Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

So what you're saying is when the leading scientist said negative TMB means it's not blood, that was in a different context. But in the context where blood is necessary to maintain a theory of guilt against the students, negative TMB means blood. Thank, I think I understand.

It is always interesting where lawyers try to argue that they know the science better than the scientists.

 

[Machiavelli]

Even in the English translation your interpretatation is incorrect. Why do you think the words "...in the trial..." exist.

You do know it was a proven fact the the world was the centre of the universe IN THE TRIAL of Galileo. And it's true. It was a proven fact in the trial......but it wasn't a fact.

You are at liberty to believe the world is central to the universe and cite "court" documents as proof.

The "proven fact" is a function of the operation of the court and has nothing to do with empirical facts.

It. Is. The. Way. The. Courts. Work!!!

No. Sorry but you cannot teach me Italian. I know that in English the wording sounds strange. But the original leaves no doubt about the meaning.
What you believe are empirical facts is off topic from what we are talking about. The Bruno Marasca verdict says it's a price fact Knox was there when Metedith was killed. Period.

 

[Grinder]

I would translate "estraneità" as "non-guilt" (or "non involvement").

But the disturbing, shocking aspect of this parragraph, is its utter idiocy from a legal standpoint.
What the court is saying here is: the existence of a "non-guilty" verdict (for murder) that was later annulled, itself is already (già in sé) an "intrinsically contradictory scenario" and an "eloquent indicator of reasonable doubt".
This means: this is a panel of SC judges saying that, an invalid verdict (a verdict that the SC themselves declared non-existent) is an indicator of reasonable doubt.

Would be hard to imagine how a judge could write something more nonsensical than this.
This is cretin. It's foolish.
This is not a verdict this is the Mad Hatter's toilet paper.

Thank you.

 

[bagels]

No. Sorry but you cannot teach me Italian. I know that in English the wording sounds strange. But the original leaves no doubt about the meaning.
What you believe are empirical facts is off topic from what we are talking about. The Bruno Marasca verdict says it's a price fact Knox was there when Metedith was killed. Period.

He's not arguing what you think he's arguing. That an Italian court document says something stupid would simply be par for the course.

 

[Grinder]

There is no question this MR and most, even Hellmann's, are very strangely written documents. If the final verdict had been guilty and the MR was written as this one is most here would be as angry about it as Mach is now.

The Italian system is very strange and the judges equal that strangeness. Hellmann had Rudi lose his shoe during the struggle and hop on one foot to the bathroom. Nencini came up with a brand new motive based on Rudi's testimony. Massei had three compatibles equal a match. (I just reread the footprint analysis section and they actually say they took only the defendants' footprint references and found they were compatible with the luminol prints. So what?)

Many here have remained consistent in thinking the Italian judicial system is broken no matter what the verdict was at the time. The PGP seem to love the system when A&R are guilty but find it totally corrupt is they are found not guilty.

And the police work...

 

[Desert Fox]

There is no question this MR and most, even Hellmann's, are very strangely written documents. If the final verdict had been guilty and the MR was written as this one is most here would be as angry about it as Mach is now.

The Italian system is very strange and the judges equal that strangeness. Hellmann had Rudi lose his shoe during the struggle and hop on one foot to the bathroom. Nencini came up with a brand new motive based on Rudi's testimony. Massei had three compatibles equal a match. (I just reread the footprint analysis section and they actually say they took only the defendants' footprint references and found they were compatible with the luminol prints. So what?)

Many here have remained consistent in thinking the Italian judicial system is broken no matter what the verdict was at the time. The PGP seem to love the system when A&R are guilty but find it totally corrupt is they are found not guilty.

And the police work...

From what I have read, usually when a US judge overturns a previous court, what they wrie is more about the legal reasons behind it. They don't usually speculate about what happened.

My problem is that it is almost certain that we will never get what happened quite right.

 

[Grinder]

From what I have read, usually when a US judge overturns a previous court, what they wrie is more about the legal reasons behind it. They don't usually speculate about what happened.

My problem is that it is almost certain that we will never get what happened quite right.

Our courts never write a MR AFAIK. Here appeals are primarily based on legal issues not a review of the evidence at all. The MR system is partly what opens up the Italian system to widespread criticism. If Massei had found them guilty and Hellmann not guilty and the ISC had sent it back down without any explanations about factual details what a different conversation would be taking place.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sigh. This is where you need to read 9.2, where is says it is setting out below, a synoptic presentation of both prosecution/defence cases.

Yes, it is a proven fact she was in the house. No one contests that. Even the defence admits she was in the house at 10:30 am on Nov 2, and then later with Raffaele.

None of this proves she was part of the murder.

No Bill, 9.2 does not say that. Does not say synoptic presentation of cases of prosecution and defence; it says synoptic presentation of elements (objective elements) of evidence that point toward guilt and elements that point versus non-guilt.

The presence of Knox in the house is in the context of a Court's reporting thei believe Knox actually heard Meredith's scream, and washed her hands of Meredith's blood. Also, as I spread said, the court raises the question about time only for Sollecito, while for Knox there is only the question about "active participation".

 

[Matthew Best]

That an Italian court document says something stupid would simply be par for the course.

This. So much this.

 

[Mike1711]

No. Sorry but you cannot teach me Italian. I know that in English the wording sounds strange. But the original leaves no doubt about the meaning.
What you believe are empirical facts is off topic from what we are talking about. The Bruno Marasca verdict says it's a price fact Knox was there when Metedith was killed. Period.

Absolutely and utterly wrong. Once again a complete twist from a person with no legal background. Empirical facts are facts regardless. Legal facts are there by definition despite the FACT the they may be utterly false.

 

[Numbers]

There is no question this MR and most, even Hellmann's, are very strangely written documents. If the final verdict had been guilty and the MR was written as this one is most here would be as angry about it as Mach is now.

The Italian system is very strange and the judges equal that strangeness. Hellmann had Rudi lose his shoe during the struggle and hop on one foot to the bathroom. Nencini came up with a brand new motive based on Rudi's testimony. Massei had three compatibles equal a match. (I just reread the footprint analysis section and they actually say they took only the defendants' footprint references and found they were compatible with the luminol prints. So what?)

Many here have remained consistent in thinking the Italian judicial system is broken no matter what the verdict was at the time. The PGP seem to love the system when A&R are guilty but find it totally corrupt is they are found not guilty.

And the police work...

You make some good points here.

One important error or misstatement: Rudy did not give testimony. That is, he was not questioned as a witness at any trial involving Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. Rudy presented a letter during their trial that was read by the prosecutor. Rudy was not cross-examined, because of his rights not to testify. But his letter should not have been allowed as evidence, since its veracity could not be questioned.

The information attributed to Rudy by Nencini came from one of Rudy's statements to the Italian authorities (police and prosecution). If it came from his fast-track trial, legally (under Italian procedural law) it was not testimony subject to prosecution for perjury because Rudy was the accused.

 

[Mike1711]

No Bill, 9.2 does not say that. Does not say synoptic presentation of cases of prosecution and defence; it says synoptic presentation of elements (objective elements) of evidence that point toward guilt and elements that point versus non-guilt.

The presence of Knox in the house is in the context of a Court's reporting thei believe Knox actually heard Meredith's scream, and washed her hands of Meredith's blood. Also, as I spread said, the court raises the question about time only for Sollecito, while for Knox there is only the question about "active participation".

Wake up. Every court appeal synopsis contains the postulations from each side but does not necessarily pronounce on the idiocy or otherwise of either defence or prosecution.

FACT! The B/M court of appeal is not interested in whether Knox was or wasn't present. They determined that even if they were present the evidence of involvement in the murder is zero/nada/nil/nothing.

To read anything beyond this in the B/M report is either pure fantasy or mischievous twisting of law and its own workings.
Get it?

 

[Numbers]

Our courts never write a MR AFAIK. Here appeals are primarily based on legal issues not a review of the evidence at all. The MR system is partly what opens up the Italian system to widespread criticism. If Massei had found them guilty and Hellmann not guilty and the ISC had sent it back down without any explanations about factual details what a different conversation would be taking place.

US courts of appeal routinely write opinions, which are typically relatively short documents. Dissenting and concurring opinions are given in multi-judge trials if not all the judges are in agreement. There are no opinions issued by jury trials.

If Massei had found them guilty but there were no MR, there would still be many strange elements in the prosecution case and conduct of the court (allegations of violations of procedural law) that would be the basis for appeal and the conversation of critics.

 

[Grinder]

You make some good points here.

One important error or misstatement: Rudy did not give testimony. That is, he was not questioned as a witness at any trial involving Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito. Rudy presented a letter during their trial that was read by the prosecutor. Rudy was not cross-examined, because of his rights not to testify. But his letter should not have been allowed as evidence, since its veracity could not be questioned.

The information attributed to Rudy by Nencini came from one of Rudy's statements to the Italian authorities (police and prosecution). If it came from his fast-track trial, legally (under Italian procedural law) it was not testimony subject to prosecution for perjury because Rudy was the accused.

While I appreciate preciseness as Tesla will attest testimony need not be as a witness in a trial.

tes·ti·mo·ny
ˈtestəˌmōnē/Submit
noun
a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.
synonyms: evidence, sworn statement, attestation, affidavit;​

Rudi provided testimony in interviews. I don't remember offhand on which date he made the claim of the money fight. Nencini used Rudi's testimony for the motive in his MR.

Guede The thing that stayed with me, that drugged up **** and she was
convinced that Amanda had stolen her money, so I said “but wait it
could have been one of the others” however I saw that she wasn’t
as hostile towards other people and so what did we do? I said to her
well before we can be sure, it could have been also a burgla​

r…

Mar 26, 2008 Interrogation deposition

 

[Grinder]

US courts of appeal routinely write opinions, which are typically relatively short documents. Dissenting and concurring opinions are given in multi-judge trials if not all the judges are in agreement. There are no opinions issued by jury trials.

If Massei had found them guilty but there were no MR, there would still be many strange elements in the prosecution case and conduct of the court (allegations of violations of procedural law) that would be the basis for appeal and the conversation of critics.

Are you suggesting appeal courts write opinions about the facts of the case similar to Italian MRs? I don't think it is common.

ETA - They do write a short summary of the facts of the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wake up. Every court appeal synopsis contains the postulations from each side but does not necessarily pronounce on the idiocy or otherwise of either defence or prosecution.

FACT! The B/M court of appeal is not interested in whether Knox was or wasn't present. They determined that even if they were present the evidence of involvement in the murder is zero/nada/nil/nothing.

To read anything beyond this in the B/M report is either pure fantasy or mischievous twisting of law and its own workings.
Get it?

The B/M report states that it is a proven fact AK was present in the house while Meredith screamed, and that she washed her hands from Meredith's blood. Also emphasizes that she falsely accused Lumumba purposely and maliciously beyond doubt, not because of pressures (nor false memory) but in order to cover up for Guede. States and emphasizes as an incontrovertible fact that Guede could not have committed the murder alone.
The fact that the court has written these things is a fact. Step #1 is acknowledge the fact, independently from your opinions about causes and consequences or your drawing conclusions from this fact.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no question this MR and most, even Hellmann's, are very strangely written documents. If the final verdict had been guilty and the MR was written as this one is most here would be as angry about it as Mach is now.

The Italian system is very strange and the judges equal that strangeness. Hellmann had Rudi lose his shoe during the struggle and hop on one foot to the bathroom. Nencini came up with a brand new motive based on Rudi's testimony. Massei had three compatibles equal a match. (I just reread the footprint analysis section and they actually say they took only the defendants' footprint references and found they were compatible with the luminol prints. So what?)

Many here have remained consistent in thinking the Italian judicial system is broken no matter what the verdict was at the time. The PGP seem to love the system when A&R are guilty but find it totally corrupt is they are found not guilty.

And the police work...

Tho particular view is inacceptable. People who think "the Italian state is broken" are people who implicitly assume that they (or other countries) can "judge" the Italian system as a whole.
But a position about a sovereign system as a whole, would be itself either an offense to the sovereignty of the system, a de-legitimization of it of "colonialist" style, or an inconsistency itself: a country who enjoys treaties and cooperation with Italy in judicial matters could not, at the same time, claim that the system is not fair or not legitimate.
So it is NOT true that people are consistent when they judge the Italian system, if those people recognize the legitimacy of the US system which has cooperation and treaties with the Italian one.

 

[acbytesla]

From what I have read, usually when a US judge overturns a previous court, what they wrie is more about the legal reasons behind it. They don't usually speculate about what happened.

My problem is that it is almost certain that we will never get what happened quite right.

Motion for motion, minute by minute no. But we have the gist of it.

 

[Grinder]

Tho particular view is inacceptable. People who think "the Italian state is broken" are people who implicitly assume that they (or other countries) can "judge" the Italian state as a whole.
But a position about a sovereign system as a whole, would be itself either an offense to the sovereignty of the system, a de-legitimization of it of "colonialist" style, or an inconsistency itself: a country who enjoys treaties and cooperation with Italy in judicial matters could not, at the same time, claim that the system is not fair or not legitimate.
So it is NOT true that people are consistent when they judge the Italian system, if those people recognize the legitimacy of the US system which has cooperation and treaties with the Italian one.

I have no issue with criticism of the US system particularly with how the police treat minorities and how much violence they employ. I see no issue with Italians making criticisms about the US system even while having treaties with us.

As I understand it the Italians won't turn over a murderer to the US if they haven't received a guarantee no death penalty will result. Btw, I oppose all state sanctioned killing.

 

[Mike1711]

The B/M report states that it is a proven fact AK was present in the house while Meredith screamed, and that she washed her hands from Meredith's blood. Also emphasizes that she falsely accused Lumumba purposely and maliciously beyond doubt, not because of pressures (nor false memory) but in order to cover up for Guede. States and emphasizes as an incontrovertible fact that Guede could not have committed the murder alone.
The fact that the court has written these things is a fact. Step #1 is acknowledge the fact, independently from your opinions about causes and consequences or your drawing conclusions from this fact.

You refuse to understand. ...or does it suit to be obtuse?

It was a "proven fact" in the lower court. This does NOT mean that B/M agree or disagree. In fact it is upencumbant upon the B/M court NOT to have an opinion on this "judicial fact".

Which is exactly why the appeal court stated that even if they were there (as "proven" BY THE LOWER COURT) it is not enough to prove guilt.

Of course the B/M court are not allowed to voice their opinion on the farcical judicial fact but I would bet my last dollar that their belief is that it is utter codswallop.