Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Methos]

Any guess as to why they would bother to mention what section and common judges? I'd bet that stories about cases at the supreme court don't usually reference a previous case.

I'm not sure about the highlighted part. Cassazione judgements are full of references to previous rulings of any section of their peers.
Stasi's lawyers could have very easy made a point referencing to the Knox case, and to be honest I would have expected the current cassazione panel to throw out the case against Stasi with a reference to the Knox case.

Acquitted on trial and appeal while on fast-track... The case was sent back, IIRC because there wasn't enough weight given to the "cries of the victims family", then a conviction with no new evidence, a verdict that now has been confirmed...

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill seriously? They are saying the verdict was something so different that predictions can no longer be made. They have no idea who Frank is and aren't score keeping.

ETA - Why in world would they mention the M&B verdict? The newspaper was suggesting that after M&B anything goes.

Ok, I've just read the latest on the Stasi verdict (by Cassation) on the IA thread. This may present a clue as to why the newspiece you cited also made mention of the unpredictability of Cassation, making it fruitless to predict outcomes.

A reminder - Stasi was acquitted in both 1st grade and 2nd grade, lower court trials. Like the Knox/Sollecito case, Cassation annulled the acquittals and ordered a new, second grade trial - along certain parameters.

The new 2nd grade trial then convicted. Incredibly, if I am reading the thread at IA right, both the Prosecutor General AND the defence appeal to Cassation was to annul this conviction (!), the only difference being that the prosecution wanted annulment with referral back, and the defence (like in the Knox/Sollecito case) wanted annulment without referral.

The claim made was, "The Prosecutor General, who should represent, as its name says, the prosecution has utterly destroyed the convicting ruling, demolishing it both from a fact finding point of view and from a legal one." The prosecutor general, apparently, went on to say that the new 2nd grade judges presumed Stasi as guilty, because that was the way they viewed the remand from the previous Cassation referral.

Even with this Cassation upheld both the conviction as well as the 16 year prison sentence.

So..... it seems like (as it says) Cassation is pretty much a lottery of justice.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'd bet that stories about cases at the supreme court don't usually reference a previous case.

I'm not sure about the highlighted part. Cassazione judgements are full of references to previous rulings of any section of their peers.
Stasi's lawyers could have very easy made a point referencing to the Knox case, and to be honest I would have expected the current cassazione panel to throw out the case against Stasi with a reference to the Knox case.

Acquitted on trial and appeal while on fast-track... The case was sent back, IIRC because there wasn't enough weight given to the "cries of the victims family", then a conviction with no new evidence, a verdict that now has been confirmed...

What's stopping a reporter/paper from referencing other cases? At first glance, there are a lot of similarities between the handling of the Stasi case and the one we follow. Wild swings of judicial judgement is perhaps the main similarity.

Chieffi in 2013 cited all previous cases where DNA was an issue. What had he written - that if DNA is analyzed properly in Italy then all NA-cases since 1986 are open to question?

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure about the highlighted part. Cassazione judgements are full of references to previous rulings of any section of their peers.
Stasi's lawyers could have very easy made a point referencing to the Knox case, and to be honest I would have expected the current cassazione panel to throw out the case against Stasi with a reference to the Knox case.

Acquitted on trial and appeal while on fast-track... The case was sent back, IIRC because there wasn't enough weight given to the "cries of the victims family", then a conviction with no new evidence, a verdict that now has been confirmed...

Oh no doubt rulings reference other rulings but how often when a case is in front of the ISC do articles point to a previous case they heard? If I read Italian I'd be looking at stories on current cases with an eye to those types of reference.

 

[Grinder]

What's stopping a reporter/paper from referencing other cases? At first glance, there are a lot of similarities between the handling of the Stasi case and the one we follow. Wild swings of judicial judgement is perhaps the main similarity.

Chieffi in 2013 cited all previous cases where DNA was an issue. What had he written - that if DNA is analyzed properly in Italy then all NA-cases since 1986 are open to question?

Bill when writing a legal brief it is mandatory to reference previous cases and the law. We aren't talking about a lawyer filing an appeal, we are talking about an article in a newspaper reporting on a case in front of the ISC. Now if the defense had made references in their appeal to M&B, and they might have, then that should be reported. I do see that there are vague similarities and that could explain it, but it doesn't read that way. It reads like the reporter is saying that it is very difficult to predict because the M&B ruling was so different and turned things on their heads.

Perhaps the Italians welcome the change.

 

[Methos]

Oh no doubt rulings reference other rulings but how often when a case is in front of the ISC do articles point to a previous case they heard? If I read Italian I'd be looking at stories on current cases with an eye to those types of reference.

What I'm getting from the pre-ruling reporting on the Stasi case is that the reporters made the connection between the fifth section and them overturning a conviction (Knox/Sollecito), speculating that they would do the same in the Stasi case, they didn't...

 

[Grinder]

What I'm getting from the pre-ruling reporting on the Stasi case is that the reporters made the connection between the fifth section and them overturning a conviction (Knox/Sollecito), speculating that they would do the same in the Stasi case, they didn't...

I certainly can see that from what I could make of it, but with an dash of now that things have changed.

In that the Stasi trial was pretty much a 180 from the kids' trial it is hard to follow why they wouldn't uphold. Both of the courts ruled not guilty, then the ISC sent it back and they got a conviction which they now upheld.

Anyway thanks for the efforts.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe they just go in the back with a giant wheel, spin it, and whatever comes up is how they vote.

 

[analemma]

Your factoid is a factoid. "Confusion"? So how come none of the other housemates, including the guys downstairs and Mez' numerous friends, were not similarly "confused".

An appearance of chaos and confusion is a classic warning sign of fraud. A piece of trivial information for you.

Cui bono from pretending to be "confused"?

Amanda said in her testimony she had never experienced short-term memory problems before. Indeed, in the police station she was loudly proclaiming her perspicacity, bragging on the phone to friends, "I was first to find the body" and to all and sundry in the questura that Mez had had her throat slit and had "<insert profanity> bled to death".

No empathy, no sympathy, just an entirely sociopathic focus on her own immediate bodily gratification needs.

As I said
PGP logic:
Fact: A & R were confused and concerned so they called the police.
Conclusion: They obviously are murderers.
You demonstrated that very PGP Logic and you do not even realize it

 

[analemma]

That's because police caught them by surprise. They are trying to act how they imagine innocent people will act. Hence why they alone of all them declined an attorney from the outset. Whilst other students were fleeing Perugia, Amanda attended class on Monday as per usual.

No remorse. Nothing.

As I said
PGP logic:
Fact: A & R were confused and concerned so they called the police.
Conclusion: They obviously are murderers.
You continue to demonstrate that very PGP Logic and you do not even realize it

 

[Vixen]

The lines inside the heel are curved the opposite way from the picture of the print.

Did anyone testify that she owned such shoes? Girls notice that sort of trivial stuff.

Of course, being "very astute", (Mignini), she disposed of them pronto.

 

[analemma]

No. In Italy, when called to a police station, it is de rigeur to take a lawyer with you. Even Albanian Kokomani knew that. OK, so Amanda being American may not have been aware, but middle-class Raff with overprotective father had no excuse.

I understand
In Italy, when called to a police station you EXPECT to be water boarded by a bunch of stupid thugs who already have the case solved, but wrong.
We have been contending this for years, but thanks for verifying this basic truth.
I guess Amanda did not see the "thugs waterboarding" section in her "Welcome to Italy" brochure.

 

[Vixen]

I've broken the law. Today. And I did it deliberately. I also expect I will do the same tomorrow and the day after. I drove 63 MPH in a posted 55 zone. I also regularly sin. Unlike Saint Vixen. I don't really care about anyone's minor indiscretions, vices or foibles.

Personally, I'm much more offended by those that are cruel to others and engage in reckless and dishonest character assassinations.

Can anyone name someone who does that really on this site? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller. Bueller.

Yes, and IMV callous murderers who butcher their room mates for futile reason should face justice, and not laugh in the face of decent upright citizens, with fraudulent innocence projects.

 

[Grinder]

Of course, being "very astute", (Mignini), she disposed of them pronto.

Yes, yes, yes but not the knife. Oops, the girls would have noticed her shoes BEFORE the murder, you know when she wore them.

Go read Massei, the Asics were not a match or really compatible they were only used as measuring comparison for width to length, which was basically worthless. They couldn't find a sole that matched, anywhere.

No MK DNA in Raf's car or flat, no MK DNA anywhere but the miracle bloodless murder knife. Bloody shoes, bloody cleaning rags and mops, bloody knife, and bloody clothes but no blood found on anything at Raf's or in his car... a miracle.

 

[Vixen]

Bill when writing a legal brief it is mandatory to reference previous cases and the law. We aren't talking about a lawyer filing an appeal, we are talking about an article in a newspaper reporting on a case in front of the ISC. Now if the defense had made references in their appeal to M&B, and they might have, then that should be reported. I do see that there are vague similarities and that could explain it, but it doesn't read that way. It reads like the reporter is saying that it is very difficult to predict because the M&B ruling was so different and turned things on their heads.

Perhaps the Italians welcome the change.

Bruno and Marasca did not have the jurisdiction to set a case precedent, without conferring with united chambers.

 

[Vixen]

As I said
PGP logic:
Fact: A & R were confused and concerned so they called the police.
Conclusion: They obviously are murderers.
You continue to demonstrate that very PGP Logic and you do not even realize it

Hmmm, maybe the finger of guilt always points to the person who did it, when all is said and done.

Perhaps it is the perp who is marching out of step with everybody else. Or is that too radical?

 

[Vixen]

I understand
In Italy, when called to a police station you EXPECT to be water boarded by a bunch of stupid thugs who already have the case solved, but wrong.
We have been contending this for years, but thanks for verifying this basic truth.
I guess Amanda did not see the "thugs waterboarding" section in her "Welcome to Italy" brochure.

Sure police can come across as insensitive and thick (ask Amanda and Raff). However, it is the prosecutor - District Attorney in the US - who decides whether to prosecute or not.

 

[Grinder]

Bruno and Marasca did not have the jurisdiction to set a case precedent, without conferring with united chambers.

This must be the subject of a slew of articles. Could you provide three from reputable sources? Thanks in advance.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, and IMV callous murderers who butcher their room mates for futile reason should face justice, and not laugh in the face of decent upright citizens, with fraudulent innocence projects.

Repeat after me. "A QUIT ED". Now a second time "A QUIT ED". Now go away. When you learn what that means, you can come back. Amanda and Raffaele have proven to be more decent, more upright, more honorable than you could dream to be.

 

[acbytesla]

Bruno and Marasca did not have the jurisdiction to set a case precedent, without conferring with united chambers.

Aparently they did. Do you have a problem facing reality?