Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I have taken the scientific null hypothesis, and, like Massei and Nencini, the evidence was so strong, the null hypothesis (=the pair are innocent) had to be rejected.

That's what the merits courts (first instance courts) do.

If you read comment with regards to articles on the Norfolk Four, the Memphis Three, David Camm, and others, there are plenty of people whom argue that they are guilty.

The fact is that the courts do not always get it right.

Of course your arguments have never really been about the evidence.

 

[Vixen]

Sorry to be pedantic but the "statement" was made signed on 6th November 2007. This after entering the police station on the 5th.

If only we had the recordings of the questioning that led up to the statement, all of this could be cleared up.

Unfortunately for you, Mr., you don't get to make the rules.

 

[Vixen]

If you read comment with regards to articles on the Norfolk Four, the Memphis Three, David Camm, and others, there are plenty of people whom argue that they are guilty.

The fact is that the courts do not always get it right.

Of course your arguments have never really been about the evidence.

That's interesting. What have they been about, then?

 

[Mr Fied]

Unfortunately for you, Mr., you don't get to make the rules.

You are correct, the Italian judiciary get to make the rules.

They ruled that the statements were unlawful.

They also ruled that Amanda and Raffaelle are innocent of murder.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's interesting. What have they been about, then?

If it was a discussion of the evidence, you would not care about sex on the train, if her father hired a PR firm, if her father payed child support, etc.

 

[Mike1711]

Massei, Nencini. The fact -finders.

You should place "fact" in inverted commas because judicial "facts" are not necessarily facts. They are simply judicial conclusions (facts) relating to evidence and cast in stone for judicial purposese. This is done to prevent appeal courts from the obvious fiasco that would ensue as well as that the appeal (retrial?) would effectively become a double jeopardy retrial and nulled.

This is why Marasca refers to the case put forward by both parties (Clause 9.2) deliberately refraining from getting into argument on the merits. An appeal court is bound to accept points of fact but not necessarily points of law. Wrongful convictions happen when points of fact prove to be false "facts".

In Roman Dutch Law (which I studied) defendants can appeal on points of fact or law but the state can only appeal on points of law (See Oscar Pistorius appeal hearing to see how the appeals judges avoid getting into arguments on findings of fact from the lower court).

 

[Grinder]

Sorry to be pedantic but the "statement" was made signed on 6th November 2007. This after entering the police station on the 5th.

If only we had the recordings of the questioning that led up to the statement, all of this could be cleared up.

I already corrected the statement to the 6th. A difference without a distinction as it was all part of the same interrogation/interview.

 

[Vixen]

Sorry to be pedantic but the "statement" was made signed on 6th November 2007. This after entering the police station on the 5th.

If only we had the recordings of the questioning that led up to the statement, all of this could be cleared up.

If you don't believe me or Grinder,(or rather, claim you don't believe) perhaps you need to see it in Amanda's own words.

 

[Vixen]

You are correct, the Italian judiciary get to make the rules.

They ruled that the statements were unlawful.

They also ruled that Amanda and Raffaelle are innocent of murder.

They were excluded as evidence, so a red herring anyway, in terms of protocol.

 

[Vixen]

If it was a discussion of the evidence, you would not care about sex on the train, if her father hired a PR firm, if her father payed child support, etc.

These come under the category of trying to find out "what makes people tick".

When a heinous crime like this happens, people want to analyse why.

 

[Mike1711]

If you don't believe me or Grinder,(or rather, claim you don't believe) perhaps you need to see it in Amanda's own words.

Vixen, you seem to be the one struggling with AK's "own words".

"In my mind..." Says it all. We have all done many of things "in our minds" as opposed to "in reality".

Those three words speak volumes.

 

[Mr Fied]

They were excluded as evidence, so a red herring anyway, in terms of protocol.

Why were they excluded?

 

[Grinder]

And if the police asked you, you would just say so.

Not exactly a clear question but if the police came to me this morning and asked, I'd say I think she was there all night as when I woke up she was there a couple of times. If they asked is it possible she sneaked out, I'd say yes but not likely.

I don't believe Raf ever made the point but perhaps I don't remember correctly.

I find it strange whether he was involved or not that he can't get that night straight from the beginning. Those that say Mansey got it wrong and the police made him confused should think about what the police chief said about telling us what we knew to be correct in terms of Mansey getting it mixed up just like he later told the police.

 

[Bill Williams]

I do not slut-shame. The issues come up within the context of Amanda's out-of-control behaviour being the cause of harm towards her wholly innocent roommate IMV.

The parents come into it as enquiring minds need to know what makes them tick. Amanda told Edda she knew Patrick was innocent and Edda failed spectacularly in her duty as a citizen and good mother to turn her daughter in, especially when she was told loud and clear by Amanda, "I cannot lie, I was there"

It is stunning the ignorance. You realize, don't you, that the "I cannot lie, I was there", was Amanda telling her mom she was at Raffaele's.

In a spectacular example of yellow-journalism, Andrea Vogt reported the opposite to the Seattle newspapers - and a guilter meme was born.

"Out of control behaviour"? I thought you like citing Massei and Nencini. Can you please cite where any court said this? I'll give you a hint. It was Mignini in his closing at the 2009 trial who tred to float this theme - Amanda's pathological jealousy about Meredith.

The subsequent judges - convicting and acquitting - believed that so much they never made mention of it.

Why do you float these things which can so easily be disproven?

 

[Desert Fox]

These come under the category of trying to find out "what makes people tick".

When a heinous crime like this happens, people want to analyse why.

This is not about understanding how they tick but smearing feces.

 

[Vixen]

You should place "fact" in inverted commas because judicial "facts" are not necessarily facts. They are simply judicial conclusions (facts) relating to evidence and cast in stone for judicial purposese. This is done to prevent appeal courts from the obvious fiasco that would ensue as well as that the appeal (retrial?) would effectively become a double jeopardy retrial and nulled.

This is why Marasca refers to the case put forward by both parties (Clause 9.2) deliberately refraining from getting into argument on the merits. An appeal court is bound to accept points of fact but not necessarily points of law. Wrongful convictions happen when points of fact prove to be false "facts".

In Roman Dutch Law (which I studied) defendants can appeal on points of fact or law but the state can only appeal on points of law (See Oscar Pistorius appeal hearing to see how the appeals judges avoid getting into arguments on findings of fact from the lower court).

So in effect, as I have explained to "Bill", Bruno-Marasca had no choice but to uphold various legally settled issues. They used an unconstitutional Section 530.2 clause of "insufficient eveidence " - unconstitutional as this is only within the jurisdiction of the lower courts, hence they should have sent it back to a lower court to weigh up the merits again, with specific directions from Marasca. The other defective reasoning is that the defense did not put forward an appeal on the grounds, "our clients might have been there, in the alternative, but this does not mean they did it".

It was not for Bruno-Marasca to put this pleading forward for them on their behalf. Their sole remit was the issues raised in the appeal.

So, Marasca ruled they were there, however, they did not necessarily do it, which is completely erroneous and perverse.

 

[Mike1711]

Vixen. If you want a clear example to destroy you alibi theory look at the Oscar Pistorius case. Oscar "thinks" Reeva is asleep in their shared bed and mistakenly shoots her in the toilet.

The point is not whether one believes Oscar or not. It merely illustrates that even when one spends the night with someone it is possible to be mistaken on the whereabouts of that person during that night.

How does it go?...Ninja'd.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you seem to be the one struggling with AK's "own words".

"In my mind..." Says it all. We have all done many of things "in our minds" as opposed to "in reality".

Those three words speak volumes.

Are you calling Amanda a liar?

 

[Vixen]

Why were they excluded?

The defense submitted they should not be used as evidence and Massei being the judge made a decision to leave them out.

He had the power to direct they be evidence, but it's a good decision to exclude as it would only have been an appeal issue anyway.

 

[Mr Fied]

I already corrected the statement to the 6th. A difference without a distinction as it was all part of the same interrogation/interview.

Grinder, what I was trying to put across was that we know nothing of the events leading up to the spontaneous statement and what questions or suggestions were put to Amanda during the night.

I do not believe that it was a spontaneous statement, and can not believe anything that went before was not minuted or recorded.

Guede's interview with Mignini dated 26 March 2008 started at 10:35 and ended at 14:05 and consisted of 115 pages of text.

Amanda's "statement" after a whole night being questioned consists of 3 paragraphs.

Is it any wonder these statements were deemed unlawful and not to be used in the murder trial. Of course the prosecution found a way around that.

Amanda's testimony in court, that bagels so kindly provided, shows that she was indeed led into imagining things that never happened. She was told she had amnesia brought on by trauma, and the police admitted that she finally buckled and told them what was true. And we are asked to believe that she spontaneously came up with that statement.