Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is
hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not
have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the
room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f:
76).
No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would
have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede
were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).
This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already
highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis,
removing some biological traces while leaving others

 

[Grinder]

According to Knox’s calumnious statement, having met Lumumba by accident in
piazza Grimana, she came home with him to via della Pergola and there, after Kercher
had joined them, Lumumba made sexual advances towards the young Englishwoman,
and they went to her room, from where the harrowing scream came. In short, it was
Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could state this because she was at the scene
of the crime, although in a different room.

Oh my gawd, it was Patrick that killed Meredith since the same statement is what proves she was there.

 

[Desert Fox]

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?

My interest is, and always has been, what the crime scene shows. Grinder already talks about this but I will try to address it in a different manner

Using a hypothetical, let us say for sake of discussion that Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredeth.

If I was them, I would not try to do any kind of select cleanup. Instead, I would scrub the walls to an inch of their lives.

I would also have bundled Meredeth's body in plastic and dumped her body in the ocean, local lake, etc. Raffaele has a car after all.

Finally, I would not report anything and let her simply go missing. In addition, I might suggest that she might have met somebody whom she ran off with.

 

[Grinder]

My interest is, and always has been, what the crime scene shows. Grinder already talks about this but I will try to address it in a different manner

Using a hypothetical, let us say for sake of discussion that Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredeth.

If I was them, I would not try to do any kind of select cleanup. Instead, I would scrub the walls to an inch of their lives.

I would also have bundled Meredeth's body in plastic and dumped her body in the ocean, local lake, etc. Raffaele has a car after all.

Finally, I would not report anything and let her simply go missing. In addition, I might suggest that she might have met somebody whom she ran off with.

The only way no evidence would have been found in the murder room, in Raf's car and in Raf's flat, would be if they had taken amazing measures of dress which undoes Curatolo's witness statement.

Now if I were them and had murdered Meredith and not taken those precautions I would have returned early in the morning before the trip to Gubbio and seeing the mess would have discovered her, rushed in and make my presence in the room obvious. Maybe even pull the knife out or at a minimum handle the knife. Get blood all over clothes body and shoes that I had on the night before.

Now if I was sure nothing could be found in the room I'd have gone to Gubbio and waited for a call or text. If none came I would return to Raf's flat and wait more. There would have been no need for staging but rather the balcony door would have been left unlocked while her door could have been also left unlocked.

The idea that Amanda wanted to control the investigation is right up there with the most absurd PG assertions.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That's correct. The Oscar appeal is exactly based on defective reasoning by the original judge. They argue that as she had arrived at a "fact" erroneously, then discussion of that "fact" was relevant to the appeal, in terms of explaining why her verdict, and therefore, sentencing, was a legal error.

What Brruno & Marasca have done is overturn a legal fact, without bothering to argue Nencini's reasoning was wrong. They ought to have sent the "fact" in dispute back to the lower, fact-finding, court. They also erred in pleading something that the defense had never pled, ie., that, in he alternative, if it is found as a fact the defendants were "there" that in itself does not prove involvement in the crime, m'Lud.

This was Bruno & Marasca's core reasoning for anulling the conviction, which is clearly defective and perverse, as well as being outside of their jurisdiction.

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

So far, this thread has heard nothing from Vixen about the photo she posted, which refuted the point she was making.

As for the other stuff, Grinder, Desert Fox and Planigale (and others) seem to have read the Marasca report, and can quote from it, once again demonstrating that Vixen is plain-wrong about its contents.

Vixen has hinted that she's still waiting for the official guilter interpretation of Sections 9.2/9.3 - the sections which describe what is to follow in their report - the "even ifs" that Planigale relates.

I guess until the remaining English-language guilters figure out a way to explain-away 9.2/9.3, there is simply going to be a restatement by Vixen of the parts 9.4ff as if the previous pages of the report did not exist.

So far, Vixen and those translation-hunters need to answer another question, which they will never address in a million years - why is it few, if any reputable Italian language jurists/journalists see it their way?

So forget the English translation for a minute. Forget the long-since-promised guilter translation..... take the following to any Italian speaker with a modicum of legal experience and do us a favour; report back here with what they say.....

 

[Grinder]

That's correct. The Oscar appeal is exactly based on defective reasoning by the original judge. They argue that as she had arrived at a "fact" erroneously, then discussion of that "fact" was relevant to the appeal, in terms of explaining why her verdict, and therefore, sentencing, was a legal error.

What Brruno & Marasca have done is overturn a legal fact, without bothering to argue Nencini's reasoning was wrong. They ought to have sent the "fact" in dispute back to the lower, fact-finding, court. They also erred in pleading something that the defense had never pled, ie., that, in he alternative, if it is found as a fact the defendants were "there" that in itself does not prove involvement in the crime, m'Lud.

This was Bruno & Marasca's core reasoning for anulling the conviction, which is clearly defective and perverse, as well as being outside of their jurisdiction.

In Italy the courts in this case have made rulings that neither the prosecution nor the defense has put forward. Massei did it. Nencini did it. Hellmann may have been the exception.

The ISC said that even if the contention that the kids were there was true that didn't prove guilt. Since the defense contended they weren't there, it would have been bizarre for them to argue that even if they were there that didn't mean they participated in the murder. If you read what I posted from the ruling you should be able to see that the court is only saying that even if the idea that she couldn't have known about sex and scream without being there was true, the lack of evidence in the murder room was not overcome by the prosecution's presentation.

The court said that the evidence was not evaluated according proper standards of BARD and it was now too late to find new evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's correct. The Oscar appeal is exactly based on defective reasoning by the original judge. They argue that as she had arrived at a "fact" erroneously, then discussion of that "fact" was relevant to the appeal, in terms of explaining why her verdict, and therefore, sentencing, was a legal error.

What Brruno & Marasca have done is overturn a legal fact, without bothering to argue Nencini's reasoning was wrong. They ought to have sent the "fact" in dispute back to the lower, fact-finding, court. They also erred in pleading something that the defense had never pled, ie., that, in he alternative, if it is found as a fact the defendants were "there" that in itself does not prove involvement in the crime, m'Lud.

This was Bruno & Marasca's core reasoning for anulling the conviction, which is clearly defective and perverse, as well as being outside of their jurisdiction.

What Grinder said.

You can repeat your claim above, Vixen, until you are blue in the face. Repeating it does not make it true. So let me repeat something - a simply repetition of what IS true, because all it is is repetition of actual text, that actually exists.

They did not refute facts. Marasca/Bruno assembled the "facts" as presented in court, sometimes contradictorily assigned to each defendant, with some of the irrefutables from the defence(s); then they listed some of those "facts", and said that even if true, they proved nothing; not to the legal standards within Italy.

Once again, just so you cannot say I tried, read this:

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

9.3 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.​

Which part of "the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt" do you find difficult to understand.

It is obvious you do not find it difficult to ignore.

 

[Vixen]

. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is
hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.
It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not
have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the
room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f:
76).
No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would
have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede
were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).
This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already
highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis,
removing some biological traces while leaving others

This shows the illogicality of supposedly Italy's finest legal brains: the DNA traces of Rudy on the sweater "in particular" are absolutely fine, whereas the bra clasp collected at the same time must have been contaminated as it was not collected until then.

Agreed, it seems impossible Amanda's fingerprints were not found on her own lamp.

As no trace of Rudy was found in the burglary room in particular then it's impossible he was the so-called burglar.

No wonder Bruno and Marasca have been banned from ever being a judge in the Supreme Court again.

 

[Vixen]

In Italy the courts in this case have made rulings that neither the prosecution nor the defense has put forward. Massei did it. Nencini did it. Hellmann may have been the exception.

The ISC said that even if the contention that the kids were there was true that didn't prove guilt. Since the defense contended they weren't there, it would have been bizarre for them to argue that even if they were there that didn't mean they participated in the murder. If you read what I posted from the ruling you should be able to see that the court is only saying that even if the idea that she couldn't have known about sex and scream without being there was true, the lack of evidence in the murder room was not overcome by the prosecution's presentation.

The court said that the evidence was not evaluated according proper standards of BARD and it was now too late to find new evidence.

Not so. It is commonplace for the defense to plead all alternatives to hedge their bets. For example their client might plead not guilty to murder but put in a plea to the alternative that if it is found their client was the killer, then it wasn't homicide, m'Lud, but manslaughter or self-defence. Or, if not pleaded, at least brought up in the closing submissions.

The defense did not lodge an appeal arguing what Marrasca found. IOW Bruno & Marasca advocated for the defense by putting the appeal on their behalf: a big NO! NO!

 

[Bill Williams]

The court said that the evidence was not evaluated according proper standards of BARD and it was now too late to find new evidence.

This is a very good, one sentence summary of 9.2ff of the Marasca/Bruno report.

The, "and it was now too late to find new evidence," part explains why Marasca/Bruno did not re-refer it back to the Appeals' level.

 

[bagels]

This shows the illogicality of supposedly Italy's finest legal brains: the DNA traces of Rudy on the sweater "in particular" are absolutely fine, whereas the bra clasp collected at the same time must have been contaminated as it was not collected until then.

Agreed, it seems impossible Amanda's fingerprints were not found on her own lamp.

As no trace of Rudy was found in the burglary room in particular then it's impossible he was the so-called burglar.

No wonder Bruno and Marasca have been banned from ever being a judge in the Supreme Court again.

Just read Hellmann for a relatively accurate (by Italian standards) summary of how a UK or US court would have handled the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

This shows the illogicality of supposedly Italy's finest legal brains: the DNA traces of Rudy on the sweater "in particular" are absolutely fine, whereas the bra clasp collected at the same time must have been contaminated as it was not collected until then.

Agreed, it seems impossible Amanda's fingerprints were not found on her own lamp.

As no trace of Rudy was found in the burglary room in particular then it's impossible he was the so-called burglar.

You really believe that last statement? This means that if no one bothered to look, that means it's impossible he did his burglary through that room!

Hoots! (It may be a good idea for you to stay away from adjudicating things acc. to their logic!)

No wonder Bruno and Marasca have been banned from ever being a judge in the Supreme Court again.

Is is useless asking for a cite for this. The cite will probably say the exact opposite of what you simply chuck into the thread, with no evidence.

Perhaps this is your opportunity to apologize for the window photo you posted which showed the opposite of what you claimed.

Hoots!

 

[Vixen]

What Grinder said.

You can repeat your claim above, Vixen, until you are blue in the face. Repeating it does not make it true. So let me repeat something - a simply repetition of what IS true, because all it is is repetition of actual text, that actually exists.

They did not refute facts. Marasca/Bruno assembled the "facts" as presented in court, sometimes contradictorily assigned to each defendant, with some of the irrefutables from the defence(s); then they listed some of those "facts", and said that even if true, they proved nothing; not to the legal standards within Italy.

Once again, just so you cannot say I tried, read this:

​

Which part of "the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt" do you find difficult to understand.

It is obvious you do not find it difficult to ignore.

I speak four languages, but unfortunately, Italian is not one of them. A few errors of wishful thinking translation has been pointed out in your rushed version wistfully inserting such words as "allegedly" when the real translation is quite different.

I'd love to take your word for it, "Bill", but time has told me you are a master of legerdemain so I pass for now.

 

[bagels]

Not so. It is commonplace for the defense to plead all alternatives to hedge their bets. For example their client might plead not guilty to murder but put in a plea to the alternative that if it is found their client was the killer, then it wasn't homicide, m'Lud, but manslaughter or self-defence. Or, if not pleaded, at least brought up in the closing submissions.

The defense did not lodge an appeal arguing what Marrasca found. IOW Bruno & Marasca advocated for the defense by putting the appeal on their behalf: a big NO! NO!

They were probably trying to save their country the money and embarrassment of another trial featuring the world's weakest and silliest case. If the appeals court found them guilty again because Amanda's DNA showed up on her toothbrush, it would just be appealed again with a litany of reasonable claims supported by expert testimony. If the appeals court found them innocent again the wrong gaggle of morons on the ISC might have wanted yet another trial because Quintavalle suddenly remembered what color socks Amanda was wearing 10 years later etc. They were putting the case out to pasture as every reasonable person agrees should have been done with Hellmann.

 

[Vixen]

This is a very good, one sentence summary of 9.2ff of the Marasca/Bruno report.

The, "and it was now too late to find new evidence," part explains why Marasca/Bruno did not re-refer it back to the Appeals' level.

How is it "too late" when it is within the parameters of the Italian legal system?

Utter rot!

 

[Vixen]

Just read Hellmann for a relatively accurate (by Italian standards) summary of how a UK or US court would have handled the case.

Hello? Hellmann was rescinded, rejected, revoked. Like the dead parrot, it is no more. Hellmann's report is as dead as a dodo. Zippo.

 

[Vixen]

They were probably trying to save their country the money and embarrassment of another trial featuring the world's weakest and silliest case. If the appeals court found them guilty again because Amanda's DNA showed up on her toothbrush, it would just be appealed again with a litany of reasonable claims supported by expert testimony. If the appeals court found them innocent again the wrong gaggle of morons on the ISC might have wanted yet another trial because Quintavalle suddenly remembered what color socks Amanda was wearing 10 years later etc. They were putting the case out to pasture as every reasonable person agrees should have been done with Hellmann.

bagels, Italy has no embarrassment in letting their trials last up to ten years.

So no, saving money and saving face would not have crossed their minds for a minute. With ten times the number of Supreme Court judges than other countries, don't you see, they are on a gravy train.

 

[bagels]

Hello? Hellmann was rescinded, rejected, revoked. Like the dead parrot, it is no more. Hellmann's report is as dead as a dodo. Zippo.

Herman Melville is dead but we can still read Moby Dick.

The Hellmann report is the most concise, logical, and thorough repudiation of the prosecution's case. In fact its final conclusion is that the prosecution's case is "far from probable" and that the law "does not tolerate the conviction of the innocent."

The ISC rejected Hellmann for reasons such as Quintivalle knowing Amanda's eye color after she had been on every TV and newspaper in the world for a year. Normal people that read the report walk away with a sense of finality and resolve.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a very good, one sentence summary of 9.2ff of the Marasca/Bruno report.

The, "and it was now too late to find new evidence," part explains why Marasca/Bruno did not re-refer it back to the Appeals' level.

How is it "too late" when it is within the parameters of the Italian legal system?

Utter rot!

Huh? Marasca/Bruno implied it was too late by acquitting without referral back to the Appeals' level. Other than that, I have no idea whatsoever what you're referring to with the, "parameters of the Italian legal system".

Just chucking into the thread legalistic sounding phrases does no good.

Then again you have a track record of providing cites that actually refute the allegation you are making. Are you ready to apologize for the photo of the bars on the lower window?

However - the Chieffi ISC in 2013 referred three items to the Florence appeals' court. All three of those items went the defence's way.

What would have been referred in 2015? Esp. by a court which said: "the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt"? Why do you find this difficult to understand?
It is obvious you do not find it difficult to ignore.