Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

This is plain false.

Judge: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?
Patrizia Stefanoni(Official in charge of the Forensic Genetics Investigations section in the Rome Forensic Police): Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.

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

Rudy Guede scouted the cottage to burglarize it.

Evidence: he's captured alone on CCTV by the cottage over 30 minutes before Amanda learns she wont be working and Raffaele learns he wont be giving his friend a ride.

Rudy Guede smashed the upper bedroom window with a large rock, climbed up using the metal bars below, and inside made a mess tossing some clothes around.

Evidence: Rudy Guede was released by the police two weeks prior following an arrest connecting him to a burglary at a law office which featured a window smashed by a large rock perched above climbable metal bars below, with clothes thrown around on the floor inside.

Meredith came home and Rudy attacked her with a small penknife and sexually assaulted her, he attempted to clean blood on or near the body using towels he gathered from the bathroom.

Evidence: Meredith was stabbed three times, all three wounds and a bloody imprint left by the murder weapon are compatible with a small penknife. Meredith's underwear was forcefully stripped from her body, inside her genitals is Rudy's DNA. Next to her body is his bloody palm print and 8 of his bloody footprints. Rudy made written statements to going into the bathroom to retrieve towels claiming there was "so much blood." A footprint compatible with his foot was found on the bathmat.

Rudy fled the bedroom and most likely returned to retrieve Meredith's keys when faced with the double deadbolt lock on the front door blocking his escape.

Evidence: his 8 additional bloody footprints leaving the bedroom down the hall suggesting he walked out then came back at a different point in order to lock Meredith's door.

It's a relatively simple and straight forward crime scene.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The SC is not there to determine this. It cannot make any determination about evidence at all, not even about insufficient evidence.
The SC is there only to determine if judges' decision process was legitimate. They are not presented with evidence to assess.
In addition to that, the Court mentioned art. 530.2 which is a specification that has consequences in civil law, and called the defendants "highly suspicious" something like eight or nine times.
About the rights of society, a question could be: would you entrust your 8-year daughter to a suspect pedophile who was acquitted with 530.2 with the court pointing out highly suspicious evidence against him?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Me!? If you are saying I am trying to "avoid" the stuff you are presenting, all I can do is repeat:

You are the only one presenting it. Okay, there are two news outlets in all of Italy (that we've found so far) that even remotely sustain you. And they do it through the door of taking the 1st Memorale as an admission of presence.

The M/B report debunks that. And just so that you can stop suggesting that I have not read the /B report, for the last time, here it is:

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in
itself, be considered as proof of guilt.​

"As shown below". Repeat after me, "as shown below". This is the "even if". Even if they'd been there, there still is no proof of guilt - as M/B arrives at with their synoptic presentation, where they merge the elements of prosecution/defence cases.

Perhaps even the PMF translation is better - who knows - but they render it as "hypothesized presence." Same thing.

I am avoiding nothing. What you are avoiding is clear - taking it into the legal realm in Italy. You'd prefer to argue this in an obscure forum, in the wrong language.

9. The ascertained errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] and the logical
inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the funditus [foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to
present an evidentiary framework that can really be considered suitable to support a
pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Article 533 of
the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure in the text renewed by Article 5 of the law n.
46/2006.​

There were errors in judgement of the lower court, and the investigation was flawed from the beginning.

When you read the Marasca Bruno report, that's what it says.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

You're right. But courts will use principles in any written law just as they do with case law.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Lucky for the pro-Knox, pro-Sollecito forces (you always forget that, don't you!) they do not have to. In the absence of proof from the prosecution they leave the court as they entered - innocent.

All this from a young lad who once claimed that a pro-guilt narrative was not necessary. And then when pushed, said he'd get around to presenting one - except that this was a "war" and he did not want to give ammunition to the other side.

So much for full disclosure. As Comodi said, we will decide what is relevant.

 

[acbytesla]

This is plain false.

You're in denial.

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

Delusions.

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

Seems pretty transparent to me. I also think you just refuse to accept the very plausible narrative. But this ignores the point and that is the complete and utter absurdity that is the prosecution forever changing narrative. First it is a ritualistic murder involving Halloween. Then it is a sex game gone awry, then it is a momentary choice for evil, then it is a theft of Meredith's money, then it's back to the sex game, then it's about Rudy's poop.

It is the prosecution's responsibility to explain what happened and they changed their mind every five minutes.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Truly, dude, you are operating at a level of "obviousness" inaccessible to most, even in Italy. Are you sure you're not engaging in the time-honoured, Italian pasttime of dietrology?

Just asking.

 

[Numbers]

The SC is not there to determine this. It cannot make any determination about evidence at all, not even about insufficient evidence. The SC is there only to determine if judges' decision process was legitimate. They are not presented with evidence to assess.In addition to that, the Court mentioned art. 530.2 which is a specification that has consequences in civil law, and called the defendants "highly suspicious" something like eight or nine times.
About the rights of society, a question could be: would you entrust your 8-year daughter to a suspect pedophile who was acquitted with 530.2 with the court pointing out highly suspicious evidence against him?

These statements are not correct. An appeal to the CSC may be based on arguments that decisive evidence was not gathered or that the grounds of the judgment (including evaluation of evidence) are lacking, contradictory or illogical.

See Italian procedural law CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, letters (d) and (e) for the above allowed appeal arguments to the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC).

CPP Article 606 specifies what cases may be brought before the CSC by an appeal. Obviously, if the case may be legally brought before the CSC based on a particular appeal argument, the CSC has the legal authority to judge on the merits of that argument.

 

[acbytesla]

Truly, dude, you are operating at a level of "obviousness" inaccessible to most, even in Italy. Are you sure you're not engaging in the time-honoured, Italian pasttime of dietrology?

Just asking.

I always love when the guilters say something is "obvious"when it is in fact not "obvious" at all. I feel like they are describing "the emperor's beautiful new clothes".

 

[Grinder]

Bill I wonder how you can make your statements about what the Italian press reports.

As a drill I tried and the first article I found had this Google translation:

According to the Supreme Court, if it were not for this bungled investigation, and if the investigation had not been affected by these "guilty omissions", it would "in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to outline a framework, if not certainty at least tranquilizer reliability, a view you want the guilt of "of Knox and Sollecito respect to the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on November 1, 2007.

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronac...rove_oltre_ogni_dubbio_-122385797/?refresh_ce

The trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher - we read in the motivations - had " a process objectively wavering, whose oscillations are, however, also the result of sensational defaillance or 'amnesia' investigative and guilty omission of investigations " . According to the Supreme Court, if it were not for these defaillance investigation, and if the investigation had not been affected by these " guilty omissions ", it would" in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to outline a framework, if not certainty at least tranquilizer reliability, a view you want the guilt of foreignness "of Knox and Sollecito respect to the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007.

Judges rule out " their material interest to the murder, while the assumption of their presence in the house on Via della Pergola "and stressed the" absolute lack of biological traces in their related "murder in the room or on the body of Meredith.

According to the judges, then, they do not have " certainly helped the search for truth , "the" media hype "of the murder and the" international repercussions "that the story had, which caused a" sudden acceleration "investigations" in the frantic search " guilty of " to be delivered to international public opinion . "

In " troubled path and inherently contradictory "the Kercher murder trial is a" just because of irrefutable certainty: the guilt of Amanda Knox in order to slanderous accusations against Patrick Lumumba . " The judgment notes that the libel was confirmed by the same Knox in an environment " free from abnormal psychological pressure . " For this " a possible ruling by the European Court of Justice in favor of "the appeal in which Knox denounced" an unorthodox treatment of the investigators against him "could not" in any way tarnish "the final step in the court decision of guilt for slander, " not even in view of possible revision of the judgment, considering that the slanderous accusations that the same defendant turned to Lumumba as a result of the alleged coercion, were also confirmed by her before the PM, during the interrogation, therefore a context institutionally immune to abnormal psychological pressure .

From Oggi:

NO TRACCE- The two boys remained in prison for a long time. It is all the more weighty consideration of the Supreme Court when he writes that it is "undoubted significance" in their favor that, although it was assumed their presence in the house of the crime, there has been an '' absolute lack of biological traces in their related "both in Meredith's room is on his body, on which were found in abundance instead traces of Rudy Guede. All the things our weekly had stressed throughout the course of the investigation.

Amanda Knox: "I am innocent. That's why I go back to Italy "- EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

THE GANCETTO- The "single biological traces" found on the bra clasp gives no certainty of its reference to Raphael "because that track is not susceptible of second amplification, given its small size, the element so that it is devoid of evidential value".

Raffaele Sollecito to the Supreme Court with girlfriend Greta Menegaldo the following: is (almost) the double of Meredith Kercher ... - READ | PHOTOS | VIDEO

GUILTY OMISSIONI- The Supreme Court also spoke of "guilty omissions" without which you would "in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to capture a picture, if not the certainty, at least tranquilizer reliability, you want a view of the guilt want of foreignness (Amanda). "

 

[acbytesla]

Bill I wonder how you can make your statements about what the Italian press reports.

As a drill I tried and the first article I found had this Google translation:

According to the Supreme Court, if it were not for this bungled investigation, and if the investigation had not been affected by these "guilty omissions", it would "in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to outline a framework, if not certainty at least tranquilizer reliability, a view you want the guilt of "of Knox and Sollecito respect to the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on November 1, 2007.

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronac...rove_oltre_ogni_dubbio_-122385797/?refresh_ce

The trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher - we read in the motivations - had " a process objectively wavering, whose oscillations are, however, also the result of sensational defaillance or 'amnesia' investigative and guilty omission of investigations " . According to the Supreme Court, if it were not for these defaillance investigation, and if the investigation had not been affected by these " guilty omissions ", it would" in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to outline a framework, if not certainty at least tranquilizer reliability, a view you want the guilt of foreignness "of Knox and Sollecito respect to the charge of killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007.

Judges rule out " their material interest to the murder, while the assumption of their presence in the house on Via della Pergola "and stressed the" absolute lack of biological traces in their related "murder in the room or on the body of Meredith.

According to the judges, then, they do not have " certainly helped the search for truth , "the" media hype "of the murder and the" international repercussions "that the story had, which caused a" sudden acceleration "investigations" in the frantic search " guilty of " to be delivered to international public opinion . "

In " troubled path and inherently contradictory "the Kercher murder trial is a" just because of irrefutable certainty: the guilt of Amanda Knox in order to slanderous accusations against Patrick Lumumba . " The judgment notes that the libel was confirmed by the same Knox in an environment " free from abnormal psychological pressure . " For this " a possible ruling by the European Court of Justice in favor of "the appeal in which Knox denounced" an unorthodox treatment of the investigators against him "could not" in any way tarnish "the final step in the court decision of guilt for slander, " not even in view of possible revision of the judgment, considering that the slanderous accusations that the same defendant turned to Lumumba as a result of the alleged coercion, were also confirmed by her before the PM, during the interrogation, therefore a context institutionally immune to abnormal psychological pressure .

From Oggi:

NO TRACCE- The two boys remained in prison for a long time. It is all the more weighty consideration of the Supreme Court when he writes that it is "undoubted significance" in their favor that, although it was assumed their presence in the house of the crime, there has been an '' absolute lack of biological traces in their related "both in Meredith's room is on his body, on which were found in abundance instead traces of Rudy Guede. All the things our weekly had stressed throughout the course of the investigation.

Amanda Knox: "I am innocent. That's why I go back to Italy "- EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

THE GANCETTO- The "single biological traces" found on the bra clasp gives no certainty of its reference to Raphael "because that track is not susceptible of second amplification, given its small size, the element so that it is devoid of evidential value".

Raffaele Sollecito to the Supreme Court with girlfriend Greta Menegaldo the following: is (almost) the double of Meredith Kercher ... - READ | PHOTOS | VIDEO

GUILTY OMISSIONI- The Supreme Court also spoke of "guilty omissions" without which you would "in all likelihood, allowed, right now, to capture a picture, if not the certainty, at least tranquilizer reliability, you want a view of the guilt want of foreignness (Amanda). "

My problem is those Google translations leave a lot to be misunderstood. Conditional or modifying words get lost. I really have no idea what the authors are saying.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I wonder how you can make your statements about what the Italian press reports.

As a drill I tried and the first.....

Not quite sure how to respond. It sounds like a veiled accusation of lying.....

Suffice it to say that what came up for you sounds like a machine-translation of stuff almost directly from the M/B report. Everyone here has had ample opportunity to post what they've found on searches. I've reported what I've found, as have you.

 

[acbytesla]

Not quite sure how to respond. It sounds like a veiled accusation of lying.....
Suffice it to say that what came up for you sounds like a machine-translation of stuff almost directly from the M/B report. Everyone here has had ample opportunity to post what they've found on searches. I've reported what I've found, as have you.

What??? Grinder wouldn't do that. He's so sweet. Not in his character. He gets along with everyone.

 

[Grinder]

My problem is those Google translations leave a lot to be misunderstood. Conditional or modifying words get lost. I really have no idea what the authors are saying.

While I would love some Italian speaker to give us a few translations, it is clear to me the papers are reporting Marasca said they were there at the cottage and had the PLE done a decent job there most likely would have been a conviction.

 

[Grinder]

Not quite sure how to respond. It sounds like a veiled accusation of lying.....

Suffice it to say that what came up for you sounds like a machine-translation of stuff almost directly from the M/B report. Everyone here has had ample opportunity to post what they've found on searches. I've reported what I've found, as have you.

Bill do you have anything but "machine" translations? Those quotes are "machine" translation of articles written about the MR by Marasca.

You keep saying what the papers in Italy say and I did a search covering the period just after the release of the MR.

They pretty clearly say Marasca has the kids at the scene and has him saying if the PLE had done a competent job they would have been convicted. Those were the sections selected by the paper.

Here an Italian in English:

Essentially the ruling says that there are “strong elements of suspicion” in favor of their presence (and more particularly of Knox) at the cottage at some unspecified time between the evening of November 1st and the morning of November 2nd.

There is the possibility they were there during the murder, but they could have been there later.

 

[acbytesla]

While I would love some Italian speaker to give us a few translations, it is clear to me the papers are reporting Marasca said they were there at the cottage and had the PLE done a decent job there most likely would have been a conviction.

Not to me. For example in English one might say that a trial is held to determine if someone is guilty. It leaves off or innocent, but that is implied. There is no way from a Google translation to understand if something was or wasn't implied in the original Italian text. There are far too many conditional words in those lines that may not be where they should be. Don't forget, Italian like Spanish as opposed to English adjectives and adverbs follow not precede the words they modify.

What I understand from those translations is very little.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill do you have anything but "machine" translations? Those quotes are "machine" translation of articles written about the MR by Marasca.

You keep saying what the papers in Italy say and I did a search covering the period just after the release of the MR.

They pretty clearly say Marasca has the kids at the scene and has him saying if the PLE had done a competent job they would have been convicted. Those were the sections selected by the paper.

Here an Italian in English:

Essentially the ruling says that there are “strong elements of suspicion” in favor of their presence (and more particularly of Knox) at the cottage at some unspecified time between the evening of November 1st and the morning of November 2nd.
There is the possibility they were there during the murder, but they could have been there later.

That is, as I understand it, exactly what the M/B, per se, says. However the topic here is somewhat different, it is what the Italian press has been saying about the M/B report.

Yes, I have run across some which say that. Most don't, most focus on the inadequacies of investigation and "amnesiac" judicial renderings, as it was put into the report.

If your tone was more consistent with the holidays, I'd even go back to look for the one - machine translated - which said it best, said that the range of times in which the M/B report is consistent with the account of both Sollecito and Knox, who had never denied being at the cottage in the middle of Nov 2's morning.

Ok, this is just me. I thought at the time, "Gee, this paper 'gets' the synoptic' presentation of the combined prosecution/defence presentations. To say that Knox admitted to being there is something agreed to by all, the dispute is when." If the synoptic amalgam includes mid-morning Nov 2, then all of a sudden it makes sense why Marasca would do a synoptic amalgam to show how each fact proves nothing!

That paper used even that wee tidbit to further butress the M/B's finding of acquittal, rather than to summon some smallish measure of doubt.

I'm not sure what else to say - except to encourage you to continue your search, and your own archive of what the Italian press is/was saying. Then report it here.

 

[Grinder]

Not to me. For example in English one might say that a trial is held to determine if someone is guilty. It leaves off or innocent, but that is implied. There is no way from a Google translation to understand if something was or wasn't implied in the original Italian text. There are far too many conditional words in those lines that may not be where they should be. Don't forget, Italian like Spanish as opposed to English adjectives and adverbs follow not precede the words they modify.
What I understand from those translations is very little.

Are you running for the Minister of Misinformation?

When an adjective appears alongside a noun in English, the required order is: adjective + noun (the big hat, the green hat, the first hat, your hat). Spanish, however, allows adjectives to come either before or after the noun.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can't really post at length but just to say quickly: what tje Marasca Report actually wrote was that the shoddy and incompetent gathering of evidence and investigation made it impossible to prosecute this crime to the fullest extent (indeed, this is the crux of the annulment). It then went on to write that had the evidence and investigation been done properly, then it might have been at least possible to make a reasonable judgement on the guilt or non-guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

Marasca is basically saying that no court will ever have the tools to make a fair judgement, because the police and PM messed things up so spectacularly and egregiously.

And it is fundamentally wrong to (mis)translate that portion of the report to something along the lines of "If the evidence had been properly gathered, there'd probably have been enough to prove the guilt of Knox and Sollecito". Rather, Marasca is stating the opinion that had the evidence been collected properly and the crime investigated professionally and competently, it might at least have been possible to find out whether or not Knox/Sollecito participated.

 

[acbytesla]

Are you running for the Minister of Misinformation?

When an adjective appears alongside a noun in English, the required order is: adjective + noun (the big hat, the green hat, the first hat, your hat). Spanish, however, allows adjectives to come either before or after the noun.

What are you? The minister of anal? OK, I should have said sometimes.