Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

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.

I can still find sources that believe that people are still guilty whom have been exonerated. There always are going to be some disagreement.

 

[Mike1711]

Don't know where you see Marasca "dancing unconfortably", but we can see Bruno/Marasca seemingly emphasize they are quite convinced that there are multiple perpetrators.
B/M also emphasizes that Knox falsely accused Lumumba in order to conceal the presence of Guede, not because of psychological factors nor because of coercion, B/M seem to believe that from what they write.

You don't understand law and the phrasing of Judgements.

 

[Grinder]

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

That of course isn't true.

http://www.the-line-up.com/10-killer-kids-that-will-creep-you-the-eff-out/

 

[Grinder]

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.

It was more than three issues. Have you even glanced at it?

 

[Grinder]

I can still find sources that believe that people are still guilty whom have been exonerated. There always are going to be some disagreement.

You mean like OJ

 

[acbytesla]

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. ....

Unless I have a reading comprehension problem, this seems to me that the Kerchers have no options in Italy. Or am I missing something in the text?

 

[Mike1711]

Exactly. The ISC do not have the power to overturn facts found by a lower court. Bruno-Marasca had no choice but to uphold the facts found.

So then you agree that B/M have not made any proclamation regarding "judicial facts". They merely repeat them, remaining silent (but in obvious contempt regarding these "facts"). If they did align themselves to the lunacy of the lower courts a verdict of innocent would not have been forthcoming.

 

[Grinder]

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.

How did I omit it?

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

LG:
So we’re at the evening of the 5th, then the night between the 5th and the 6th. To us it appears from other points of the investigation, also from the witness [evidence], that on that evening, around 21:30 only Sollecito had been called to the Questura. You, on the contrary, said that they were both made to be questioned/heard together.
EG:
No, I remember having said that they were called together on purpose.
LG:
You, but [sic] to us it appears from the testimony of your colleagues that only Amanda was called, and Raffaele Sollecito insisted on coming.
EG:
I gave direct orders to the investigators to take them. I, look, I remember it very well, because it was the first time that we carried out a sort [sic], of doing two SIT [recaps/summaries] in a simultaneous manner, and I said go get them. I seems to me they were in a pizzeria. I can tell you mathematical certainty. I remember perfectly well having arranged a technical tactic.​

From your favorite source site.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Edgardo_Giobbi's_Testimony_(English)

 

[Desert Fox]

You mean like OJ

I mean like David Camm and the Norfolk Four (Actually, they have never been exonerated but most people who think it through consider them innocent.)

 

[Bill Williams]

It was more than three issues. Have you even glanced at it?

Huh!? There was an order to examine Sample 36I which Hellmann let, in effect, Conti-Vecchioti make the decision about, there was Aviello, and if he'd been coerced to testify in Sollecito's favour, and reexamine the motive specifically of a sex-game gone wrong.

As for "issues" you are perhaps correct - what I was talking about was (re)examining evidence directly by accepting new submissions - testing 36I, re-examining Aviello in direct, and calling new witnesss (or other stuff) to reopen "sex-game gone wrong". The other issues (below) were to have an appeals' level re-review of what Chieffi thought had been assessed wrongly by Hellmann, with no new evidnce called.

The main point is this: the issues Chieffi passed back cannot be said to be "definitive", unless you take the view that the Chieffi court was directing the Nencini appeals' court to come to a predetermined conclusion.

Those issues were:

- giving more weight to Knox's post-crime statements
- reevaluating luminol issues in the corridor and bathroom
- tasking the defence to prove the specific route of DNA contamination, rather than simply citing the lack of anti-contamination protocols
- that the court should have placed more weight on "ear-witness" testimony, rather than Meredith's phone-evidence in determining TOD.
- that the Hellmann court should have applied no weight to Rudy's initial Skype-denial that AK was involved.
- insufficient importance applied to what the "Rudy-process" implied about AK/RS
- Why Knox's memorale should have been assigned more importance.​

Etc. But there were only three items Chieffi directed to have new evidence asked for. For someone to imply that Chieffi ruled "definitively" on any one of those issues means, in essence, that the Nencini trial was fixed.

 

[Mike1711]

As far as I know, the few detailed press articles only report it (quote the text directly) rather than "read" it, since there is no need to explain those paragraphs to an Italian reader.

But of course I can point out sources, my sources are dictionaries (I mean a quality dictionary), gramamrs rules and semanticts (for which there is a lot of sources). It can be easilly shown that "dato conclamato" is a legal jargon for "proven fact" and it is absolutely unequivocal. Also the rules of grammar don't leave any room for other alternative interpretations. We may look each single statement and I'll explain you where to find all language sources you need, if you want.

You better stop trying to play this game of "what someone says about what someone else says... " that I know you love so much. You always get it wrong, as you skim on essential details. I suggest you do something new, quit that approach and start looking at something directly. Look at what this text says, see the binding rules why the meaning must be that.

Aahhhh.So Galileo was wrong. I get it now. "Proven Facts" in the legal sense are not facts. They are simply rulings that may not be overturned.

 

[Machiavelli]

Unless I have a reading comprehension problem, this seems to me that the Kerchers have no options in Italy. Or am I missing something in the text?

The latter.
You are missing something.

 

[acbytesla]

The latter.
You are missing something.

Be more specific.

 

[Numbers]

Exactly. The ISC do not have the power to overturn facts found by a lower court. Bruno-Marasca had no choice but to uphold the facts found.

The above statement should be treated with skepticism.

There has been a misunderstanding of Italian procedural law by some persons on both sides of the "debate" on the Knox - Sollecito case. Italian procedural law allows the CSC to review appeals on certain grounds or arguments, including whether there has been a failure to gather decisive evidence and whether the grounds of the judgment - the interpretation of the evidence (that is, each "fact") - were lacking, contradictory, or manifestly (that is, obviously) illogical.

The relevant Italian procedural law is CPP Article 606:

1. The appeal to the Court of Cassation may be lodged if it is based on the following arguments:
....
d) decisive evidence is not gathered, when a party has requested its gathering also during the trial evidentiary hearing, exclusively in the cases provided for in Article 495.2;

e) the grounds of the judgment are lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical, when the defect results from the text of the appealed decision or from other documents of the proceedings specified in the arguments for the appeal to the Court of Cassation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. The ISC do not have the power to overturn facts found by a lower court. Bruno-Marasca had no choice but to uphold the facts found.

So then you agree that B/M have not made any proclamation regarding "judicial facts". They merely repeat them, remaining silent (but in obvious contempt regarding these "facts"). If they did align themselves to the lunacy of the lower courts a verdict of innocent would not have been forthcoming.

The the Chieffi court had no right to overturn Hellmann's decision, by Vixen's view. Out of many things, Chieffi ruled that Hellmann should not have applied any weight to Rudy saying, via Skype, that AK was not involved in the crime. He also ruled that Hellmann improperly arrived at TOD by applying improper weight to ear-witness testimony, therefore the Chieffi court overturned the "fact" as found by Hellmann and ordered it reassessed.

Vixen also believes that the Chieffi court acted illegally. Could it be that the issue might be Vixen's?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Chieffi was also definitive about the dozen or so points of law that established on the case.
That included the lack of grounds to invoke art. 111 of Constitution (invalidity of Hellmann's point) and the usability of verdicts from other trials as pieces of circumstantial evidence (can't be dismissed just on the ground that they were short trials).

 

[Mike1711]

They still can.

They certainly can. The fact is they won't. Why?

Because they know they have no case.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

Questioning Guede as a witness is vastly different from questioning him when he is the accused. My reference was to questioning him in his own trial....which would be lunacy for AK and RS.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The the Chieffi court had no right to overturn Hellmann's decision, by Vixen's view. Out of many things, Chieffi ruled that Hellmann should not have applied any weight to Rudy saying, via Skype, that AK was not involved in the crime. He also ruled that Hellmann improperly arrived at TOD by applying improper weight to ear-witness testimony, therefore the Chieffi court overturned the "fact" as found by Hellmann and ordered it reassessed.

Vixen also believes that the Chieffi court acted illegally. Could it be that the issue might be Vixen's?

Vixen is right. The SC cannot overturn fact findings, insofar that would an assessment directly about evidence. The SC can annul decisions because of the way they were carried on and order courts to re-assess facts.
Chieffi noted that Hellmann's reasoning was based on attributing credibility to a source that was manifestly unreliable even according to Hellmann itself, to counter elements that were instead credible, and the reasoning was manifestly illogical. It's the reason Hellmann employs what Chieffi censures, not the conclusion.

 

[Mike1711]

Chieffi was also definitive about the dozen or so points of law that established on the case.
That included the lack of grounds to invoke art. 111 of Constitution (invalidity of Hellmann's point) and the usability of verdicts from other trials as pieces of circumstantial evidence (can't be dismissed just on the ground that they were short trials).

The context is the murder conviction.....surely. Of course there would be some definitively correct aspects to previous courts. That doesn't matter. What matters is the verdict.

I wonder how definitive the calunnia verdict will ultimately prove to be.