Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Let's start with the quick "reading" presented by an Italian innocentista, Luca Cheli. He notes so:

It is true that in a couple of passages the ruling seems to take for certain Knox’s presence at the cottage, albeit a margin of ambiguity remains in the words used, but it must be kept in mind that Marasca includes the morning of November 2nd in the time interval he considers, and Knox’s presence that morning is uncontested.

There are four statements worth note by Luca Cheli in this paragraph:

1. He notes that there are passages that take Knox's presence in the cottage for certain.
2. Notes that the passages are two.
3. Thinks that some "margin of ambiguity" in the words used remains
4. Thinks certainty is assumed by B/M are due to the long time frame considered by Marasca & Bruno, and thus nt necessarily refers to the time of the murder.

#1 & #2 are correct.

#3 & #4 are incorrect.

The fact that #4 is incorrect is quite obvious, so the fact that his interpretation of the report was, well, maybe hasty, not entirely reliable, is apparent.
The interpretation put forward by #4 is wrong because B/M highlights that they believe the story Knox tells about squatting in the kitchen covering her ears during Meredith's scream, is true. As they believe this detail of Knox's testimony is true, they anchor her presence in the house to a precise moment in time.
And also, we note that B/M point out that evidence of Knox's prsence in the house during the murder itself is an insufficient element to establish guilt, as long as she may have lacked "active participation". They highlight how uncertainty affects the question of "active participation", while they never raise the issue of uncertainty of time (they raise it only for Sollecito, factually distinguishing the two positions).

Now, it happens that also #3, in my opinion, is incorrect. In fact there is no margin of ambiguity in the words used by the judges declaring certainty.
It's true that their wording is an uncommon way of talking, they use rather uncommon words (from a legalistic style) and uncommon phrase style. But this should not be confused with ambiguity. Their words don't leave margins for ambiguity. They cannot be interpreted in two ways.
I can explain the reason for that to anyone who is interest at reading the text.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No they don't suggst any "simple reality", not even from surface. That is an illusion you tell yourself, which you maintain by keeping details behind a curtain, by justifying your decision of looking things from "distance" and leave shapes fuzzy. You don't look even at surface from close distance.
If you looked at reality at close distance, reality would contradict your picture, you won't have any "simple" picture any more when you try to draw it.
I'm not being derogatory of your approach, I may understand it, but I call it profoundly wrong. It's utterly pregiudicial.

 

[bagels]

No they don't suggst any "simple reality", not even from surface. That is an illusion you tell yourself, which you maintain by keeping details behind a curtain, by justifying your decision of looking things from "distance" and leave shapes fuzzy. You don't look even at surface from close distance.
If you looked at reality at close distance, reality would contradict your picture, you won't have any "simple" picture any more when you try to draw it.
I'm not being derogatory of your approach, I may understand it, but I call it profoundly wrong. It's utterly pregiudicial.

But that's exactly what you're doing. Why deny it? Two of Rudy's footprints are separated by a certain distance, thus Amanda was there. This stain is scientifically excluded as blood, but because of distant footprints and cryptic alleged statements made during an unseen interrogation, the stains transform into blood, like an unholy communion. You're performing a transformation on the evidence because the transparent narrative it suggest doesn't agree with you. It really is what is happening.

 

[acbytesla]

But that's exactly what you're doing. Why deny it? Two of Rudy's footprints are separated by a certain distance, thus Amanda was there. This stain is scientifically excluded as blood, but because of distant footprints and cryptic alleged statements made during an unseen interrogation, the stains transform into blood, like an unholy communion. You're performing a transformation on the evidence because the transparent narrative it suggest doesn't agree with you. It really is what is happening.

I've always been amused by this Machiavellian argument. We are blind because we can't see what isn't there.

How can we legitimately believe that something is blood after it scientifically tests negative? I for one would need much more than anecdotal evidence to ignore that. I cannot ignore Stefanoni refusal to provide the Electronic Data Files to the defense. I can't help but wonder what is she hiding? I cannot believe witnesses that change their stories months later. Especially when it contradicts their employees and cash register records. Or when, the witness is a heroin addict says he sees something in the dark and is wrong about all the circumstances surrounding that event. I cannot ignore that there isn't one single call, text or email ever between Rudy and Amanda/Raffaele.

It's as if Machiavelli wants us, like the police wanted Amanda to imagine things that didn't happen. Things like his suggestion that Amanda was a drug addict trading sexual favors for drugs. He expects us to see phantom evidence and read guilt into innocent events.

Otherwise our bias is showing.

 

[Numbers]

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.

All persons living within US jurisdiction have a right not to be subjected to double jeopardy, but I don't think double jeopardy is the issue here. The double jeopardy clause and other provisions of the US Constitution relate to limitations imposed on the US government and state governments, and don't follow a US citizen outside the US. But the US courts are not open to a foreign country lodging any civil or criminal case against someone resident in the US, with some possible exceptions governed by treaty - for example, a case relating to an allegation of a child taken away without legal authorization by a parent in a foreign divorce case.

One must have "standing" (a legally defensible interest) to bring a case in civil court in the US. Italy would not have standing in the US, in part because by its laws, Amanda Knox can not be charged with any crime for which she has been acquitted, or for which she has completed her sentence, and according to Italian law, there is no civil liability after one is acquitted.

There may be a misunderstanding that in extradition cases, a foreign country lodges some kind of case in a US court. It is the US Department of Justice that lodges a request before a US magistrate for a review of its decision that an extradition may go forward. Extradition is a US executive branch decision based on voluntary agreement by the US executive with a foreign country request, and subject to rules established by treaty. The foreign country must provide reasons and legal justification, credible to the US executive, for the extradition. The role of the US courts is to verify that the US executive decision meets Constitutional and legal requirements; a Federal court judgment may invalidate an attempt to extradite.

To my knowledge, neither Italy nor Patrick Lumumba is suing Amanda Knox in the US for the civil liability she incurred (wrongfully, but allegedly in accordance with Italian law) when the Chieffi CSC panel finally convicted her of calunnia against Lumumba. To my knowledge, she has not compensated him in the civil liability case. The US courts don't accept cases for events not in their jurisdiction. Italy is not within the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[Numbers]

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.

I am asking you for a cite, and you apparently don't have one.

Defamation suits are lodged with the courts in the jurisdiction where the alleged defamation occurred. This may have expanded somewhat because of the internet.

As an example, the famous defamation suit by a British self-proclaimed historian against a US historian relating to her claims that his writings about the Holocaust were not factual was held in Britain. Her writings disputing the veracity of his writings were available in the UK. If they had not been, the case could not have been heard in a UK court. I believe he could not have generated a court case against her in the US, partly because of the difference in defamation laws between the US and the UK. In the UK, the burden of proof in a libel trial at the relevant time was on the defendants (the US historian and her publisher), while in the US, it would be on the plaintiff.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

Regarding your suggested example of a person allegedly owing taxes in a foreign country, unless there is a criminal offense alleged and an extradition treaty with the US, or a tax treaty, indeed the foreign country may be out of luck in collecting.

 

[Numbers]

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.

You miss the point that the Marasca CSC panel ruled on the Nencini verdict and motivation report, not on the Chieffi CSC panel judgment.

 

[acbytesla]

All persons living within US jurisdiction have a right not to be subjected to double jeopardy, but I don't think double jeopardy is the issue here. The double jeopardy clause and other provisions of the US Constitution relate to limitations imposed on the US government and state governments, and don't follow a US citizen outside the US. But the US courts are not open to a foreign country lodging any civil or criminal case against someone resident in the US, with some possible exceptions governed by treaty - for example, a case relating to an allegation of a child taken away without legal authorization by a parent in a foreign divorce case.

One must have "standing" (a legally defensible interest) to bring a case in civil court in the US. Italy would not have standing in the US, in part because by its laws, Amanda Knox can not be charged with any crime for which she has been acquitted, or for which she has completed her sentence, and according to Italian law, there is no civil liability after one is acquitted.

There may be a misunderstanding that in extradition cases, a foreign country lodges some kind of case in a US court. It is the US Department of Justice that lodges a request before a US magistrate for a review of its decision that an extradition may go forward. Extradition is a US executive branch decision based on voluntary agreement by the US executive with a foreign country request, and subject to rules established by treaty. The foreign country must provide reasons and legal justification, credible to the US executive, for the extradition. The role of the US courts is to verify that the US executive decision meets Constitutional and legal requirements; a Federal court judgment may invalidate an attempt to extradite.

To my knowledge, neither Italy nor Patrick Lumumba is suing Amanda Knox in the US for the civil liability she incurred (wrongfully, but allegedly in accordance with Italian law) when the Chieffi CSC panel finally convicted her of calunnia against Lumumba. To my knowledge, she has not compensated him in the civil liability case. The US courts don't accept cases for events not in their jurisdiction. Italy is not within the jurisdiction of the US.

Here's the caveat Numbers. Civil judgments abroad on US citizens and corporations are often enforceable. I think the Libel tourism is a good example as is the US Law that now prohibited it. In fact, I think the merits of that law signal how a US court would approach this case.

 

[Numbers]

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.

You are getting closer to my view now. However, US double jeopardy is extraneous, while Italian double jeopardy would apply.

The US court would review the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and find that according to the provisions of that code as previously discussed here, there was neither civil liability nor a criminal case. There would be no cause to bring the case forward because it had no validity in Italy.

Would a US court have any authority to hear a case brought by a foreign country or foreign person against a US person for a civil claim arising from an alleged action in a foreign country, absent a treaty between the US and the foreign country allowing this? Can you provide a citation supporting such authority? Maybe I am missing something.

 

[Numbers]

Here's the caveat Numbers. Civil judgments abroad on US citizens and corporations are often enforceable. I think the Libel tourism is a good example as is the US Law that now prohibited it. In fact, I think the merits of that law signal how a US court would approach this case.

May be. May be not.
But you did not address my points in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs.

There would be double jeopardy in ITALY. Italian law states that an acquittal ends the civil case with binding effect - that is, the civil case cannot be revived. This would be true, I believe, even in the face of new evidence - because that is true for the criminal case under Italian law.

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

I am not interested in listening to **you**. Your claim is that you have absolute truth in what the Italian-language of the M/B-report means. You. Not Luca Cheli, not Francesco Maresca, not Andrea Vogt, not Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca or Bruno. Not Bongiorno not de Nunzio. You. Already in your postings you have shown yourself to be at odds with Luca Cheli, who is also an Italian-language commentator.

You may find it "comical and surreal" that one can actually do a survey of Italian language news-citations to find how this is playing in Italy, among Italians. Laugh away. But laugh at th vast, vast majority of Italian outlets who regard Giuliano Mignini as a buffoon, who has persecuted two innocents. It means nothing to you that that survey tends to buttress Cheli's view of things and not yours. Indeed, in the three news sources there are which seem to uphold your view, one of them is one even you call "imprecise". (Speaking of comical!) Two of those three have been published on-line since the Sept 2015 release of the M/B report, and both cite the allegation of Amanda's admission in her first memorale as proof of her being at the cottage. Not even Hellmann, Zanetti, and I presume Bruno or Marasca believe that that bit of evidence proves what those lone sources say it does.

All the rest of Italian sources see it (in general terms) Cheli's way. Both English translations sustain the notion that what followed Sections 9.2/9.3 were synoptic amalgams of the prosecution and defence cases; smashed together to demonstrate that even if everything so-combined was true, there was still no evidence that either of the kids committed murder.

It is comical that you would wish to play word games with a unilingual, English speaker on an obscure website like ISF. It is revealing that you do not wish to play these word games with your fellow Italians.

You also do not wish to talk about the way former-guilters like Andrea Vogt tell arm-chair detectives to "move on", and quit tormenting the original victims to all this - the Kerchers. Francesco Maresca, the Kerchers' lawyer, has said that this is definitively over.

You could be less comical by playing your word games with Francesco Maresca. At the very least he's someone who matters.

 

[acbytesla]

May be. May be not.
But you did not address my points in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs.

There would be double jeopardy in ITALY. Italian law states that an acquittal ends the civil case with binding effect - that is, the civil case cannot be revived. This would be true, I believe, even in the face of new evidence - because that is true for the criminal case under Italian law.

I agree. But Machiavelli continues to argue that the BM motivation opens the door to a possible, even probable civil action. I argue it does the opposite. I am also saying that in the event a civil action is pursued in Italy and they allow it, a US court would say that any judgment against Knox would be unenforceable as a result of the previous CSC ruling. That she cannot be made to answer in any way for an already decided case.

 

[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.

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.

You wish to get into a word-definition contest, and THIS is the kind of logic you post? LOL!?

If Knox is responsible for alleged damages she caused in Italy, and, "Sollecito is under another jurisdiction"...... what jurisdiction would that be? The old Papal States?

You should listen to Andrea Vogt.

 

[Numbers]

I agree. But Machiavelli continues to argue that the BM motivation opens the door to a possible, even probable civil action. I argue it does the opposite. I am also saying that in the event a civil action is pursued in Italy and they allow it, a US court would say that any judgment against Knox would be unenforceable as a result of the previous CSC ruling. That she cannot be made to answer in any way for an already decided case.

I agree that no civil action by the Kerchers or Italy against Knox or Sollecito is possible in Italy in accordance with Italian law.

I should also point out that the burden of proof (which is by a preponderance of the evidence) in a US civil trial is on the plaintiff.

Unlike Italian courts, the US Federal courts have strict rules which are enforced, including rules on discovery (called "equality of arms" by the ECHR). For those interested, there are sites where these rules are summarized:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

excerpt:

(B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report—prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain:

(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;

(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;

(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;

(iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;

(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and

(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

If an interested person looks at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Discovery Rules, he or she will recognize that a hoax case such as that which would be brought against Amanda Knox would not be able to succeed. If a wrongful death suit were pursued, for example, Stefanoni and all her data would be subject to examination in court. Refusal to provide the data would end the plaintiff's case with a finding for the defendant. And we know that showing all the data would not end well for the plaintiff.

Would arguments for guilt, such as those brought forward by some posters here, convince a US Federal court of the plaintiff's case in a wrongful death suit?

So this whole topic of civil suits is merely an amusement and a provocation by the guilters. But it may have served some educational purpose for the rest of us.

ETA: Burden of Proof

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1]

She or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning (s)he needs no evidence to support her or his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

 

[acbytesla]

I agree that no civil action by the Kerchers or Italy against Knox or Sollecito is possible in Italy in accordance with Italian law.

I should also point out that the burden of proof (which is by a preponderance of the evidence) in a US civil trial is on the plaintiff.

Unlike Italian courts, the US Federal courts have strict rules which are enforced, including rules on discovery (called "equality of arms" by the ECHR). For those interested, there are sites where these rules are summarized:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

excerpt:


https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

If an interested person looks at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Discovery Rules, he or she will recognize that a hoax case such as that which would be brought against Amanda Knox would not be able to succeed. If a wrongful death suit were pursued, for example, Stefanoni and all her data would be subject to examination in court. Refusal to provide the data would end the plaintiff's case with a finding for the defendant. And we know that showing all the data would not end well for the plaintiff.

Would arguments for guilt, such as those brought forward by some posters here, convince a US Federal court of the plaintiff's case in a wrongful death suit?

So this whole topic of civil suits is merely an amusement and a provocation by the guilters. But it may have served some educational purpose for the rest of us.

ETA: Burden of Proof



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

I agree with all of this. Thar said, it's very difficult for me to be confident as to what an Italian court would do. Logic hasn't seemed to have any merit there. Your earlier references to the articles that rule that the criminal decision is binding on the civil action is persuasive.
I am however a little gun shy after the Chieffi when it comes to understanding or predicting italy.

 

[Numbers]

I agree with all of this. Thar said, it's very difficult for me to be confident as to what an Italian court would do. Logic hasn't seemed to have any merit there. Your earlier references to the articles that rule that the criminal decision is binding on the civil action is persuasive.
I am however a little gun shy after the Chieffi when it comes to understanding or predicting italy.

I agree that the Italian courts apparently have a tendency to arbitrarily violate their own laws and constitution, and of course ECHR case-law, based on what we have seen in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Suppose that, contrary to Italian law, a civil suit against Amanda or Raffaele for the murder of Meredith succeeded in finding one or both liable. They could appeal that verdict. A civil verdict in Italy may be appealed to a second-instance court, and eventually to the CSC (civil division). In the case of appeals, only the final verdict of the CSC is definitive.

Would a US court make a foreign civil judgment enforceable against someone resident in the US? That all depends. Here is some information:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comity_of_nations

Comity of Nations

Definition

The principle that one sovereign nation voluntarily adopts or enforces the laws of another sovereign nation out of deference, mutuality, and respect.

Unlike enforcement of judgments between states in the United States (which is governed by the Comity Clause of the Constitution), there is no Constitutional obligation on a U.S. court to recognize or enforce a foreign judgment. Neither is comity of nations embodied in international law. However, sovereign nations still use comity of nations for public policy reasons.

Under comity, a reviewing court does not reopen cases that have already been heard in other courts; instead, it examines the foreign judicial system. After considering factors (such as fairness and impartiality of that foreign system, the foreign court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and the presence of fraud), the reviewing court might choose to respect and enforce that foreign court’s judgments.

Again, a US court would review the laws of Italy and find that the civil trial had violated Italian law, as previously discussed. The acquittal ended any legal civil case against Amanda Knox in Italy and this would mean the US court would not accept the illegal Italian civil judgment. The lack of fairness and the clear presence of fraud in the police procedures and Massei and Nencini trials, as partly acknowledged by the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, would also argue against the US court accepting the illegal Italian civil judgment.

Note that if the US court looks for fraud in the case, it would be examining the details of how the trial was conducted and the reliability and meaning or interpretation of the evidence.

So I continue to believe that any civil action in Italy, or its acceptance by a US court, is simply not going to happen. The case is over, with the exception of some issues such as the ECHR considering the application Amanda has lodged against Italy and a potential revision trial. There is also the matter of compensation for miscarriage of justice. There could be grounds for other ECHR applications by Raffaele or Amanda. I suspect Italy will let the calunnia against the police charge expire due to statute of limitations, but we shall see.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree that the Italian courts apparently have a tendency to arbitrarily violate their own laws and constitution, and of course ECHR case-law, based on what we have seen in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Suppose that, contrary to Italian law, a civil suit against Amanda or Raffaele for the murder of Meredith succeeded in finding one or both liable. They could appeal that verdict. A civil verdict in Italy may be appealed to a second-instance court, and eventually to the CSC (civil division). In the case of appeals, only the final verdict of the CSC is definitive.

Would a US court make a foreign civil judgment enforceable against someone resident in the US? That all depends. Here is some information:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comity_of_nations



Again, a US court would review the laws of Italy and find that the civil trial had violated Italian law, as previously discussed. The acquittal ended any legal civil case against Amanda Knox in Italy and this would mean the US court would not accept the illegal Italian civil judgment. The lack of fairness and the clear presence of fraud in the police procedures and Massei and Nencini trials, as partly acknowledged by the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, would also argue against the US court accepting the illegal Italian civil judgment.

Note that if the US court looks for fraud in the case, it would be examining the details of how the trial was conducted and the reliability and meaning or interpretation of the evidence.

So I continue to believe that any civil action in Italy, or its acceptance by a US court, is simply not going to happen. The case is over, with the exception of some issues such as the ECHR considering the application Amanda has lodged against Italy and a potential revision trial. There is also the matter of compensation for miscarriage of justice. There could be grounds for other ECHR applications by Raffaele or Amanda. I suspect Italy will let the calunnia against the police charge expire due to statute of limitations, but we shall see.

Thank you. This was as I suspected. Excellent work.

 

[Planigale]

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.

Not true in mathematics there are several 'alternative algebras' defined as having non-associate multiplication e.g.malcev algebra or octonions. In simple Euclidian geometry there will be a single alternate angle.

I agree alter as a noun in latin does precisely mean the other of two. But not in English. Even in latin alternare the verb means taking turns and is not limited to two persons or things.

 

[Planigale]

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".

They did not need to, the Italian constitution says people are innocent until conviction is confirmed by cassation. Therefore Sollecito is and ALWAYS was innocent. Knox is and ALWAYS was innocent of murder, theft, etc. She is presently guilty of callunia.

I think ECHR may well rule that the conviction violated her rights, this will not void her conviction, and I am unsure if the Italian system has a way to void it. Potentially a civil litigant could put a freeze on damages paid from Italy to Knox pending the outcome of a civil action.

 

[Planigale]

But that's exactly what you're doing. Why deny it? Two of Rudy's footprints are separated by a certain distance, thus Amanda was there. This stain is scientifically excluded as blood, but because of distant footprints and cryptic alleged statements made during an unseen interrogation, the stains transform into blood, like an unholy communion. You're performing a transformation on the evidence because the transparent narrative it suggest doesn't agree with you. It really is what is happening.

Technically in this allusion you mean a transubstantiation.