Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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.

Phrases such as, "I think" are often qualifiers which mean nothing at all, like words such as "basically", "obviously", "hopefully", "actually" and if you want to write good direct plain English, just leave them out all togther and it does not change the meaning of what you say a jot.

Thus, "In my mind I saw Patrick" = "I saw Patrick".

Amanda's technique of using phrases like, "in my head,"" my mind said this", "confusedly" and "my best truth" are straightforward liar's get out clauses which did not impress Massei, Nencini, Hellman or Marasca when it came to convicting her.

As for Oscar, he had to pass their kingsize bed to get to the bathroom. You couldn't fail to see there's no-one in the bed.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

Wrong again!

They had no obligation to accept "legally settled issues". If they did there would be no point in a appeal. It's the legal issues that are appealed. It's the factual issues that may not (in certain circumstances) be appealed.

Again, I refer you to the "Oscar" trial. The appeal courts have wide powers. The commonality is the Roman in South Africa's Roman Dutch Law.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Italian Law has retained some of its Roman heritage.

Marasca court did not rule that "they were there". That was not their function. Their function was to examine whether the lower courts erred in the JUDGEMENT.

 

[Mike1711]

Phrases such as, "I think" are often qualifiers which mean nothing at all, like words such as "basically", "obviously", "hopefully", "actually" and if you want to write good direct plain English, just leave them out all togther and it does not change the meaning of what you say a jot.

Thus, "In my mind I saw Patrick" = "I saw Patrick".

Amanda's technique of using phrases like, "in my head,"" my mind said this", "confusedly" and "my best truth" are straightforward liar's get out clauses which did not impress Massei, Nencini, Hellman or Marasca when it came to convicting her.

As for Oscar, he had to pass their kingsize bed to get to the bathroom. You couldn't fail to see there's no-one in the bed.

If you are asleep you cannot possibly know anything about the goings on in your vicinity. You can only surmise, believe.....or think. My inverted commas in my original post are there for a reason. They were Oscar's words.....he thought Reeva was somewhere where she wasn't.

What Oscar did or did not have to "pass" is irrelevant to the point.

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

David Bernett, the judge with the West Memphis Three, did exclude some prosecution evidence but it did not stop the trial from being completely unfair and basically a farce.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Don't be so disingenuous. She would not need to argue about not lying about being at Raff's. Only an idiot would believe she was talking about something else all together than the murder scene.

Massei and Nencini were not required to write war and peace, judges are trained to take the simplest route to a verdict. They need to make it as appeal-proof as possible. So they won't make psychological judgments as no expert clinical psychologist testified. No mention, no appeal. Imagine you're a judge the last thing you want is your verdict overturned on appeal. It smarts.

 

[Vixen]

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.

They were not deemed "unlawful". Massei simply used his power as a judge to dismiss their inclusion as evidence on an application by the defense.

ETA: To a lot of judges, "I don't remember" = "I refuse to answer the question".

 

[Vixen]

Wrong again!

They had no obligation to accept "legally settled issues". If they did there would be no point in a appeal. It's the legal issues that are appealed. It's the factual issues that may not (in certain circumstances) be appealed.

Again, I refer you to the "Oscar" trial. The appeal courts have wide powers. The commonality is the Roman in South Africa's Roman Dutch Law.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Italian Law has retained some of its Roman heritage.

Marasca court did not rule that "they were there". That was not their function. Their function was to examine whether the lower courts erred in the JUDGEMENT.

No, you are wrong. Chieffi sent it back to Nencini to look at limited specific issues only. These were the only issues that could be appealed further.

The appeal judges do not have the power to overturn issues that have not been appealed.

ETA Marasca did not assess whether they were there or not, but stated it as a given legal fact found by earlier courts, in the case of Amanda and high probability for Raff.

All Chieffi gave them to play with was the DNA and the various disputed witnesses.

 

[Vixen]

If you are asleep you cannot possibly know anything about the goings on in your vicinity. You can only surmise, believe.....or think. My inverted commas in my original post are there for a reason. They were Oscar's words.....he thought Reeva was somewhere where she wasn't.

What Oscar did or did not have to "pass" is irrelevant to the point.

You do know, don't you that Raff claimed he stayed up surfing the net until 0300? The police wanted to know if he could support Amanda's alibi between 2045 and 0100, when he was fully awake and conscious.

So the issue of what happens when you are asleep is a non sequitur.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't be so disingenuous. She would not need to argue about not lying about being at Raff's. Only an idiot would believe she was talking about something else all together than the murder scene.

For heavens sake, Vixen - the last time this "I was there" factoid came around on the merry-go-round, even Machiavelli admitted that she was referring to Raffaele's.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

...and Massei and Nencini were wrong as per Bruno/Marasca. It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to keep the belief alive that they were not wrong.

 

[Desert Fox]

...and Massei and Nencini were wrong as per Bruno/Marasca. It's ok to be wrong. It's not ok to keep the belief alive that they were not wrong.

That is something that is suppose to be important to skeptics, admit when you make mistakes and correct your position.

 

[bagels]

Amanda casually admits to participating in the blood bath and her parents don't miss a beat moving on to talk about Seattle and the mail lol

This is the world Vixen lives in.

 

[Grinder]

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.

i think you'd better double check that as it wasn't Massei.

What Massei allowed was the civil suit by Patrick to be tried at the same time thus bring the ruled out statement to the same jury. Go figure.

 

[sept79]

i think you'd better double check that as it wasn't Massei.

What Massei allowed was the civil suit by Patrick to be tried at the same time thus bring the ruled out statement to the same jury. Go figure.

I'm sure the lay jurors were told to disregard the statement as it applied to the murder ruling . . .

 

[Grinder]

I'm sure the lay jurors were told to disregard the statement as it applied to the murder ruling . . .

Yes precisely what he told them. He also told himself the same thing, which explains his talking to himself on the bench.

 

[Planigale]

No, you are wrong. Chieffi sent it back to Nencini to look at limited specific issues only. These were the only issues that could be appealed further.

The appeal judges do not have the power to overturn issues that have not been appealed.

ETA Marasca did not assess whether they were there or not, but stated it as a given legal fact found by earlier courts, in the case of Amanda and high probability for Raff.

All Chieffi gave them to play with was the DNA and the various disputed witnesses.

My simplistic reading as a non lawyer is that they reversed on a legal issue, not a factual. They ruled that the evidence did not meet the requirement to prove guilt BARD. They make the point that even if the courts found on a balance of the probabilities Knox and Sollecito were present the failure to consider seriously the defence alternatives led the earlier courts into error. Essentially if the defence presents a case that is 'reasonable' even if not the most likely of explanations the courts must return a not guilty verdict.

So as said they avoided retrying on the facts of the case, (although they are critical of the processes that led to those facts), they documented the facts as given by the lower courts (remembering the previous cassation could not rule on facts either), but ruled the judicial reasoning was faulty in not properly considering the defence case.

Remember the first instance court found guilty (on faulty reasoning, we now know - because the defence case was not given a fair consideration), this was appealed and reversed by the appeal court and a not guilty verdict delivered. This was set aside by the cassation on the technical legal grounds that the judges should have decided whether further tests of the knife were to be carried out not the technical experts acting for the court. The second appeal court was given particular issues to address, in particular the further DNA tests on the knife. Although the new findings favoured the defence the second appeal court (which had not heard the witnesses as the first appeal court had) reversed the verdict giving undue weight to the findings of the first court which as we now know erred in its reasoning.

 

[Mike1711]

My simplistic reading as a non lawyer is that they reversed on a legal issue, not a factual. They ruled that the evidence did not meet the requirement to prove guilt BARD. They make the point that even if the courts found on a balance of the probabilities Knox and Sollecito were present the failure to consider seriously the defence alternatives led the earlier courts into error. Essentially if the defence presents a case that is 'reasonable' even if not the most likely of explanations the courts must return a not guilty verdict.

So as said they avoided retrying on the facts of the case, (although they are critical of the processes that led to those facts), they documented the facts as given by the lower courts (remembering the previous cassation could not rule on facts either), but ruled the judicial reasoning was faulty in not properly considering the defence case.

Remember the first instance court found guilty (on faulty reasoning, we now know - because the defence case was not given a fair consideration), this was appealed and reversed by the appeal court and a not guilty verdict delivered. This was set aside by the cassation on the technical legal grounds that the judges should have decided whether further tests of the knife were to be carried out not the technical experts acting for the court. The second appeal court was given particular issues to address, in particular the further DNA tests on the knife. Although the new findings favoured the defence the second appeal court (which had not heard the witnesses as the first appeal court had) reversed the verdict giving undue weight to the findings of the first court which as we now know erred in its reasoning.

This is absolutely correct. I am also not a lawyer but studied Roman Dutch Law at University as part of a post graduate arbitration qualification.
Refer to the Oscar Pistorius appeal in South Africa which has its legal system founded in Roman Dutch Law. This is a perfect parallel albeit from a differing appeal perspective.
The appeal Judges in the Oscar trial refuse/are barred from examining the evidence. However the interpretation of that evidence is within their scope.
Pity the AK/RS case was not broadcast live as was the Oscar trial.

 

[Vixen]

That is something that is suppose to be important to skeptics, admit when you make mistakes and correct your position.

You are happy with Bruno & Marasca's report? That stops the pair claiming any compensation and upholds Amanda as a convicted felon who was at the scene of the crime, covering up for one of the murderers and cleaning off Mez' blood?

 

[Grinder]

You are happy with Bruno & Marasca's report? That stops the pair claiming any compensation and upholds Amanda as a convicted felon who was at the scene of the crime, covering up for one of the murderers and cleaning off Mez' blood?

Marasca:The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to
present an evidentiary framework that can really be considered suitable to support a
pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Article 533 of
the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in the text renewed by Article 5 of the law n.
46/2006.
As for the debate about the rule having, or not, peremptory value and about its
effect on the evaluation of evidence, this Court of Legitimacy has had the
opportunity more than once to reiterate that the norm of law requiring a judgment
“beyond any reasonable doubt”, founded on the constitutional principle of
presumption of innocence, did not introduce a different and more restrictive
standard for the evaluation of evidence, but codified the principle of jurisprudence
according to which the issuing of a verdict of conviction must be based on the
certainty arising from the proceedings of the responsibility of the defendant (Section
2, n. 7035 of 09/11/2012, filed in 2013, De Bartolomei, Rv. 254025; Section 2, n.
16357 of 02/04/2008, Crisiglione, Rv. 239795).
It is not, substantially, a new or “revolutionary” principle, but only the
formalisation, with an aspect of recognition, of a rule of judgment already present in
our country’s judicial experience and, moreover, already positivizzata [applied in
practice], having been formally introduced as a precondition for conviction, given
the pre-existing rule of Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure, which provides that the defendant must be acquitted when the evidence
is insufficient or contradictory (Section 1, n.30402 of 28/06/2006, Volpon, Rv.
234374).

 

[Vixen]

My simplistic reading as a non lawyer is that they reversed on a legal issue, not a factual. They ruled that the evidence did not meet the requirement to prove guilt BARD. They make the point that even if the courts found on a balance of the probabilities Knox and Sollecito were present the failure to consider seriously the defence alternatives led the earlier courts into error. Essentially if the defence presents a case that is 'reasonable' even if not the most likely of explanations the courts must return a not guilty verdict.

So as said they avoided retrying on the facts of the case, (although they are critical of the processes that led to those facts), they documented the facts as given by the lower courts (remembering the previous cassation could not rule on facts either), but ruled the judicial reasoning was faulty in not properly considering the defence case.

Remember the first instance court found guilty (on faulty reasoning, we now know - because the defence case was not given a fair consideration), this was appealed and reversed by the appeal court and a not guilty verdict delivered. This was set aside by the cassation on the technical legal grounds that the judges should have decided whether further tests of the knife were to be carried out not the technical experts acting for the court. The second appeal court was given particular issues to address, in particular the further DNA tests on the knife. Although the new findings favoured the defence the second appeal court (which had not heard the witnesses as the first appeal court had) reversed the verdict giving undue weight to the findings of the first court which as we now know erred in its reasoning.

Planigale, don't you see they did rule on "factual". This is what 530 para 2 refers to: "insufficient evidence".