Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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.

Italian procedural law allows for a "revision trial" in the case of miscarriage of justice as provided for by CPP Article 630 and, in particularly relevant to the Amanda Knox calunnia case, by Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011: a convicted person (or a prosecutor) may request a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen the proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

 

[acbytesla]

Italian procedural law allows for a "revision trial" in the case of miscarriage of justice as provided for by CPP Article 630 and, in particularly relevant to the Amanda Knox calunnia case, by Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011: a convicted person (or a prosecutor) may request a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen the proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

I'm guessing that in the subsequent revision trial they would not be able to use any of Knox's statements as they resulted from the illegal interrogation. Out of curiosity, does Italy recognize the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree? Also, is there a way for Italy to make a summary judgment in a revision trial? Or is this another 8 step process?

 

[JREF2010]

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.

All it says to me is that some people are obstinate. The PGP will always believe the two kids are guilty.

But how did the PGP get here in the first place?
IMO, Mignini and team submitted biased evidence and hid (or destroyed) other evidence.
So PGP, like some Judges and jurors, made decisions on this garbage can of suspicious (or dishonest) evidence.

So I agree with Raffaele, the system needs to get rid of poor performers and worse, intentionally dishonest public employees. Thats the justice he asks for and deserves. The SCS has deemed him innocent, that makes his case credible to ask for justice and fairness.

I blame the whole ugly outcome on Mignini. The Kerchers left with nothing and no closure. Amanda and Raffaele tainted forever by Mignini charges.
The familys and friends drug through all this unpleasant experience all due to Mignini fumbling of the investigation and obstinate mindset, intentional or not.

What should a system do with someone like Mignini?
1) Do Nothing
2) Remove him from office.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm guessing that in the subsequent revision trial they would not be able to use any of Knox's statements as they resulted from the illegal interrogation. Out of curiosity, does Italy recognize the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree? Also, is there a way for Italy to make a summary judgment in a revision trial? Or is this another 8 step process?

I know I have read that the ECHR does so theoretically Italy should just based on that.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Desert Fox's link goes to the new law on libel tourism and has examples of cases where US citizens had judgments from other countries.

Will you indemnify me from any foreign debts owed their government for non criminal issues?

The subject isn't of great enough interest to me to research but as I said above the new law was put in place for a reason. Btw, it doesn't undo the ability to collect on a foreign judgment, it only fines the foreign plaintiff an equal amount of money.

 

[Grinder]

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.

The court(s) did not "approach" the libel tourism. The Congress passed a law to undermine defamation claims from foreign countries by awarding an equal amount as the foreign award to the US citizen as he lost abroad.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

You are confusing the points. Constitution does not say people are actually innocent, it says they are "considered not guilty". By saying "actual innocence" the poster was meaning something else. A finding of "actual innocence" would have an implication in civil litigations, while the default constitutionally granted status has zero implication.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Absolutely.

But perhaps Machiavelli is trying to imply that what he means by the Marasca panel "declaring Knox innocent" is about the Marasca panel declaring something along the lines of: "In the view of this court, Knox (and Sollecito, presumably - though Mach seems strangely obsessed with Knox alone) did not participate in this murder".

And of course the Marasca panel didn't make any such declaration. It was judicially - and logically - impossible for it to have done so. In the absence of BRD proof of factual innocence (e.g. an unimpeachable alibi, or the reliable statement of the real perp(s) that the defendant did not participate in the crime), no court can EVER declare that the defendant did not commit the crime.

In addition, of course, that's not what the court is there to do. Its only job is to determine whether or not there is sufficient reliable, credible evidence to prove BRD that the defendant(s) committed the crime(s) with which (s)he/they have been charged. That's ALL. If there is sufficient evidence, then the court should find for guilt. If there's insufficient evidence of guilt - whether there's some, but not enough to prove the case BRD, or whether there's no reliable, credible evidence at all pointing to guilt - then the court must find for non-guilt, acquit, and preserve the presumption of innocence.

I don't know: maybe Machiavelli doesn't understand this extremely important point. He certainly still appears to be in some sort of fantasy extra-judicial cloud where unless a court declares that the defendant(s) categorically did not factually commit the crime, this still somehow entitles society to view them as "possibly guilty". I certainly hope with absolute sincerity that he never gets selected to serve on any judicial panels in Italy.

 

[Mike1711]

It was his legal right.

Yes it was and it would have folly for her to exploit that legal right.....which is what happened. He lawyers were bright enough to refuse that poisoned pawn option.

 

[Mike1711]

The context was, if Amanda and Raff are "kids" then you ought to call Rudy a "kid", too, being three years younger than Raff.

James Bulger's murderers were pre teen murderers and I refuse to use a term of endearment (kid) in their on any other child murderer context. It's my choice and I guess a choice of many posters here.

 

[Mike1711]

Machiavelli is right. Bruno and Marasca do not have the power to trump the ruling of another Supreme Court judge.

Well they did. Fact. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Grinder]

James Bulger's murderers were pre teen murderers and I refuse to use a term of endearment (kid) in their on any other child murderer context. It's my choice and I guess a choice of many posters here.

It is not a term of endearment to most of the world.

noun
1.
informal
a child or young person.
synonyms: child, youngster, little one, baby, toddler, tot, infant, boy/girl, young person, minor, juvenile, adolescent, teenager, youth, stripling; offspring, son/daughter; informal kiddie, shaver, young'un, rug rat, ankle-biter, munchkin, whippersnapper; derogatorybrat; literarybabe
"they have three kids"
2.
a young goat.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

Vixen you getting confused again. B/M hands were tied with regard to judicial facts. They don't have the power to alter them but that doesn't mean they agree with them.

In order to throw the lower courts ludicrous judgement out once and for all they simply say this....

Even if the "facts" as ruled by the lower courts are correct it still proves nothing/nada/zilch.

 

[Numbers]

I'm guessing that in the subsequent revision trial they would not be able to use any of Knox's statements as they resulted from the illegal interrogation. Out of curiosity, does Italy recognize the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree? Also, is there a way for Italy to make a summary judgment in a revision trial? Or is this another 8 step process?

That is exactly how it would work. The domestic - that is, Italian - court must retry the person whose Convention Article 6 rights to a fair trial were violated in a new trial where those rights were fully respected, on request of that person.

The revision trial would not have any evidence of the alleged calunnia, so I would think in a rational court the judgment of acquittal would be clear.

However, note that in the Marasca CSC panel there are some misstatements about when Amanda Knox gave statements implicating Lumumba; they falsely claim that she gave such statements even when she had a lawyer (although briefly) during the arrest hearing. I hope that the ECHR pre-emptively declares any such arbitrariness a violation. But in Italy, all kinds of mischief and violations of rights apparently can occur in a court case. So we will see how many steps are required in the revision trial. Remember, just getting to the ECHR judgment may take several years.

 

[Numbers]

Desert Fox's link goes to the new law on libel tourism and has examples of cases where US citizens had judgments from other countries.

Will you indemnify me from any foreign debts owed their government for non criminal issues?

The subject isn't of great enough interest to me to research but as I said above the new law was put in place for a reason. Btw, it doesn't undo the ability to collect on a foreign judgment, it only fines the foreign plaintiff an equal amount of money.

You may have missed the following post, a response to acybtestla. I will point out that certain civil cases are covered by international treaties. Examples include alleged copyright violation and child abduction by a non-custodial parent in a divorce case.

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.

 

[Machiavelli]

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,

This is plain false.

but because of distant footprints and cryptic alleged statements made during an unseen interrogation,

I see a long long row of lies, not a statement during interrogation.

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.

There isn't any transparent narrative. The pro-Knox are unable to present any plausible narrative that fits the evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Absolutely.

But perhaps Machiavelli is trying to imply that what he means by the Marasca panel "declaring Knox innocent" is about the Marasca panel declaring something along the lines of: "In the view of this court, Knox (and Sollecito, presumably - though Mach seems strangely obsessed with Knox alone) did not participate in this murder".

IMHO the reason Sollecito is rarely included is because the two of them live in Italy. Sollecito has already taken on Mignini about the inability to secure lawyer's advice, and won handily with a stinging professional censure.

And of course the Marasca panel didn't make any such declaration. It was judicially - and logically - impossible for it to have done so. In the absence of BRD proof of factual innocence (e.g. an unimpeachable alibi, or the reliable statement of the real perp(s) that the defendant did not participate in the crime), no court can EVER declare that the defendant did not commit the crime.

In addition, of course, that's not what the court is there to do. Its only job is to determine whether or not there is sufficient reliable, credible evidence to prove BRD that the defendant(s) committed the crime(s) with which (s)he/they have been charged. That's ALL. If there is sufficient evidence, then the court should find for guilt. If there's insufficient evidence of guilt - whether there's some, but not enough to prove the case BRD, or whether there's no reliable, credible evidence at all pointing to guilt - then the court must find for non-guilt, acquit, and preserve the presumption of innocence.

I don't know: maybe Machiavelli doesn't understand this extremely important point. He certainly still appears to be in some sort of fantasy extra-judicial cloud where unless a court declares that the defendant(s) categorically did not factually commit the crime, this still somehow entitles society to view them as "possibly guilty". I certainly hope with absolute sincerity that he never gets selected to serve on any judicial panels in Italy.

The remedy for M. is not to try to "school" us here on this obscure forum about technical meanings and Italian semantics.

The remedy would be for M. to take it into the legal realm within Italy where he can present his devastating arguments against Marasca, Bruno, Hellmann, Zanetti, and perhaps even De Nunzio to a court. He might even throw in Vecchiotti or any of the others who he has said - in this forum - are criminals.

Oh wait......

 

[Numbers]

You are confusing the points. Constitution does not say people are actually innocent, it says they are "considered not guilty". By saying "actual innocence" the poster was meaning something else. A finding of "actual innocence" would have an implication in civil litigations, while the default constitutionally granted status has zero implication.

However, a verdict of acquittal for not having committed the act eliminates the civil action with binding effect, CPP Article 652. That is the case here for Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

Theoretically, if there is something written in "Waiting to be Heard" which Amanda wrote about Meredeth which her family takes issue with, I believe they could sue her in British court however I think it would be hard to win even in U.K. court and be impossible to enforce in the United States.

I don't know if Raff wrote anything at all about Meredeth so I don't know if that is even a potential issue with him.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I mean Sollecito is in Italy, his assets are from Italy, it's obvious. And it was only one of the two things I said. You should read what the B/M report says, because you are trying to slip away. It's not me, it's the information I can address you to what you are seemingly trying to avoid.