Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

You're living in fantasy land.

"You are living in fantasy land...because...?"

 

[Planigale]

IMHO, it's just because they need to fully assess what is in their interest. Lawyers know it's easy to win against Knox, but also know that AK & RS are not going to pay their damages.

The problem the complainants will have is that they will have to employ consultants like Stefanoni to present evidence of Sollecito and Knox's guilt. Apparently under the Italian legal system the assumption is that paid consultants lie so the assumption will be that their consultants will be lying. Sollecito's lawyers will want to Stefanoni through the documentation of what she did, they will bring up how she told untruths in court previously. My guess is the original will have been lost or destroyed. They will want to take Stefanoni through the peculiarities of numbering and seek explanations for the missing tests. My guess is Stefanoni won't want to be trying to defend the findings.

As you say even if a case could be brought it will not be. It would be expensive to bring, all the forensic evidence will need to be represented, but with the respondents having a much better knowledge of the weaknesses. As you say even if the case were won (and there are never certainties when you go to court), Knox has no assets and any judgement is unenforceable. Sollecito may have some but I expect by now they will be protected.

Lawyers won't want to embark on expensive litigation with no prospect of recouping their costs.

 

[Vixen]

Not sure what FT stands for but....

To question Guede in his own trial brings into play a vested interest in him lying and limitations in questioning common to cross examination procedures. I doubt the RS/AK defence team would risk their own case being more contaminated than it already proved to be. (Bearing in my mind that examination and cross examination are vastly different angles).

Being examined (as opposed to cross examined) as a (hostile) witness in the RS/AK trial involves a completely different dynamic from defence.
The prosecution were never going to call Guede as a witness for obvious reasons so if Guede was to appear in the RS/AK trial/s it would be as a hostile witness called by the defence. As we know Guede refused to testify.

I wonder why?????

It was his legal right.

 

[Vixen]

Machiavelli did make one good point and that is that Amanda wouldn't pay. She'd walk into a US court and request an injunction against any enforcement. And I'm sure a court would grant it.She probably would be able to get a US judge to declare preemptively that Knox is exempt from having to answer an Italian court on anything to do with the Kercher murder.

Who did you say was in cuckooland? To a US judge, Amanda Knox is a nonentity. He or she will sign off anything Italy as a state puts in front of him or her.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bruno and Marasca have confined themselves to the issues sent down by Chiefi, namely, the DNA issue, witness credibility and sundry issues.

Bruno Marasca state clearly that the issue of the verdict of "guilty" of murder is not fixed even if the prior fact-finding merits are.

So, the essential facts found remain the same, save the issues set out, above.

It is on the Nencini issues, the Marasca-Bruno court voided the verdict.

Please read the Marasca/Bruno report.... esp. the part prior to Sections 9.4. It is true that the M/B report completely trashes the reasoning used by Nencini to arrive at a guilty verdict - but M/B do not limit themselves to simply trashing Nencini; they go back to the very beginning to the bogus investigation and move forward from there.

Samples? Well, a sample of what M/B think about Nencini's reasoning powers:

Section 3 outlines how a referral judge must consider alternate theories of how a piece of evidence fits in. My view is that in Secion 3, M/B are essentially overturning Nencini because of a suspect-centric bias - which made him fail in his duty to consider other explanations for something:

On this matter, moreover, this Supreme
Court of Jurisprudence has already expressed itself, in stating that the referral judge
cannot be conditioned in his reasoning by evaluations of fact that may have escaped
the judge of legitimacy, with the levels on which the respective evaluations operate
being different, and with it not being the role of the Court of Cassation to
superimpose its own judgment on the referral judge regarding such aspects.
Moreover, where the Supreme Court focuses any attention on some particular
aspects from which emerges the deficiency or the contradictoriness of the
reasoning, that does not mean that the referral judge for the new verdict is limited
only by the points specified, because he conserves the same powers held originally,
which is as the judge of merit relative to the identification and evaluation of the
court records, within the charges of the verdict affected by annulment. (Section 4 n.
30422/2005 cit.).​

There are many more examples of Nencini's deficiencies.

But M/B also criticized the whole history of this case, especially as it was investigated originally, how it was prosecuted, and how the courts below it ruled:

4. One cannot avoid concluding, in the meantime, in this first attempted
analysis, that the history of this trial has been characterised by a troubled and intrinsically contradictory path, around one sole certainty; the guilt of Amanda Knox
for the slanderous accusation of Patrick Lumumba. Regarding, on the other hand,
the murder of Kercher, the ruling of guilt of the same Knox and of Sollecito in the
first trial was followed by acquittal in the Court of Appeal of Perugia, as a result of
an articulated analysis of the evidence; then its annulment by the First Section of
the Supreme Court; and finally by conviction, in the Court of referral in Florence,
followed by today’s appeal to the Court of Cassation.

An objectively wavering process, whose oscillations, however, are also the result
of clamorous failures, or investigative “amnesia” and of culpable omissions of
investigative activity.​

So, while I agree that M/B annuled Nencini totally - including the facts as found - it simply is not true that M/B limited themselves to that, as you claim.

 

[acbytesla]

"You are living in fantasy land...because...?"

Cause it ain't ever gonna happen.

 

[Vixen]

They don't have to say it. The law of Italy does that for them.


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. ....

acbytesla has expanded on his reasoning <fx faint in shock>. So you see, you can debate rationally if you try.

 

[acbytesla]

Who did you say was in cuckooland? To a US judge, Amanda Knox is a nonentity. He or she will sign off anything Italy as a state puts in front of him or her.

LMAO......Wrong again. Amanda Knox is a US citizen with rights granted at birth. Courts in America don't like the idea of an ever ending legal saga where any party is forced to defend themselves forever. Citizens have a right to finality. They would see that the Italian CSC had made a FINAL RULING In the case and they would say "enough is enough".

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli did make one good point and that is that Amanda wouldn't pay. She'd walk into a US court and request an injunction against any enforcement. And I'm sure a court would grant it.She probably would be able to get a US judge to declare preemptively that Knox is exempt from having to answer an Italian court on anything to do with the Kercher murder.

Who did you say was in cuckooland? To a US judge, Amanda Knox is a nonentity. He or she will sign off anything Italy as a state puts in front of him or her.

You, Vixen, may be right.

Why? Because any "action" in the US about an Italian legal matter is first and foremost a political matter between the two countries. All of this was discussed at length when it seemed that extradition was in play.

No US court HAS TO declare preemptively that an American, while in American jurisdiction, is exempt to answer to an Italian court. That is first and foremost a political matter.

 

[Vixen]

That makes no sense at all. . . Let us say that in 1999 someone is found guilty of a crime, say rape, based on the witness testimony of the victim. They had biological material but it could not be tested at that time. In 2015, they have the testing technology and they find that the evidence matches to a known serial rapist who has a passing resemblance to the person convicted.

What you are arguing is that actual innocence cannot overturn the original conviction

In England and Wales that would have to be a pardon granted by the government. The concept being "miscarriage of justice" under the broad all-embracing header of "public interest".

 

[Vixen]

Please follow the thread. I said that by your logic, then Chieffi would have had no right. That you default into saying you've never said those things indicates an inability to follow the argument.

OK. Fair enough.

 

[Vixen]

Or there is another alternative...

...Which is...?

(You may simply write "conspiracy to railroad the kids", if that's your "alternative".

BTW There can only be one alternative, not "other alternatives".

Alternative = two.

 

[Grinder]

A legal fact is not the same as a scientific fact. For example, a marriage certificate is a legal document that conveys legal facts and legal rights.

You missed the stretched point which was Galileo was convicted for believing and stating the earth revolved around the sun and it therefore is a judicial fact - of course it wasn't the "modern" Italian legal system.

So, if Chiefi upheld various facts found by the two lower courts, it is a legal fact, in the same way a marriage certificate is. A judge does not have unfettered powers. Whilst wide-ranging in terms of how they can arrive at a verdict, they are limited in other ways, inasmuch they must follow legal protocol.

To help you understand, a judge's first duty, as a barrister and judge, is to the Court, the Court being an instrument of the State.

It is nothing like a marriage certificate. It is more like a coroner's inquest ruling, which need not be accepted by the trial court.

Even Mach says the ruling on multiple attackers should and need only be taken as circumstantial evidence but Chieffi stated Hellman didn't consider it at all and mistakenly.

 

[Vixen]

You'll need to be more specific. Articles 652 and 654 seem to clearly say that you are wrong. The Kercher's lawyer recognized this immediately.

I am not a lawyer, so I'll pass on this one.

ISTM however, logically, if a defendant is acquitted because the police made a technical error but the court determines the defendant was involved, then it seems intuitive that the victim can claim liability against that defendant as the fact of "police error" was unknown as of the time of the trial and verdict.

In all fairness, Bruno and Marasca have failed to address the issue in establishing the police did err, as it was never put before a merits hearing, other than in the context of 'DNA contamination', which both Massei and Nencini rejected as a reasonable premise. The DNA was not the only evidence against the kids; there was a whole stackful.

Suppose a person is charged and convicted in Italy of culpable homicide for running down a pedestrian, and at appeal all the way to the Supreme Court the verdict is changed to "accident but involving negligence", then intuitively, the victim's family should still be able to sue for the act of negligence despite the acquittal.

 

[Vixen]

Likewise in Italy I imagine. Maybe Machiavelli can enlighten us on this aspect.

And on the matter of frivolous/vexatious civil suits, I wonder what has/will become of that civil action instigated in Italy in relation to the Marasca verdict, launched by a private Italian citizen, as reported by Vogt...?

If Italian law allows a citizen to file a complaint against the judiciary, then it is not frivolous.

 

[Grinder]

...Which is...?

(You may simply write "conspiracy to railroad the kids", if that's your "alternative".

BTW There can only be one alternative, not "other alternatives".

Alternative = two.

Who do youy think you are? LJ

adjective
1.
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.
"the various alternative methods for resolving disputes"
synonyms: different, other, another, second, possible, substitute, replacement, alternate; More
noun
1.
one of two or more available possibilities."audiocassettes are an interesting alternative to reading"
synonyms: option, choice, other possibility; More​

Oopsie.

The alternative I was thinking of was the cops lied about not calling in Amanda. Though I find not admitting they called her in less than a conspiracy or framing of them.

 

[Vixen]

Who do youy think you are? LJ

adjective
1.
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.
"the various alternative methods for resolving disputes"
synonyms: different, other, another, second, possible, substitute, replacement, alternate; More
noun
1.
one of two or more available possibilities."audiocassettes are an interesting alternative to reading"
synonyms: option, choice, other possibility; More​

Oopsie.

The alternative I was thinking of was the cops lied about not calling in Amanda. Though I find not admitting they called her in less than a conspiracy or framing of them.

Duh. The dumbing down of the masses. As a mathematician, I assure you there can only ever be one alternative, otherwise you need to call it something else, such as 'option'. You'll note the derivation of the word is based on one of two.

AFAIAA Amanda has never claimed the cops called her in. The tale is, she accompanied Raff because she didn't want to be alone, and she told police she wanted to work on her homework whilst waiting.

 

[Grinder]

I am not a lawyer, so I'll pass on this one.

ISTM however, logically, if a defendant is acquitted because the police made a technical error but the court determines the defendant was involved, then it seems intuitive that the victim can claim liability against that defendant as the fact of "police error" was unknown as of the time of the trial and verdict.

In all fairness, Bruno and Marasca have failed to address the issue in establishing the police did err, as it was never put before a merits hearing, other than in the context of 'DNA contamination', which both Massei and Nencini rejected as a reasonable premise. The DNA was not the only evidence against the kids; there was a whole stackful.

Suppose a person is charged and convicted in Italy of culpable homicide for running down a pedestrian, and at appeal all the way to the Supreme Court the verdict is changed to "accident but involving negligence", then intuitively, the victim's family should still be able to sue for the act of negligence despite the acquittal.

Here no doubt as OJ demonstrated. While the paragraph 2 acquittal may come into play, it certainly seems unfair for the civil parties to participate in the criminal trial, having all the benefits of the state prosecution on their side, and after losing go after the same people. It would seem more fair to give them a choice at the beginning. Participate with us and give up the right for a separate civil later or wait for the results and then sue civilly.

 

[Vixen]

I wish everyone at ISF a very happy festive season.

(Play nicely, now!)

 

[acbytesla]

You, Vixen, may be right.

Why? Because any "action" in the US about an Italian legal matter is first and foremost a political matter between the two countries. All of this was discussed at length when it seemed that extradition was in play.

No US court HAS TO declare preemptively that an American, while in American jurisdiction, is exempt to answer to an Italian court. That is first and foremost a political matter.

With all due respect Bill, I strongly believe you are mistaken. We're not talking about extradition which is spelled out in a treaty. This is "fuzzy law" with virtually no precedence or probably any International law that applies. Independent judges love to make rulings in cases like this.