Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The Kerchers would be very well advised to let all this drop - and on top of this, I genuinely don't believe that they have the collective character to bring any sort of further action.

Because if they do bring civil action against Knox or Sollecito in UK, US or Italy (or even some sort of civil action against the Marasca verdict in Italy?), they risk placing themselves in the hole for even more money than they already owe that showman Maresca (unless he's done the decent thing and mitigated some or all of his huge fee....), and they will be doing the equivalent of a man with toothache being unable to resist touching his aching tooth to repeat the pain. On top of that, I feel (sadly, for them) very confident that they will never get anywhere near reaching a "balance of probabilities" verdict in their favour against Knox or Sollecito in any US or UK court, for reasons which should be pretty clear to everyone with his/her eyes open and no axe to grind. God knows what might or might not happen in Italy - it seems almost impossible to predict outcomes in their crazy, arcane and thoroughly unfit-for-purpose justice system.

Personally, I don't see how it is even remotely possible for the Kerchief to press any kind of action against Amanda. The criminal case for murder and the civil case for wrongful death against them was DECIDED in court.

This is not the OJ case where OJ was only acquitted in the criminal case and not the civil case.
Courts in the US and I believe the UK would not even hear the case and if they did, it is extremely doubtful that any judgment would be enforceable. It would also cost a large fortune to effectively press the suit.

Every time I hear this suggestion, all I can think is the people are morons. That said, we've seen some bizarre things from the courts. I like to think that is just Italy. So maybe they're not. It certainly does seem like at least massive wishful thinking.

 

[acbytesla]

They can sue even Knox & Sollecito if they want.
They can also sue other subjects who have much more money, and I'd recommend them to do so. But they can also still sue K & S as well.
As for Italian jurisprudence, the SC annulment or acquittal on 531.2 do not prevent nor prejudice civil actions. The civil case is not adjudicated.

So in Italy, your courts allow plaintiffs to sue someone over and over and over again despite judgments being rendered? Doesn't anything ever get finalized in Italy?

 

[Bill Williams]

They can sue even Knox & Sollecito if they want.
They can also sue other subjects who have much more money, and I'd recommend them to do so. But they can also still sue K & S as well.
As for Italian jurisprudence, the SC annulment or acquittal on 531.2 do not prevent nor prejudice civil actions. The civil case is not adjudicated.

So in Italy, your courts allow plaintiffs to sue someone over and over and over again despite judgments being rendered? Doesn't anything ever get finalized in Italy?

What does Andrea Vogt think of this mission to continue to drag the Kerchers through an endless series of litigations?

 

[Grinder]

What does Andrea Vogt think of this mission to continue to drag the Kerchers through an endless series of litigations?

Why in the world should anyone care what Vogt thinks? Why do you keep bringing her up as if she is of sort of special consequence?

Mach's linked article shows your claims about no negative articles on the ruling is less than accurate. Also, his claim about mainstream media shying away from negative comments on the ILE makes sense. Look what happened to Oggi.

Interesting if it turns out the paragraph 2 acquittal opens the door for civil suits.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why in the world should anyone care what Vogt thinks? Why do you keep bringing her up as if she is of sort of special consequence?

Mach's linked article shows your claims about no negative articles on the ruling is less than accurate. Also, his claim about mainstream media shying away from negative comments on the ILE makes sense. Look what happened to Oggi.

Interesting if it turns out the paragraph 2 acquittal opens the door for civil suits.

Check one of the links I posted above. It was the only one I could find that departs from what now can properly be called a nearly unanimous - nearly - reaction within Italy about the M/B acquitals, why they acquitted, etc. The common element of what amounts to two pieces, one of which even Machiavelli says is from an "imprecise" source, is that Knox admitted to being at the cottage **in her memorale**.

So two things. One - are there news outlets, precise ir otherwise, which seem to interpret M/B Machiavelli's way. The bare answer to that is - yes.

Second & third things. In light of the caveat in M/B sections 9.2/9.3 which sets up what remains in the report - is that a fair reading of M/B? No. Third thing - what do you make of this?

As for Vogt, three times on ISF and IA Machiavelli ceased a long hiatus of posting to defend Vogt. Once was over posters here citing her for wilfully misrepresenting both the "I was there" statement as well as her reporting on what the "Rudy process" implied about AK/RS being part of multiple attackers.

He even compared Vogt to Nadeau calling the latter only an "approximate reporter."

I am like you, I don't care about Vogt. No on reads her other than us. Yet he defended her at length at one time, now she's implying his views are part of a new post-acquittal problem for the Kerchers.

 

[Numbers]

They can sue even Knox & Sollecito if they want.They can also sue other subjects who have much more money, and I'd recommend them to do so. But they can also still sue K & S as well.
As for Italian jurisprudence, the SC annulment or acquittal on 531.2 do not prevent nor prejudice civil actions. The civil case is not adjudicated.

This is interesting.

What the poster has not specified is what the grounds of the lawsuit would be. I recommend that other posters employ skepticism regarding any claims that such lawsuits may be legally pursued in Italy or elsewhere.

According to Italian procedural law, the civil cases, conducted during the criminal trial, for the charges on which accused persons are finally (definitively) acquitted are also definitively and finally resolved in favor of the accused.

Here are excerpts of some of the relevant Italian procedural laws:

CPP Art. 648
1. Judgments delivered at trial which which are not subject to an appelate remedy other than revision are final.

{Thus, the final CSC judgment of acquittal by the Marasca CSC panel can not be appealed by the prosecution or any other party. Revision trials only address convictions considered miscarriages of justice according to certain elements, CPP Art. 630.}

CPP Art. 652
1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or the accused did not commit it ... in the civil or administrative trial for restitution and compensation for damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings , unless the the injured has already brought the action in civil court....

CPP Art. 654
The final criminal judgment of conviction or aquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect in the civil or administrative trial on the accused person, the civil party and the person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings. ....

 

[Vixen]

What a load of unalloyed nonsense. Mainstream journalists (and the publications/broadcasters they work for) challenge legal rulings frequently and vociferously, if they feel there is evidence to support their position. In the UK alone, and simply off the top of my head, major national newspapers and broadcasters have challenged the then-prevailing judicial position on the Barry George conviction, the Steven Lawrence case, and aspects of the Joanna Yates case - and that's just off the top of my head in the past several years. There are many, many, many more examples.

And why do you write "Bill" in quotation marks? It's distracting, unnecessary and without any logical rationale. Isn't it, "Vixen"?

The exception proves the rule. In the Yeates case - I am glad you mentioned this - the newspapers, in particular THE SUN and THE DAILY MIRROR did indeed stick their necks out and witch hunt caretaker Chris Jeffries as being the killer, pointing to his camp style and eccentricities, and even labelled him "a peeping Tom". As you know, after the real killer, Vincent Tabak, a Dutch national, was convicted and jailed, Mr Jeffries received a very handsome payout in libel and defamation damages and is now a millionaire.

The DAILY MAIL lobbied for the killers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice.

It is actually rare, not commonplace.

As for "Bill", I was educated to put assumed names and colloquiallisms in quotation marks. I was also brought up to consider teaching other people manners extremely rude.

 

[Vixen]

That Italy can drag someone into an unrecorded interrogation, slap them around, and then charge them with a felony if they have the nerve to complain about it, doesn't instill a neutral observer with any sense of justice actually.

AIUI US police had Jodi Arias in for questioning for days on end. In the video clip, at one point, she gets up, lies down on the floor and goes to sleep.

Amanda went to the questura quite of her own volition and was there for all of oh, two hours, before confessing to being present and falsely accusing Patrick, after becoming aware Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her as, "a bucket of ****".

Maybe a cop did cuff Amanda and call her a "stupid liar", and of course, if so, should face a disciplinary investigation, but that is hardly being "slapped around".

Exaggeration does not enhance your case, it diminishes it.

 

[Grinder]

AIUI US police had Jodi Arias in for questioning for days on end. In the video clip, at one point, she gets up, lies down on the floor and goes to sleep.

Amanda went to the questura quite of her own volition and was there for all of oh, two hours, before confessing to be present and falsely accusing Patrick, after becoming aware Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her as "a bucket of ****".

Maybe a cop did cuff Amanda and call her a "stupid liar", and of course, if so, should face a disciplinary investigation, but that is hardly being "slapped around".

Exaggeration does not enhance your case, it diminishes it.

You realize you are calling the police interrogators liars as they reported under oath she was not made aware of the withdrawn alibi.

You are also calling Giobbi a liar as he said "I'm sure with mathematical certainty I called them both in" under oath as well.


Exaggeration does not enhance your case, it diminishes it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Errata:

There's three. Machiavelli had early on (I believe in late March or early April of this year) found an Italian-language piece which seemed to take issue with the Marasca-Bruno report, and the few pre-motivations remarks which Section 5 had made for its decision.

Add to this one, two other sources which cite the 1st Memorale as proof that Amanda was in the cottage. Of course then the rhetorical battle is on; M/B in my view plainly claims a rather large window of opportunity for them to have been there, with its "synoptic", amalgam of allegations put forth by both prosecution and defence.

 

[Bill Williams]

You realize you are calling the police interrogators liars as they reported under oath she was not made aware of the withdrawn alibi.

You are also calling Giobbi a liar as he said "I'm sure with mathematical certainty I called them both in" under oath as well.


Exaggeration does not enhance your case, it diminishes it.

I bet if the 11 things Massei found that even gulters deny was posted again, Vixen would also find herself in disagreement with Massei on those eleven issues.

This leads into a primary intrigue in reading about this for as long as one has - how much of the police/prosecution/convicting-judges "case" that the remaining guilters do not believe. It's not just that PIP disbelieve the case-against AK/RS for the past 8 years, it's that even guilters have to "gussy-up" the record from what was either presented or decided at the various courts against them.

That is the real headscratcher. As you observe, Grinder, Vixen is now calling the cops liars.

Hoots!

 

[Vixen]

Vixen why do you always exaggerate? This is a 17th century tomb - early modern in historical terms - not ancient.

Obviously not Ancient Greek. Ancient with a small "a" (so not at all exaggerated).

 

[Vixen]

The Kerchers would be very well advised to let all this drop - and on top of this, I genuinely don't believe that they have the collective character to bring any sort of further action.

Because if they do bring civil action against Knox or Sollecito in UK, US or Italy (or even some sort of civil action against the Marasca verdict in Italy?), they risk placing themselves in the hole for even more money than they already owe that showman Maresca (unless he's done the decent thing and mitigated some or all of his huge fee....), and they will be doing the equivalent of a man with toothache being unable to resist touching his aching tooth to repeat the pain. On top of that, I feel (sadly, for them) very confident that they will never get anywhere near reaching a "balance of probabilities" verdict in their favour against Knox or Sollecito in any US or UK court, for reasons which should be pretty clear to everyone with his/her eyes open and no axe to grind. God knows what might or might not happen in Italy - it seems almost impossible to predict outcomes in their crazy, arcane and thoroughly unfit-for-purpose justice system.

"Well-advised" by LondonJohn, one of Amanda and Raff's most vocally fanatical supporters?

<fx Brummie accent>: Yes, mate!

 

[Mike1711]

I see most hearing transcripts from preliminary hearing are still not published on themurderofmeredithkercher.com .
The Stefanoni hearing of Oct. 4. 2008 is there (and you cen read Bongiorno's talking, as well as Sollecito's defence expert Pascali).

As for Kokomani hearing, for example, see this news article:

https://wildgreta.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/meredith-prossima-udienza-26-settembre-respinte-eccezioni-difesa-sollecito-tutte-le-dichiarazioni-degli-avvocati/ .

The highlighted part explain how it works: the witness (Kokomani) can be interrogated by the defences of the other two suspects as well (insofar as he may bring incriminating evidence against them).
The other two witnesses in the same hearing, instead, they cannot be interrogated by AK & RS defences, only by Guede's defence, by the prosecutor and by the judge (since they may only incriminate Guede).

Therefore, all defences have a right to cross-examine those witnesses that are potentially incriminating against them.
The other defences may not "incriminate" Guede. They can cross-question to defend themselves from their preliminary hearing charges, but they cannot cross-question just to "incriminate" Guede in his short-track trial.

Talk about loaded dice. This situation tops the charts. The AK/RS defence team would be stark raving mad to cross examine Guede in a situation where lying to save his sorry ass is the obvious reality

 

[Vixen]

You realize you are calling the police interrogators liars as they reported under oath she was not made aware of the withdrawn alibi.

You are also calling Giobbi a liar as he said "I'm sure with mathematical certainty I called them both in" under oath as well.


Exaggeration does not enhance your case, it diminishes it.

AIUI The misapprehension was that it was Napoleoni who informed Amanda of the betrayal. The matter was clarified by Napoleoni ,who testified she did not enter the interview room but informed her police colleagues outside it.

You omitted to add to "she was not made aware of the withdrawn alibi"...by Napoleoni.

Re Giobbi, perhaps you have taken it out of context and he is referring to a different occasion?

 

[Mike1711]

But are there three or two kids inside that courtroom?

My guess is that those convicted of murder lose the right to be called a "kid" regardless of age.

 

[Mike1711]

Sorry, Chieffi is definitive. There is really no doubt about this.

This is scandalous and an outrageous lie. Regardless of this it is a completely illogical proposition. How can two completely opposed verdicts both have validity?

 

[Bill Williams]

"Well-advised" by LondonJohn, one of Amanda and Raff's most vocally fanatical supporters?

<fx Brummie accent>: Yes, mate!

How many of these before the mods crack down on the M.A. about addressing the argument, and not the arguer?

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, Chieffi is definitive. There is really no doubt about this.

This is scandalous and an outrageous lie. Regardless of this it is a completely illogical proposition. How can two completely opposed verdicts both have validity?

Sorry, Mike1711, this is where I agree with Machiavelli. Chieffi WAS definitive.

It's just that Machiavelli is not saying what Chieffi was definitive about. First, Chieffi was definitive about the calunnia conviction.

Second - Chieffi was definitive about remand down to the Florence appeals' court. Chieffi was definitive in ordering the new court to (re)examine three issues. At that point Chieffi's court adjourns and hands off all the issues to other courts, except calunnia.

 

[Grinder]

Talk about loaded dice. This situation tops the charts. The AK/RS defence team would be stark raving mad to cross examine Guede in a situation where lying to save his sorry ass is the obvious reality

Amanda, Raffaele and the defense teams all disagree with you as they begged to be able to question him during one of the appeals IIRC Hellmann.