Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

This is a silly meaningless post. Everyone is responsible for any damage they've caused anywhere. You are obsessed with Knox, and it is telling that you don't include Sollecito, or else it would be you responsible for damages you cause.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Agreed, however Knox need not respond over and over again to the same complaint.

One that has seen 8 years of legal actions in which Knox won. Any jurisdiction Italy has over Knox ended with the CSC decision.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

(...)

Basically all ideas the pro-Knoxes have about Stefanoni are unsupported or proven false.

 

[Machiavelli]

Agreed,however Knox need not respond over and over again to the same complaint.

One that has seen 8 years of legal actions in which Knox won. Any jurisdiction Italy has over Knox ended with the CSC decision.

No, it has not ended. You are wrong on this.
Like the rest of your unreasonable claims.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Right. They would issue an injunction against what? Where?

If it were a guy or gal that obviously had done the murder but got off because of the bungling cops, would they still rule in favor?

How would the courts rule Italy had no right to hold her liable in a civil fashion?

How about the current defamation?

What if she didn't pay some of her legal bills and someone sued?

The Italians could point to the difference between BARD and preponderance of evidence.

What happens if they sue in britain for some sort of defamation - a post on her blog accusing John K of being HR for example? Would the courts protect her Constitutional rights?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a silly meaningless post. Everyone is responsible for any damage they've caused anywhere. You are obsessed with Knox, and it is telling that you don't include Sollecito, or else it would be you responsible for damages you cause.

No I just think Sollecito is under another jurisdiction. And in the event a civil action takes place agaisnt him it would also be separate from Knox's.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

You're dreaming. It's over baby. And doesn't Italy have any statute of limitations laws?

 

[Desert Fox]

What happens if they sue in britain for some sort of defamation - a post on her blog accusing John K of being HR for example? Would the courts protect her Constitutional rights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act

 

[acbytesla]

No, it has not ended. You are wrong on this.
Like the rest of your unreasonable claims.

We'll see then won't we? I don't think there will be another civil case against Knox and I'm convinced that she will never have to answer in any way or form in any courtroom criminal or civil for the murder.

Time will tell. Good luck with that.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is incorrect in that the Italian Constitution, Italian law, and the European Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case-law are superior to any CSC judgment. One panel of the CSC may correct the illegal or unconstitutional decision of another, as expressed or interpreted in an appeal court judgment, such as that of the Nencini court.

If that were not true, why would a country have a Constitution or Laws, or sign a treaty to respect the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights?

No. Art. 628 is clear. A CS panel cannot correct another CS decision on the same point of law.
The Constitutional Court may correct the Law, but that's a different story.
What we have here is Bruno/Marasca contradicting the points made by Chieffi on the same case, this is just conflict between res iudicata.

 

[Machiavelli]

We'll see then won't we? I don't think there will be another civil case against Knox and I'm convinced that she will never have to answer in any way or form in any courtroom criminal or civil for the murder.

Time will tell. Good luck with that.

You are obfuscating again, according to your style (false dychotomies between one melodramatic rant opposed to another, avoiding reason & logic in between, mistaging apples for oranges, nationalism).
You are mixing two different things. Whether there will be another civil case, is one thing.
Whether it is legally possible and if Italy has jurisdiction, is another.
You can't deduce the second from the first.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're dreaming. It's over baby. And doesn't Italy have any statute of limitations laws?

You can call me "sir".

 

[Grinder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act

Well thanks. I wasn't aware an act had been passed recently to protect US citizens from the british defamation industry.

The act was written as a response to libel tourism. It creates a new cause of action and claim for damages against the foreign libel plaintiff, if they acted to deprive an American of their right to free speech.[1] It was inspired by the legal battle that ensued between Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book, Funding Evil.[2]

I think something should be done but this criticism from the same link does bring up a good question:

The only examples of law journal treatment of the application of the SPEECH Act in the Trout Point Lodge case have criticized the Act. In the Roger Williams Law Review[14] author Nicole Manzo wrote: "the Act fails to differentiate between legitimate forum selection and illegitimate forum shopping. Moreover, I assert that the Act affords too little protection to foreign defamation plaintiffs. I argue that the exceptions to non-enforcement are illusory and fail to provide courts with appropriate guidance. More pointedly, the Act does not explicitly state how speech protection should be applied in a given case."
​

 

[acbytesla]

Right. They would issue an injunction against what? Where?

If it were a guy or gal that obviously had done the murder but got off because of the bungling cops, would they still rule in favor?

How would the courts rule Italy had no right to hold her liable in a civil fashion?

How about the current defamation?

What if she didn't pay some of her legal bills and someone sued?

The Italians could point to the difference between BARD and preponderance of evidence.

What happens if they sue in britain for some sort of defamation - a post on her blog accusing John K of being HR for example? Would the courts protect her Constitutional rights?

Injunction is the wrong word. A judge in the US could rule that Italy no longer has any jurisdiction to order Amanda Knox to answer the action against her as the CSC already ruled on the civil matter. The point isn't BARD vs the preponderance of evidence but about the right of a citizen not having to face double jeopardy.

You can only go to the well so many times.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

Bruno/Marasca couldn't do and didn't do any finding in the merits. They didn't assess directly any evidence. They didn't found any "actual innocence".

 

[acbytesla]

You are obfuscating again, according to your style (false dychotomies between one melodramatic rant opposed to another, avoiding reason & logic in between, mistaging apples for oranges, nationalism).
You are mixing two different things. Whether there will be another civil case, is one thing.
Whether it is legally possible and if Italy has jurisdiction, is another.
You can't deduce the second from the first.

You're the one who seems to be ranting. But nationalism does come into play. Americans are protected by our principles and while we can't enforce those principles abroad, we can and often do use those principles to protect US citizens in the States.

 

[Grinder]

Injunction is the wrong word. A judge in the US could rule that Italy no longer has any jurisdiction to order Amanda Knox to answer the action against her as the CSC already ruled on the civil matter. The point isn't BARD vs the preponderance of evidence but about the right of a citizen not having to face double jeopardy.

You can only go to the well so many times.

Could you cite the tort or law or whatever it might be, the legal action would be file under?

When the police or others are charged with violating a person's civil rights after being acquitted for assaulting that person, what's that?

What if the Italians found new definitive evidence and it was introduced in the civil case?

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

(...)

So let's get back to our topic.
You are the one of those here who would like to obtain a correct "reading" of Marasca / Bruno without reading it.
Your search for "other sources" that talk about it is quite comical and surreal insofar it is an effort to avoid reading it. Avoid dealing directly with it.

Now I challenge you to deal with something directly. I mean not with me, with the text. What Bruno / Marasca write.
Discover the arguments of translators, if you have translators with alternative versions. That would be a topic. I can show you why an Italian text means a certain thing and not another, and I can back all my arguments. You have a chance to discover the truth directly, through your own analysis of something.
Are you interested?

 

[acbytesla]

Could you cite the tort or law or whatever it might be, the legal action would be file under?

When the police or others are charged with violating a person's civil rights after being acquitted for assaulting that person, what's that?

What if the Italians found new definitive evidence and it was introduced in the civil case?

Absolutely NOT. This is a very fuzzy area of the law with pretty much no precedence.

What if Grinder? And how does one determine if it is definitive? Another court case? What if it was a piece of crap evidence? Should a defendant have to forever waste his money time and life having to answer to the courts? Shouldn't a defendant be allowed to move on with his life and not have a cloud of potential financial ruin forever hanging over his head?

When is "enough"?

 

[bagels]

Keep in mind we're arguing with someone who believes with total zeal that although all the evidence on its surface makes it appear as though a simple crime occurred with Rudy the thief raping and murdering Meredith, if you examine the evidence through a vigorous intellectual scope, like doing Lacanian psychoanalysis, what you will find is in fact the very opposite of what you expected.

These 16 footprints in Meredith's blood belonging to the thief and his DNA in her genitals suggest a certain simple reality, but if we look deeper we discover a quite different reality...a virtual texture...but we can perform a translation on the evidence and invert it. Rudy Guede the wall climbing knife carrying burglar is the Big Other. Amanda Knox betrays her oedipal dispositif with the father figure who penetrates with the knife. In a sense she becomes Rudy Guede. This symbolic transformation creates the violence of the Real. Thus it should be obvious to any lay juror that Amanda Knox is the real killer.