Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

It should be pointed out that a CSC motivation report is not necessarily free from clerical or factual error, according to CPP Article 625-bis, and a convicted person or the General Public Prosecutor is allowed to submit a request for rectification of a clerical or factual error contained in the decisions delivered by the CSC. There is a procedure given for this in CPP Art. 625-bis.

Also, in the above-reference Article, there is a provision allowing the CSC, ex officio, to address a clerical error it detects.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, you have detected cherry-picking by those desperately seeking to make the Marasca CSC panel MR mean something different than what it is attempting to convey.

I suggest that a reader must start reading at Section 9 to understand the point of the Sections 9.1 through 9.4.3, with Sections 9.1 and 9.2 being precursors to the latter subsections of Section 9. And the overall meaning of the verdict and why no remand trial is required is stated in Section 10.

I've been a broken record making this point. Both you and Mike1711 have made the points more clearly and succinctly, so I defer to the both of you.

I remain baffled why people don't see this. Believe it or not, my time on this is winding down anyway.

 

[Numbers]

I've been a broken record making this point. Both you and Mike1711 have made the points more clearly and succinctly, so I defer to the both of you.

I remain baffled why people don't see this. Believe it or not, my time on this is winding down anyway.

I believe you and Mike 1711 have both made the point very clear.

I have added more explicitly a brief summary of the frame-work around the apparently confusing sections, which may help some better understand what the CSC was attempting to state.

I believe that, despite the relative brevity of the Marasca CSC panel MR, it suffers from a certain discursiveness that reduces its clarity in a number of sections. For example, in Section 9, there is a lengthy argument essentially stating that requiring a verdict of guilty only if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not contrary to the Italian legal tradition.

 

[acbytesla]

It seems to me that the " even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola,"
makes it clear that they ARE NOT saying Amanda was or wasn't there just that the prosecution and other courts said she was, but that in of itself does not prove her involvement.

I also think the part where they discuss Raffaele most certainly being there IF Amanda was there again makes clear the same point. No where do I actually see them saying that they were there. They don't say they weren't there either. To the Marasca court this supposed fact was irrelevant. If they were ruling that they were there they wouldn't have used the words "even if" and used a word like "despite". Such as "despite being there".

IMV

 

[Mike1711]

Yes Bill even if they were there during the murder the lack of evidence in the murder room leaves at least reasonable doubt they weren't part of the murder but the court clearly believes they were there when Meredith screamed or at a minimum they think it reasonable for Nencini to have in this way concluded.

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,

How can you assert they were only saying she was there sometime between the 1st and the 2nd?

Why would they have included the above paragraph and the specifics of when she was there if they were saying "who knows when she was there?"

ETA - Do I agree with what they wrote? No.

Please don't ignore these words...

"...fact of the trial,..."

The trial referred to is of course the lower courts. This "fact" is purely concreted in a legal context. There is no room for the Appeal Court to make rulings or even commentary on these "judicial facts". They are simply there, and accepted.

The Appeal Court will not express their own opinion. Why would they? It would serve no purpose and if they did it would be a judicial misdemeanour because, like anythingin life, laws contain rules. Is the rule correct? Well that's a different discussion, but I make this comment.....if "Judicial Facts" were not cast in stone appeals would become retrials and double jeopardy would come into play. I will say that South Africa has amended its laws (things changed after we became a constitutional democracy) whereby the state can appeal on points of law only, but defendants can appeal on both points of law and fact. This favours the defendants, and in my opinion, rightly so.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe you and Mike 1711 have both made the point very clear.

I have added more explicitly a brief summary of the frame-work around the apparently confusing sections, which may help some better understand what the CSC was attempting to state.

I believe that, despite the relative brevity of the Marasca CSC panel MR, it suffers from a certain discursiveness that reduces its clarity in a number of sections. For example, in Section 9, there is a lengthy argument essentially stating that requiring a verdict of guilty only if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not contrary to the Italian legal tradition.

Ha yeah I read that part of Section 9 too a long while back. It seemed to me to be Marasca et al using the platform of their report (and the wide visibility they knew it would have within and without Italy) to at once chide and educate the more reactionary among their colleagues in the Italian judiciary.

Basically, I think that Marasca (and/or Bruno) are very frustrated that the concept of "innocent until/unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is routinely either paid lip service or simply disregarded by Italian lower court judges (and indeed, it would seem, some in the Supreme Court). Marasca is, I think, trying to say that the judiciary shouldn't be thinking of this concept as something alien that has been forced upon them from outside, but rather that it is a concept that has always in essence existed in Italian criminal justice. And with that in mind, he's arguing that the Italian judiciary should have a natural inclination to apply the concept, regardless of the point in time when it became explicitly codified in the statutes.

On top of the general principle, I think it's abundantly clear that the Marasca SC panel was rather angry, shocked and disappointed at the way "innocent unless/until proven guilty" and "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict" were specifically misapplied or disregarded in the Knox/Sollecito trials. And so they should be angry/shocked/disappointed. It was a near-incredible error of judgement and law from more than one court in this trial process.

 

[Zephyrgeist]

Oh My Gawd, this thread is still going ?!

You guys DO KNOW that the Book is Finished? (Don't you?) Here is the last chapter (SPOILER ALERT - I don't want to spoil the end of the story):

Justice Won !!!

 

[Desert Fox]

It did bring a lot of people together and they don't really have a new common cause.

I don't post much in this thread anymore for the reason you stated however. They are free from further prosecution and the rest of the case is likely footnotes.

 

[Grinder]

Please don't ignore these words...

"...fact of the trial,..."

The trial referred to is of course the lower courts. This "fact" is purely concreted in a legal context. There is no room for the Appeal Court to make rulings or even commentary on these "judicial facts". They are simply there, and accepted.

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,

They say fact of trial and go on to say - which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account.

I am very familiar with the judicial facts situation in Italy. The fact only becomes set in stone when a ISC has ruled. The ISC ruled there were multiple attackers and as Cheli pointed out this panel not only acknowledged it but went on their own to agree with it.

AFAIK the Chieffi court did not rule Amanda was actually at the house in confirming the calumny conviction. Here's the end of Chieffi on calumny:

The reasoning presented in the ruling on the link to be established between the crime of calumny and the more serious crime of murder, and thus on the existence or not of the criminal intent initially contested and held [to exist], is clearly illogical and must be reformulated according to parameters of greater plausibility and with greater adherence to the information, there being absent an in-depth critical analysis of the plausibility of the connection maintained by the first judges. The passage is fundamental in the reconstruction, because it impinges on an issue which is anything but irrelevant, the presence of the young woman inside the house at the moment of the crime: a presence which, although it cannot be translated into automatic proof of her participation in the crime, is such as to intensely illuminate the way in which the horrible crime developed and its protagonists.

On this point, the next judge will have to proceed to a new judgement in light of more appropriate parameters of assessment of the available evidence.​

I did not read the entire section right now therefore I could have missed something significant but what I did read doesn't seem to set in stone she was there. In the beginning of this section they use Amanda's conversation with her mother as proof she committed calumny.

If Chieffi created the judicial truth she was there it still wouldn't explain why M&B went out of their way to agree with Nencini's thinking.

They wrote, if the assumptions are accepted and by the way we specifically agree with the assessment on this assumption, it is clear they agree with that assumption, because they said they agree with that element.

Even if you assume they can't disagree with something another ISC panel decided, such as the multiple attackers or her being there, it doesn't mean they must proactively say they agree.

There is no room for the Appeal Court to make rulings or even commentary on these "judicial facts"​

.

In this case I assume you are referring to the ISC (and I agree with that assumption ) yet they do make commentary. Certainly Nencini made comments about multiple attackers as did Hellmann.

 

[Grinder]

It did bring a lot of people together and they don't really have a new common cause.

I don't post much in this thread anymore for the reason you stated however. They are free from further prosecution and the rest of the case is likely footnotes.

You do realize Amanda is awaiting yet another ruling as we type.

 

[Mike1711]

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,

They say fact of trial and go on to say - which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account.

I am very familiar with the judicial facts situation in Italy. The fact only becomes set in stone when a ISC has ruled. The ISC ruled there were multiple attackers and as Cheli pointed out this panel not only acknowledged it but went on their own to agree with it.

AFAIK the Chieffi court did not rule Amanda was actually at the house in confirming the calumny conviction. Here's the end of Chieffi on calumny:

The reasoning presented in the ruling on the link to be established between the crime of calumny and the more serious crime of murder, and thus on the existence or not of the criminal intent initially contested and held [to exist], is clearly illogical and must be reformulated according to parameters of greater plausibility and with greater adherence to the information, there being absent an in-depth critical analysis of the plausibility of the connection maintained by the first judges. The passage is fundamental in the reconstruction, because it impinges on an issue which is anything but irrelevant, the presence of the young woman inside the house at the moment of the crime: a presence which, although it cannot be translated into automatic proof of her participation in the crime, is such as to intensely illuminate the way in which the horrible crime developed and its protagonists.

On this point, the next judge will have to proceed to a new judgement in light of more appropriate parameters of assessment of the available evidence.​

I did not read the entire section right now therefore I could have missed something significant but what I did read doesn't seem to set in stone she was there. In the beginning of this section they use Amanda's conversation with her mother as proof she committed calumny.

If Chieffi created the judicial truth she was there it still wouldn't explain why M&B went out of their way to agree with Nencini's thinking.

They wrote, if the assumptions are accepted and by the way we specifically agree with the assessment on this assumption, it is clear they agree with that assumption, because they said they agree with that element.

Even if you assume they can't disagree with something another ISC panel decided, such as the multiple attackers or her being there, it doesn't mean they must proactively say they agree.

There is no room for the Appeal Court to make rulings or even commentary on these "judicial facts"​

.

In this case I assume you are referring to the ISC (and I agree with that assumption ) yet they do make commentary. Certainly Nencini made comments about multiple attackers as did Hellmann.

"Agreeing" (please not the inverted commas) with the lower courts is not commentary it is identifying with lower courts findings of "fact". It is apparent that the ISC does not enter into critical analysis of the foregoing established "facts". It merely blindly attaches such facts within the appeal documents as a matter of record. This, to maintain a subservient position to such "facts" as were determined by the lower court.

On a cursory reading what at first appears as an underpinning of facts (by the B/M court) proves in reality to be no such thing. It is merely a legal doffing of cap to the lower court as a matter of courteous respect....even if such respect in reality is absent. That is not to say that such respect is absent, merely that it should not be assumed.

 

[Mike1711]

The Italian Supreme Court of Appeal is clear....

How did the lower courts extrapolate from presence in location to participation in murder?

The determination was that it is a non sequitur.

End of case.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Italian Supreme Court of Appeal is clear....

How did the lower courts extrapolate from presence in location to participation in murder?

The determination was that it is a non sequitur.

End of case.

End of case **definitively**!!

 

[Grinder]

"Agreeing" (please not the inverted commas) with the lower courts is not commentary it is identifying with lower courts findings of "fact". It is apparent that the ISC does not enter into critical analysis of the foregoing established "facts". It merely blindly attaches such facts within the appeal documents as a matter of record. This, to maintain a subservient position to such "facts" as were determined by the lower court.

M&B didn't just list out the "facts" from the lower court. They made the effort to single out certain aspects such as Amanda being there at the time of the murder and stated clearly they agreed with the assessment.

Also illogical and contradictory is the argument that, in an attempt to give
substance to those disagreements (moreover belied by other testimonies), he does
not hesitate to retrieve the hypothesis of the theft of money and credit cards that
Kercher would allegedly have blamed on Knox, in spite of the fact that Knox, as well
as Sollecito, had been acquitted for the charge of theft, limited to the
aforementioned goods, because “the fact does not exist” (page 316).​

The above is how they handled an element from the Nencini court with which they disagreed. Nencini had "established" the money theft as "fact"

On a cursory reading what at first appears as an underpinning of facts (by the B/M court) proves in reality to be no such thing. It is merely a legal doffing of cap to the lower court as a matter of courteous respect....even if such respect in reality is absent. That is not to say that such respect is absent, merely that it should not be assumed.

They are overturning the verdict of the Nencini court but they are showing respect by saying they agree the assessment she was there is reasonable? Why didn't they say the assessment of the money being the issue was reasonable and if assumed to be true doesn't mean Amanda was part of the murder because none of her evidence was in the room.

M&B made it clear they found not guilty paragraph 2 because the ILE had bungled the case. They gave a little excuse to them because of the media pressure. They clearly left a legitimate guilty verdict as possible outcome BARD had the ILE done a better job, but they didn't.

As I said earlier they left some meat on the bone for the PG crowd and didn't leave the case completely cleared up.

New question: Could they have produced different verdicts for Amanda and Raf?

 

[Numbers]

I believe you and Mike 1711 have both made the point very clear.

I have added more explicitly a brief summary of the frame-work around the apparently confusing sections, which may help some better understand what the CSC was attempting to state.

I believe that, despite the relative brevity of the Marasca CSC panel MR, it suffers from a certain discursiveness that reduces its clarity in a number of sections. For example, in Section 9, there is a lengthy argument essentially stating that requiring a verdict of guilty only if there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not contrary to the Italian legal tradition.

Ha yeah I read that part of Section 9 too a long while back. It seemed to me to be Marasca et al using the platform of their report (and the wide visibility they knew it would have within and without Italy) to at once chide and educate the more reactionary among their colleagues in the Italian judiciary.

Basically, I think that Marasca (and/or Bruno) are very frustrated that the concept of "innocent until/unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is routinely either paid lip service or simply disregarded by Italian lower court judges (and indeed, it would seem, some in the Supreme Court). Marasca is, I think, trying to say that the judiciary shouldn't be thinking of this concept as something alien that has been forced upon them from outside, but rather that it is a concept that has always in essence existed in Italian criminal justice. And with that in mind, he's arguing that the Italian judiciary should have a natural inclination to apply the concept, regardless of the point in time when it became explicitly codified in the statutes.

On top of the general principle, I think it's abundantly clear that the Marasca SC panel was rather angry, shocked and disappointed at the way "innocent unless/until proven guilty" and "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict" were specifically misapplied or disregarded in the Knox/Sollecito trials. And so they should be angry/shocked/disappointed. It was a near-incredible error of judgement and law from more than one court in this trial process.

I agree that the apparent purpose of the Marasca CSC panel discussion of the basics of what BARD means as proof of guilt, and how a defendant is not guilty if guilt is not proven BARD, is meant to educate and/or scold their fellow Italian judges and prosecutors.

The Marasca CSC panel could have stated a number of other violations of Italian procedural laws by the courts and the prosecutor.

For example: Since CPP Article 191.1 states "Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used" and the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito on Nov. 5/6 violated CPP Articles 63 and 64, the arrest warrants for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were illegal under Italian procedural law, and their being placed under remand to await trial were also illegal. Similarly, there exists no legal evidence under Italian law to justify the conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia; the Italian courts simply do not understand or do not wish to acknowledge this.

 

[Desert Fox]

You do realize Amanda is awaiting yet another ruling as we type.

That ruling will not result in more jail time however. . . . .

 

[Mike1711]

M&B didn't just list out the "facts" from the lower court. They made the effort to single out certain aspects such as Amanda being there at the time of the murder and stated clearly they agreed with the assessment.

Also illogical and contradictory is the argument that, in an attempt to give
substance to those disagreements (moreover belied by other testimonies), he does
not hesitate to retrieve the hypothesis of the theft of money and credit cards that
Kercher would allegedly have blamed on Knox, in spite of the fact that Knox, as well
as Sollecito, had been acquitted for the charge of theft, limited to the
aforementioned goods, because “the fact does not exist” (page 316).​

The above is how they handled an element from the Nencini court with which they disagreed. Nencini had "established" the money theft as "fact"



They are overturning the verdict of the Nencini court but they are showing respect by saying they agree the assessment she was there is reasonable? Why didn't they say the assessment of the money being the issue was reasonable and if assumed to be true doesn't mean Amanda was part of the murder because none of her evidence was in the room.

M&B made it clear they found not guilty paragraph 2 because the ILE had bungled the case. They gave a little excuse to them because of the media pressure. They clearly left a legitimate guilty verdict as possible outcome BARD had the ILE done a better job, but they didn't.

As I said earlier they left some meat on the bone for the PG crowd and didn't leave the case completely cleared up.

New question: Could they have produced different verdicts for Amanda and Raf?

"M&B didn't just list out the "facts" from the lower court. They made the effort to single out certain aspects such as Amanda being there at the time of the murder and stated clearly they agreed with the assessment."

Two things about the above.
A) Translatuon issues often overlook nuances.
B) NOBODY outside of those involved knows who was at the scene of the murder. Of course the B/M agree with the ASSESSMENT. They are bound by law to agree with it in terms of the original Judgement (Court Case #1). Stating that they agree is, as I said, a simple doffing of the cap to the lower court.

"They are overturning the verdict of the Nencini court but they are showing respect by saying they agree the assessment she was there is reasonable? Why didn't they say the assessment of the money being the issue was reasonable and if assumed to be true doesn't mean Amanda was part of the murder because none of her evidence was in the room."

The money theft is fact. That is not contested. Who stole the money is the question addressed. It is a legal nonsense to extrapolate stolen money to a person without proof. That is a legal question. Nencini should be censured for this.

In the same way the hypothesised presence of the accused in the vicinity of the murder does not create the murderer, so too with the theft. There is no evidence that the theft is in any way tied to the murder. Theft?....yes. Who stole?...No evidence against AK or RS. End of.....

Some meat on the bone....? No, I don't think so. Only if you're part of a small group with a preconceived and unwavering illogical and psychopathically charged psyche. I don't see the meat on the bone. The B/M had an insoluble conundrum to address.....somewhat like trying to give a sane account of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. The case was botched by the police and the courts. What should never have got to court arrived somehow and in a most convoluted and contradictory mess. The B/M were offered a "poison pawn" and they were obliged to accept it.......and report on it as though there was sense in the lower court judgements.....an impossible task.

It is theoretically (Let's be honest....it is 99.9999999% recurring to see innocence on a practical level) not possible to know the outcome of the B/M had the case not been bungled. To say that the B/M believe guilt would/could have been the outcome were it not for the bungling requires another quantum leap in logic. B/M state that the case was a dreadful mess incapable of being unraveled were it to be sent back to a lower court. The certainty of the non presence of AK and RS in the murder room is overriding and trumps all else.

Theoretically AK could have received a different verdict to RS but the rabbit hole down which this verdict descends is unimaginable. Naturally RS defence team separated him from AK but this was only necessary should the appeal court botch up like those before. Anybody at the Mad Hatter's tea party would advisadly do likewise. Thankfully sanity ultimately prevailed.

 

[Grinder]

That ruling will not result in more jail time however. . . . .

They are free from further prosecution and the rest of the case is likely footnotes.

What is the penalty she will suffer if convicted?

 

[sept79]

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,
.
.

This is absolutely, totally untrue! Amanda's memorials were the only products admissible in court as ruled by a previous ISC ruling. The following is from Amanda's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6:

"But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
.
.
.
I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

 

[Grinder]

"M&B didn't just list out the "facts" from the lower court. They made the effort to single out certain aspects such as Amanda being there at the time of the murder and stated clearly they agreed with the assessment."

Two things about the above.
A) Translatuon issues often overlook nuances.
B) NOBODY outside of those involved knows who was at the scene of the murder. Of course the B/M agree with the ASSESSMENT. They are bound by law to agree with it in terms of the original Judgement (Court Case #1). Stating that they agree is, as I said, a simple doffing of the cap to the lower court.

They are not bound by law to agree. Are you agreeing with Mach that M&B couldn't do what they did and must send it back down? They stated they DIDN'T AGREE with Nencini's money theft motivation.

Translation could easily be an issue and AIUI others do not use hypothetical but assumptions or other similar words.

"They are overturning the verdict of the Nencini court but they are showing respect by saying they agree the assessment she was there is reasonable? Why didn't they say the assessment of the money being the issue was reasonable and if assumed to be true doesn't mean Amanda was part of the murder because none of her evidence was in the room."

The money theft is fact. That is not contested. Who stole the money is the question addressed. It is a legal nonsense to extrapolate stolen money to a person without proof. That is a legal question. Nencini should be censured for this.

Knox, in spite of the fact that Knox, as well
as Sollecito, had been acquitted for the charge of theft, limited to the
aforementioned goods, because “the fact does not exist”