Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

But you made an argument about consistency. You asserted "consistency" on the part of those who attack the system as a whole, versus alleged "inconsistency" of those who criticize only some parts and people in the system. This argument is wrong, it is illogical and unacceptable. Some people criticize the US system and treaties leave out areas of disagreement between national laws decisions and so, but those criticism are from inside a system they assume as legitimate, the distinction is about criticizing a system as a whole. You cannot claim that pointing the finger against a system as a whole is a consistent position, unless you are an anarchist or a revolutionary who denies legitimacy of the US judicial institutions. If you are not an anarchist but you "judge" the legitimacy of a system as a whole , while calling inconsistent those who distinguish the issues case by case, then you're a colonialist.

 

[moije2]

Proven facts

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.

Help me understand what you have said. You are stating that the ISC has stated it is a proven fact the above things. Where were these "facts" pulled from? Which lower court has stated AK was in the house, washed her hands of blood, etc. I had understood that the Supreme Court did not examine evidence and make determinations of fact. Is it the Supreme Court which has interpreted existing evidence (the contents of the appeal papers, documents etc, as I understand it)?

In short, how does the Supreme Court make that adjudication of "proven facts"?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No, you are wrong. The words "dato conclamato" may only refer to something that turns out as self-evident , something that everyone can see. The semantics of the word conclamato refers always to what is indisputable as for its nature. The verb conclamare (actually not used in contemporary Italian language) always means the acknowledging of something indisputable, manifestly true.
The B/M court this way are calling the fact "manifest", it turned out to be proven in an obvious way, that they can see as undisputable.
But in addition to this, B/M also calls Knox's presence "certain" on page 49, and builds a reasoning taking this assumption as an objective premise. This means they do take a position, they are reporting what they believe as facts, not what the lower court said. And within such reasoning, B/M points out that it is Raffaele Sollecito the one whose presence at the time of murder is uncertain.

 

[Machiavelli]

Help me understand what you have said. You are stating that the ISC has stated it is a proven fact the above things. Where were these "facts" pulled from? Which lower court has stated AK was in the house, washed her hands of blood, etc. I had understood that the Supreme Court did not examine evidence and make determinations of fact. Is it the Supreme Court which has interpreted existing evidence (the contents of the appeal papers, documents etc, as I understand it)?

In short, how does the Supreme Court make that adjudication of "proven facts"?

This is something you should ask them. They specify this turned out "nel process" and thus I understand that they accept and finalize the findings of the courts of merits that existed (Massei & Nencini) on the point.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Oh see, this is where you make a tragic error in thinking. Criticism of the government in the US is in fact part of the system. Why should it bother me if an Italian or Spaniard criticize my government when I have spent a lifetime doing it? I believe there are many many flaws in the US government and laws. The 2nd Amendment comes to mind. The 10th could be more clear. I could go and on in fact.

Your.post reminds me of those who like to say America love it or leave it. But what they really want is for the status quo to remain the same. I do love my country and what I love most is my right and freedom to have my voice heard and effect change. So I'm staying and I'm not shutting up.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Total hypothetical Ooops.

 

[moije2]

This is something you should ask them. They specify this turned out "nel process" and thus I understand that they accept and finalize the findings of the courts of merits that existed (Massei & Nencini) on the point.

You don't have to respond of course, and I am a minor "player" here in the conversation, at best. But there has been so much discussion as I peruse theses postings about fact findings by the court, that I am surprised that you answer in this way. Certainly with all of the talk about legal process and such, you have a better answer than this. Especially because you make such a big deal out of the "fact" that the ISC made such findings re presence, hand washing of blood etc.

This is remarkable.

 

[Bill Williams]

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".

At least we're getting somewhere.

Were did those elements come from? A synoptic presentation of "x" - "as shown below" - means that you can prove anything, really, if you want to.

As long as you accept that these synoptic elements, drawn from those two opposing sources, allow for a timeframe that includes Nov 2 in the middle morning, then of course - Knox admits to being there; with innocent reason.

In short - 9.2/9.3 set out what M/B attempts, as "show below" (meaning later in the text). You can prove anything, and it still means they are not guilty of the crime.

Buon Natales, Machiavelli!

 

[bagels]

You don't have to respond of course, and I am a minor "player" here in the conversation, at best. But there has been so much discussion as I peruse theses postings about fact findings by the court, that I am surprised that you answer in this way. Certainly with all of the talk about legal process and such, you have a better answer than this. Especially because you make such a big deal out of the "fact" that the ISC made such findings re presence, hand washing of blood etc.

This is remarkable.

They ruled Amanda washed her hands in Meredith's blood because Amanda's DNA was found in Amanda's own sink in her own home. I guess not even Machiavelli was willing to inform you of this with a straight face.

 

[Mike1711]

No, you are wrong. The words "dato conclamato" may only refer to something that turns out as self-evident , something that everyone can see. The semantics of the word conclamato refers always to what is indisputable as for its nature. The verb conclamare (actually not used in contemporary Italian language) always means the acknowledging of something indisputable, manifestly true.
The B/M court this way are calling the fact "manifest", it turned out to be proven in an obvious way, that they can see as undisputable.
But in addition to this, B/M also calls Knox's presence "certain" on page 49, and builds a reasoning taking this assumption as an objective premise. This means they do take a position, they are reporting what they believe as facts, not what the lower court said. And within such reasoning, B/M points out that it is Raffaele Sollecito the one whose presence at the time of murder is uncertain.

It's obtuse that you are then.

It matters not one iota of the nuances of the Italian language. What matters is that the ISC were not considering whether Knox was or wasn't at the crime scene. That was NOT their job.

What concerned the Italian ISC is the quantum leap required from presumed (Judicially proved if you will) presence in a location to proved murder.

This quantum leap defies law as much as it does logic.

The ISC ruling was that to find guilt it requires more than proving that the accused was in the vicinity of the crime. Even if the ISC accepts the lower court ruling, which it seems bound to do, it proves nothing. The appeal court rightly makes no stand on this "judicial fact".

The ISC have no mandate to enter into a debate on Judicial facts so your contention that they do is nonsense. Why would they when they are bound to accept that which has been rubber stamped by the lower court?

In law very little is indisputable which is why the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" exists.

What mental gymnastics would you perform about all these "proven facts" if after his release from prison, Guede proved categorically that he was the sole perpertrator?

 

[Grinder]

At least we're getting somewhere.

Were did those elements come from? A synoptic presentation of "x" - "as shown below" - means that you can prove anything, really, if you want to.

As long as you accept that these synoptic elements, drawn from those two opposing sources, allow for a timeframe that includes Nov 2 in the middle morning, then of course - Knox admits to being there; with innocent reason.

In short - 9.2/9.3 set out what M/B attempts, as "show below" (meaning later in the text). You can prove anything, and it still means they are not guilty of the crime.

Buon Natales, Machiavelli!

Bill perhaps you can explain away the following:
With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account, based on the plausible consideration that it was she who first
mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s
harrowing scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an
examination of the body or of the post-mortem, nor witness information taken later
regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali
Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others).


The question isn't what you or others believe. The question is what are M&B saying. I don't see how anyone can read this other than she was there during the murder and not just because it is a judicial fact.

I expect someone to chime in with she. was. a.quit.ted. so. who. cares.? but what we are parsing is what did M&B mean.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill perhaps you can explain away the following.

Not to you, it seems. The use of the phrase "explain away" suggests that you're going to argue with anything.

It's all upthread. If that's not good enough, repeating it will just rile you anyway.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Both a US appeal court "opinion" and an Italian court "motivation report" give "reasons" for a verdict.

Are you saying that therefore they are similar?

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "similar".

If a novel such as, for example, War and Peace, and a Superman comic book, are both written on paper, does that make them "similar"?

Just pointing out how you sometimes vary your terminology and its degree of precision in order to state what appears as absurdities.

Take the meaning of "testimony" or "testify". You go to a US dictionary to define that term. Yet, the relevance and importance of the meaning of those terms for the AK - RS case is that within the Italian and ECHR legal systems.

For example:

Italian procedural law, CPP Article 62, states:
Any statement made during the proceedings by the accused or the suspect shall not constitute the subject of testimony.

CPP Article 64, paragraph 3-bis states, in paraphrase, if a suspected person has not been warned he shall become a witness (apparently, warned of potential prosecution for calunnia or perjury) by any statement made about the liability of others, the statements that he may have made on the facts regarding the liability of others shall not be used against them, and he shall not become a witness in relation to those specific facts.

Was Rudy warned in accordance with CPP Article 64? Do you have a citation to establish that the Italian procedural law was followed?

In the CPP, there is a section called: Title II Means of Evidence, Chapter I, Testimony, that includes CPP Articles 194 through 207, and is followed by Chapter II, Examination of the Parties, that includes CPP Articles 208 through 212.

But the briefest and clearest statement of the issue with the "testimony" or any statement of Rudy Guede in the AK - RS case is that in the Italian Constitution, Article 111, the relevant part stating:

"The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntary avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel."

In the AK - RS case, the Nencini court attempted to disguise Rudy's unexamined statement as the product of a final and definitive court judgment - Rudy's trial. The Marasca CSC panel, in their motivation report, soundly criticized this as an attempted run-around of the Italian constitutional principle quoted above, and its associated Italian procedural law.

It should be noted for completeness that the Italian principle of not allowing unexamined statements to be used to establish guilt arose from the previous practice of allowing such unexamined statements to be used to establish guilt. This practice led to the ECHR cases of Luca v Italy and Dorrigo v Italy, which helped motivate Italy to modifiy its laws and Constitution to not allow such unexamined "testimony" or statements to be used to establish guilt of an alleged co-conspirator.

 

[bagels]

Bill perhaps you can explain away the following:
With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account, based on the plausible consideration that it was she who first
mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s
harrowing scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an
examination of the body or of the post-mortem, nor witness information taken later
regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali
Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others).


The question isn't what you or others believe. The question is what are M&B saying. I don't see how anyone can read this other than she was there during the murder and not just because it is a judicial fact.

I expect someone to chime in with she. was. a.quit.ted. so. who. cares.? but what we are parsing is what did M&B mean.

I believe M&B says more or less what the PGP believe they say. This reminds me of after Chieffi when Komponisto was trying to get people to understand the court ruled against Hellmann in the strongest possible terms.

The court is of course wrong. The Italians brought up a sexual component first, since it was not only mentioned in the media but we have translated wiretaps where Amanda complains they keep probing her about Meredith, vaseline, and anal sex. As for the scream it's also contested who brought it up first. Amanda claims the police asked her why she didn't hear the scream. The police have never released tapes or transcripts to the contrary. So this is another motivation report that is just full of errors or wonky reasoning.

 

[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.

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.

Both a US appeal court "opinion" and an Italian court "motivation report" give "reasons" for a verdict.

Are you saying that therefore they are similar?

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "similar".

If a novel such as, for example, War and Peace, and a Superman comic book, are both written on paper, does that make them "similar"?

I ask you a simple question. I had stated US courts don't write opinions in the context of the Italian MRs. You wrote back "US courts of appeal routinely write opinions, which are typically relatively short documents." which certainly means US DO write opinions, which could easily be interpreted to mean my stating US courts don't write opinion similar to MRs was incorrect. I then asked you if you were saying a US appeals opinion was similar.

And no War and Peace is not similar to Superman.

 

[Grinder]

I believe M&B says more or less what the PGP believe they say. This reminds me of after Chieffi when Komponisto was trying to get people to understand the court ruled against Hellmann in the strongest possible terms.

The court is of course wrong. The Italians brought up a sexual component first, since it was not only mentioned in the media but we have translated wiretaps where Amanda complains they keep probing her about Meredith, vaseline, and anal sex. As for the scream it's also contested who brought it up first. Amanda claims the police asked her why she didn't hear the scream. The police have never released tapes or transcripts to the contrary. So this is another motivation report that is just full of errors or wonky reasoning.

For sure bagels. I've posted the early british tab articles from the 4th maybe even the 3rd in which the sexual aspect is clear. It seems every court puts in absurd statements. Hellmann with the shoe flying off, Massei with the murder not being premeditated (and much more). Nencini killed for 300 Eu

With Mach's assistance in forcing me to reread M&B, I too think the PGP interpretation is correct on this aspect.

 

[Grinder]

Take the meaning of "testimony" or "testify". You go to a US dictionary to define that term. Yet, the relevance and importance of the meaning of those terms for the AK - RS case is that within the Italian and ECHR legal systems.

If you, when writing in English, use a word such as testimony and mean in an Italian sort of way you should make it clear. I said Nencini attributed the motive to something he gleaned from Rudi's testimony. I certainly didn't say in the Italian sense of the word. But if it pleases you I'll rephrase the original and say he took it from Rudi's interrogation deposition.

 

[moije2]

Findings of Fact by the ISC - nel processo only?

They ruled Amanda washed her hands in Meredith's blood because Amanda's DNA was found in Amanda's own sink in her own home. I guess not even Machiavelli was willing to inform you of this with a straight face.

I am still in a bit of amazement over the answer given by Machiavelli. There has been so much talk about application of law, consistency, and the like, as well as an apparent fight - by both the PIP and the PGP - to declare that the ISC had made some statement. So he fights for this declaration of incriminating found facts by the ISC as evidence in his argument about inconsistency/internal contradiction of the report and so on.

Yet no effort whatsoever to defend or to elucidate what exactly is the origin of the finding?!? Just to say "...nel proceso"... Huh? What gives the ISC the right to make findings of fact that he needs so desperately in order to have support for AK the bad girl? Again, RS is an aside to the conversation. This is really bizarre. Keep in mind that he (you, Machiavelli) exchanged quite a number of tweets defending this concept that those were declared facts. This is a BIG topic for you.

So where do these findings originate from? Aside from nel processo?

 

[Numbers]

I ask you a simple question. I had stated US courts don't write opinions in the context of the Italian MRs. You wrote back "US courts of appeal routinely write opinions, which are typically relatively short documents." which certainly means US DO write opinions, which could easily be interpreted to mean my stating US courts don't write opinion similar to MRs was incorrect. I then asked you if you were saying a US appeals opinion was similar.

And no War and Peace is not similar to Superman.

Your question about US appeal court decisions is neither simple not particularly relevant to the AK - RS case.

A US appeal court opinion gives reasons for a court decision and is, in general, relatively short and easy to understand - perhaps like a comic book, which tells a story in a simple way that one can understand in a relatively short time. The appeal opinion deals with law, and looks at facts and evidence in light of the law.

The Italian court motivation report gives reasons for a court decision and apparently may be rather long and difficult to understand, and apparently while dealing with law and facts or evidence, may include speculations and imaginative and illogical scenarios. The length and difficulty of reading the Italian motivation report may be significant, like a long and complex novel.

And a Superman comic and a novel like War and Peace are both works of fiction and tell stories, so they are in those ways similar.

 

[Machiavelli]

At least we're getting somewhere.

Were did those elements come from? A synoptic presentation of "x" - "as shown below" - means that you can prove anything, really, if you want to.

As long as you accept that these synoptic elements, drawn from those two opposing sources, allow for a timeframe that includes Nov 2 in the middle morning, then of course - Knox admits to being there; with innocent reason.

In short - 9.2/9.3 set out what M/B attempts, as "show below" (meaning later in the text). You can prove anything, and it still means they are not guilty of the crime.

Buon Natales, Machiavelli!

Not "drawn from opposite sources", Bill. The SC does not draw elements from opposite sources, cannot do that as for art. 606, can only analyze judges' reports and the specific trial documents submitted. Does not deal with the opposite parties claims in the trial.
So, Bill, there are no opposite sources in the paragraphs. Moreover the paragraph 9.2 emphasizes that contradictory elements against and in favor are objective and that those element are those as they can be found in the Nencini and Massei rulings.
All circumstances that B/M points out and presents as "objective findings", they are not something subjected to condition or possibility, they are pointed out as certainty. Whenever B/M says "certain" or "proven" (manifest), it means nothing else than "certain" and "proven" without leaving any possibility for you to frame it into a hypothesis.
And I point out again that B/M states things like AK washed her hands from Meredith's blood, they believe she heard Meredith's scream, the calunnia was malicious and was to cover up for Guede, and it is an incontrovertible truth that Meredith was killed by more than one person.
Presents those as obvious facts.
All this does not take away the fact that B/M also contradicts itself glaringly by making also statements with contrary implication (which are not synoptical, but contradictory). This only shows that B/M is a foolish Mad Hatter's declaration saying "the American perp is always right", and it's always tea time: it's a political verdict that serves a colonialist power, telling that law justice truth and logic can f*** themselves.
There isn't any presentation of contrasting possibilities from different sources, no framing in any hypothetical reasoning, only a Dadaist foolish scissors work.