Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary


Al`ter´na`tive
a. 1. Offering a choice of two things.
2. Disjunctive; as, an alternative conjunction.
3. Alternate; reciprocal.
n. 1. An offer of two things, one of which may be chosen, but not both; a choice between two things, so that if one is taken, the other must be left.
There is something else than the mere alternative of absolute destruction or unreformed existence.
- Burke.
2. Either of two things or propositions offered to one's choice. Thus when two things offer a choice of one only, the two things are called alternatives.
Having to choose between two alternatives, safety and war, you obstinately prefer the worse.
- Jowett (Thucyd.).
3. The course of action or the thing offered in place of another.
If this demand is refused the alternative is war.
- Lewis.
With no alternative but death.
- Longfellow.
4. A choice between more than two things; one of several things offered to choose among. My decided preference is for the fourth and last of these alternatives. - Gladstone.
The idiot Gladstone

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.

Now we believe Amanda? She just forgot, you know like all the things she got wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

I wish everyone at ISF a very happy festive season.

(Play nicely, now!)

Thanks! You too!

 

[Numbers]

The rules you quote are to cover the possibility of the evidence being improperly collected or applied. It doesn't change the thrust of the principle of the merits court (first instance) being the key court to establish facts, with the second stage court with back up should this be found lacking at first instance.

A party to a court case would be wise to ensure that all the evidence they want heard is presented at the trial stage, as appeal courts have the power to dismiss late applications.

The issues include the potential for the accused to ask the court for evidence to be entered and the judge refusing, or simply not responding. The CSC in theory could have explicitly annulled the AK - RS case for Stefanoni's failure to provided the raw data, that is, the electronic data files, of the DNA profiling and all the controls. The CSC avoided that specific issue but criticized the overall course of the investigation and Nencini's arbitrary judgment in convicting.

The Marasca CSC panel rightfully acquitted because there was no evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Objectively, there was no reliable evidence of the involvement of Knox or Sollecito at all, from the very beginning of the case. The case was essentially a police and prosecution effort designed to relieve the Italian authorities of the media pressure to solve the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher, according to the Marasca CSC panel motivation report.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Your logic is backwards for many reasons. The first is the question of what those police or investigative errors were and who did they benefit. BM suggests they benefit the police. One cannot undo the failure of the investigators not taking more detailed photos of the glass in Filomena's room or DNA swabs or keep them from wearing dirty gloves. The errors are irreversible and any subsequent court case cannot resolve them. The police errors were in fact pointed out by the Defense throughout the trial so one also cannot claim ignorance.

BM basically said there is no equivocal evidence of Amanda or Raffaele's involvement and the reason there is none may be the result of investigation errors. The plaintiffs should not benefit because their investigators screwed up.

As to the highlighted second section, this is NOT the case in this matter. Is it? Amanda were acquitted of their involvement in the murder. That is binding in the civil matter that ran concurrently. The Kercher's lawyer knew that immediately and declared that it is over.

 

[Vixen]

Webster's 1913 Dictionary


Al`ter´na`tive
a. 1. Offering a choice of two things.
2. Disjunctive; as, an alternative conjunction.
3. Alternate; reciprocal.
n. 1. An offer of two things, one of which may be chosen, but not both; a choice between two things, so that if one is taken, the other must be left.
There is something else than the mere alternative of absolute destruction or unreformed existence.
- Burke.
2. Either of two things or propositions offered to one's choice. Thus when two things offer a choice of one only, the two things are called alternatives.
Having to choose between two alternatives, safety and war, you obstinately prefer the worse.
- Jowett (Thucyd.).
3. The course of action or the thing offered in place of another.
If this demand is refused the alternative is war.
- Lewis.
With no alternative but death.
- Longfellow.
4. A choice between more than two things; one of several things offered to choose among. My decided preference is for the fourth and last of these alternatives. - Gladstone.
The idiot Gladstone



Now we believe Amanda? She just forgot, you know like all the things she got wrong.

Even liars tell the truth some times.*

PS British Dictionary definitions for alternative
alternative
/ɔːlˈtɜːnətɪv/
noun
1.
a possibility of choice, esp between two things, courses of action, etc
2.
either of such choices: we took the alternative of walking
adjective
3.
presenting a choice, esp between two possibilities only

*"Even the losers get lucky sometimes" ~ Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers

 

[dropzone]

Both Amanda's and Raffaele's lives are significantly better as the result of being acquitted.

But worse than if they hadn't been falsely accused and convicted in the first place.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can demonstrate that your assumptions are wrong about the Italian context even just by showing what the B/M verdict says, if you accept that this element of reality challenges your prejudicial view. Look how you assumed that B/M cannot really say those things, otherwise the press would say, people would do, etc. I suggest you climb down from your theories - no matter how beautifully consistent they look and how dear to you - and check them through an experiment, accepting that they may fall. The most beautiful theory and all common sense intuition can be blown down on falsification test.
You need to accept falsification tests. It's not about ego, it's about telling false from true.
What I find, well, curious ( won't say comical) is that your arguments, about what the text says others arguments about whether a civil action is possible, are based on avoidance of checking reality directly.

I'm sorry - I truly don't understand whatever point you may be trying to make here.

How about something along the following lines: "You're wrong to think that civil action against Knox or Sollecito has little reasonable chance of success because [outline reasons here]".

 

[Numbers]

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.

This post contains what may be one of the most bizarre and ignorant statements ever.

Please describe the process your imagination has here. It might be a good science fiction alternative reality story.

What role would Italy, a foreign state, have before a US court? In the US, courts only address actual disputes that are under their jurisdiction.

 

[Numbers]

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".

The rights are inherent, not "granted". Some of the rights were enumerated in the US Constitution, in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10) and in later Amendments (12 - 14). Generally, each state constitution also may contain a bill of rights.

Italy would have no standing to bring a case before a US court against anyone, whether or not a US citizen, for something that happened in Italy. So the imagined situation would never arise.

Since Amanda Knox was finally and definitively acquitted on the murder and rape charges and can never be brought again (CPP Art. 649), and the civil action against her by the Kerchers is dismissed with binding effect (that is, it can not be brought up again) because of the acquittal (CPP Art. 652), there is no action relating to the murder/rape that Italy or the Kerchers could possibly begin in Italy, and clearly not in a different jurisdiction such as the US, the courts of which would have no authority to rule on crimes or torts in Italy.

And, obviously, the US government is not going to extradite someone who has been judged finally and definitively not guilty by the foreign court. The extradition treaty in effect with Italy would allow the US government to refuse any such request.

 

[Desert Fox]

And, obviously, the US government is not going to extradite someone who has been judged finally and definitively not guilty by the foreign court. The extradition treaty in effect with Italy would allow the US government to refuse any such request.

That is a little weakly worded. . . .The US government would be forced to refuse any request for extradition.

 

[acbytesla]

The rights are inherent, not "granted". Some of the rights were enumerated in the US Constitution, in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10) and in later Amendments (12 - 14). Generally, each state constitution also may contain a bill of rights.

Italy would have no standing to bring a case before a US court against anyone, whether or not a US citizen, for something that happened in Italy. So the imagined situation would never arise.

Since Amanda Knox was finally and definitively acquitted on the murder and rape charges and can never be brought again (CPP Art. 649), and the civil action against her by the Kerchers is dismissed with binding effect (that is, it can not be brought up again) because of the acquittal (CPP Art. 652), there is no action relating to the murder/rape that Italy or the Kerchers could possibly begin in Italy, and clearly not in a different jurisdiction such as the US, the courts of which would have no authority to rule on crimes or torts in Italy.

And, obviously, the US government is not going to extradite someone who has been judged finally and definitively not guilty by the foreign court. The extradition treaty in effect with Italy would allow the US government to refuse any such request.

You're right, inherent is the correct term. But we're not discussing extradition we are arguing that US courts could quash preemptively another civil action in Italy for murder. That not only is she protected against double jeopardy in the criminal case now but also another civil action for murder.

 

[Grinder]

If Italian law allows for a civil trial separate from the criminal trial and Amanda lost it is not clear what the US would do. We have treaties about civil verdicts (money) and if the trial was found by the Italians to be proper, she would most likely have to pay.

It is highly unlikely that this will occur but the defamation trial currently underway could be a stalking horse for any future suits.

 

[Numbers]

That is a little weakly worded. . . .The US government would be forced to refuse any request for extradition.

The US courts would force the US government not to extradite if the government started the process. The US government would simply choose not to begin the process and would notify Italy of its refusal and give the reason, as required by the treaty. That could be done by the US government in any case of proposed extradition if the Secretary of State sees that as the proper course of action. That refusal is allowed by the treaty provisions. Guilters have incorrectly claimed that extradition is somehow an obligation; it is not.

 

[Numbers]

You're right, inherent is the correct term. But we're not discussing extradition we are arguing that US courts could quash preemptively another civil action in Italy for murder. That not only is she protected against double jeopardy in the criminal case now but also another civil action for murder.

How could a US court quash a civil action in Italy?

The US court would not be able to hear a case about a civil action in Italy. The US courts only hear cases where they have jurisdiction.

 

[Numbers]

If Italian law allows for a civil trial separate from the criminal trial and Amanda lost it is not clear what the US would do. We have treaties about civil verdicts (money) and if the trial was found by the Italians to be proper, she would most likely have to pay.

It is highly unlikely that this will occur but the defamation trial currently underway could be a stalking horse for any future suits.

Can you cite any examples or US statutes relating to a foreign civil judgment against a US natural person (not a company), not relating to commercial activity in that foreign country, being enforced by the US courts?

 

[acbytesla]

How could a US court quash a civil action in Italy?

The US court would not be able to hear a case about a civil action in Italy. The US courts only hear cases where they have jurisdiction.

They would issue an injunction. The point is is this Numbers. One of the principles of American jurisprudence is the right protecting its citizens agains double jeapordy. While a US court could not stop a case from proceeding in Italy, it could rule that the Italian courts had no jurisdictional right to make Knox a US citizen answer to them as she just spent 8 years of her life and significant financial resources and the Italian courts had already ruled on the matter.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sorry - I truly don't understand whatever point you may be trying to make here.

How about something along the following lines: "You're wrong to think that civil action against Knox or Sollecito has little reasonable chance of success because [outline reasons here]".

You're wrong to think that civil action against Knox or Sollecito has little reasonable chance of success because:
It is usually easier to win a civil law case against a guilty party than to convict them.
AK & RS were already found guilty by the courts of merits, and were never found innocent. Obviously this excludes Hellmann, that was however annulled on all reasons.
The Kerchers have the support of final verdicts that provide fact findings (Guede's verdict and Chieffi, plus the incoming second Knox's calunnia).
The defendants AK & RS may invoke the points of law set by Bruno/Marasca, however these points clash against res judicata, which is Chieffi, and are manifestly unusable (you can hardly invoke "sacred protocols" which don't exist in a civil court).
The Bruno/Marasca is not a court of merits, so by definition its conclusions are no conclusion in the merits, they can add no findings to the lower courts ones; they could not make any finding in the merits, but those one that they unwittingly dared to make motu proprio are the placing for sure of Knox inside the house where she could hear Meredith's scream (and we know she didn't die immediately from her wounds) and washed her hands from Meredith's blood. In addition to that, they declared "530.2" that is, no innocence was found.
All the evidence inadmissible in a criminal court, is admissible in a civil trial. That includes Sollecito's changing police versions or the recording of his voice before Matteini, but may include also new evidence, like other testimonies. Even Mignini could be called to testify. The evidence theoretically available is huge, and the burden of proof is lower.

However, a civil action on this matter would take an incredibly long time, many years, it would be very expensive for the lawyers (I mean the costs of the paperwork would be huge for litigators in terms of expenses, not because of lawyers' fee but because of office fees) and in the end, that wouldn't be rewarding on a monetary level, because Knox and Sollecito in the end won't have enough money, that could be easilly taken, to cover expenses and be productive; so, the action is possible, easy to win if the lawyer is expert about the case, but I don't think the Maresca lawfirm is rushing to do it pro bono, because of their obvious expenses. I think they may do it, though, soon or later. Or some other lawyer may do it as well, it's only if the Kerchers decide to. Actually, since Knox & Sollecito won't pay the money, an action against them would be only symbolic. The same judicial truth however, could be established indirectly, through actions against other subjects with more money, which might be a more productive path.

 

[Grinder]

Can you cite any examples or US statutes relating to a foreign civil judgment against a US natural person (not a company), not relating to commercial activity in that foreign country, being enforced by the US courts?

And what's my prize? Are you suggesting the famous british defamation lawsuit industry excluded US citizens.

Why would commercial be different?

You mean if a foreign government charges me with not paying some taxes as a private citizen, the US will send them packing?

This whole area gives me a jingoistic stomach ache.

 

[Machiavelli]

They would issue an injunction. The point is is this Numbers. One of the principles of American jurisprudence is the right protecting its citizens agains double jeapordy. While a US court could not stop a case from proceeding in Italy, it could rule that the Italian courts had no jurisdictional right to make Knox a US citizen answer to them as she just spent 8 years of her life and significant financial resources and the Italian courts had already ruled on the matter.

Knox is responsible for all damages she caused while in Italy, but I don't think there would be a way to force her to actually pay, I don't think that would be practical.

 

[acbytesla]

But worse than if they hadn't been falsely accused and convicted in the first place.

True. But a Pyrrhic Victory it was not.

Pyrrhic victory [( peer -ik)]

A victory that is accompanied by enormous losses and leaves the winners in as desperate shape as if they had lost. Pyrrhus was an ancient general who, after defeating the Romans, told those who wished to congratulate him, “One more such victory and Pyrrhus is undone.”