environment within that policing and legal community, which may put it in perspective for those finding it hard to understand what took place in this case.

I have never heard of this relationship between Steffy and Nappy. That doesn't make it false but later inaccuracies makes one wonder. They weren't colleagues as Steffy worked in Rome and Nappy in Perugia.

The girl that was killed wasn't on bike she was running. Doesn't make any difference but clear that the writer didn't check for accuracy. The fact it happened during a 7 year trial means absolutely nothing. Was the driver from the same local as Steffy? I doubt it.

The body of Allison Owens, a 23-year-old tour guide from Columbus, Ohio, was found in a canal days after she was hit Oct. 2 near San Giovanni Valdarno, between Florence and Arezzo.

It remains my impression Steffy worked in Rome and I doubt she commuted from Florence. Maresca is from Florence so his being the lawyer doesn't seem odd at all. In fact his work with the Kerchers would have made him well known.

Then we get to the piece-de-resistance: Perhaps just a coincidence, but it does demonstrate the close knit environment within that policing and legal community, which may put it in perspective for those finding it hard to understand what took place in this case.

So absolutely nothing except a last name being the same as a CSI lab tech and lawyer for a victim being involved in the case "demonstrates" the close knit environment. Pure bull. This was supposed to explain why Steffy did what she did.

This isn't about PIP or PGP but rather just what garbage is posted and how it is allowed to become a judicial truth

I generally agree with you, and your irascibility around this is why your contributions are a net-benefit to the "debate". I can disagree with you on details, but no one (no "side") can simply invent things out of surmises.

 

[Grinder]

I generally agree with you, and your irascibility around this is why your contributions are a net-benefit to the "debate". I can disagree with you on details, but no one (no "side") can simply invent things out of surmises.

Had you ever heard this tale of Nappy and Steffy being "friends" through their children going to college together?

Had you heard about the hit and run driver being named (gasp) Stefanoni?

 

[anglolawyer]

We are plumbing new depths of desperation if we are now going to start critiquing posts on other forums. There is no law that says this thread needs 20+ posts a day to survive. It will still be here when something of note actually happens in the case.

Lockerbie just woke up after a lull.

 

[Grinder]

We are plumbing new depths of desperation if we are now going to start critiquing posts on other forums. There is no law that says this thread needs 20+ posts a day to survive. It will still be here when something of note actually happens in the case.

Lockerbie just woke up after a lull.

We have brought over posts for years including before you dropped by. There is no desperation at all by giving an example to someone else, not you. It was merely an example of why I don't want to go over there and the person I directed it to didn't seem to mind and responded in a positive manner.

To me, if that post were true and there were the relationships etc. described then the "conspiracy" theorists may have more than I have thought to date. But I doubt it is an accurate account.

One of my interests in this whole case IS the propensity for BOTH sides to make stuff up and repeat it until it becomes the TRUTH.

I don't see why a few posts on this thread bother you so much. I am not particularly interested in Lockerbie. I certainly don't wish to deter you from saying whatever you wish over there even if it adds nothing to the body of work that has been going on for years there.

Peace