Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Number 1 the statements WERE ALLOWED IN for the calumny trial. Regardless the validity of the quote is not the issue. The issue is what did M&B say (translation) and what do their words mean.

You will note that the debaters saying M&B didn't say "she was there" was a good analysis by the lower court don't say it isn't there in black and white but rather M&B either had to or said it to make Nencini et al. feel better.

M&B had no need to write they agreed with the lower court's assessment but they did. Why?

If they didn't want to leave any doubt why didn't they mention the memorials and say nothing even indicated she was near the cottage. Even if they believed the Chieffi court had ruled she was at the cottage during the murder why would they feel the need to agree? Btw, it has yet to be shown Chieffi ruled on the calumny case that she was at the cottage.

If someone has Chieffi having her at the cottage at murder time, please produce the quote.

 

[Desert Fox]

What is the penalty she will suffer if convicted?

In practical terms, it means that she does not want to visit Italy again.

 

[Kaosium]

Somewhat a straw man as I in no way suggested she should be convicted of murder. You were responsing to my assertion Brady "being there" in way compares to Amanda "being there" as described by M&B.

M&B do accept she was at the cottage at the time Meredith was murdered. If you wish to point out the wording or you want to retranslate the section and explain I of course will listen but at this time you, Bill and Mike are not accepting M&B did say it. She was there during the murder.

Not quite, M&B are saying that they find acceptable the conclusion that she was there from the 'facts' Nencini relied upon to determine that. They cannot possibly determine whether the evidence presented to develop those 'facts' (the two statements, Amanda's note, the scream 'evidence') truly adds up to that (it doesn't of course) because that's not their job and it would be a logistical impossibility. Therefore they must take that at face value, they didn't examine that evidence for themselves nor did they hear the arguments in court regarding those specific items, that was the job of Massei, Hellmann and Nencini, and in this instance they're responding to Nencini.

I noticed you brought up the 'multiple attackers' thinking it supported the idea that the ISC can make 'findings' of this sort. That's not quite what happened, Micheli is the one responsible for that, the ISC just signed off on it and as theirs is the final step it then becomes a judicial 'fact'--but that 'fact' was developed by the Micheli Court. Do you understand the distinction here? The ISC didn't hear the evidence on whether there were multiple attackers, they relied upon what Micheli ruled which was developed by the prosecution producing its dubious 'evidence' and/or mistakes which they claimed added up to multiple attackers and the Guede defense essentially agreeing because that was to the advantage of their client. Micheli was the one who might have determined it wasn't enough but since he did not the ISC can't really, they didn't hear that evidence.

I do not believe she was there. I do not think she should be convicted because of her statements of the 6th but M&B did say the judge's ruling on it was reasonable in terms of her being there.

And it is, presuming one takes the evidence used to determine that Amanda stated she was there and the scream evidence (etc) at face value, which they must do for legal and logistical reasons. Without checking for themselves (which they can't do) they accept that from Nencini at face value but then go on to point out that even if it's true it doesn't make her guilty of murder, that requires evidence in its own right and that's completely missing.

And nobody, except the PGP of course, including M&B say it should convict .

Really good to "see" you, thanks for dropping by.

Good to 'see' you too, Grinder, and everyone else who's still around!

This particular issue is made far more opaque by the fundamental dishonesty of the prosecution, Mignini's masterful machinations in gaming their system and the prosecution opening up the 'manifest illogicality' wormhole, but in the end keep in mind that what you are arguing is beyond the purview of the ISC and other issues that seem to suggest they can do what you claim (make a finding or a statement on whether Amanda was there that night) turn out to be the ISC just signing off on someone else's mistakes because it's not their place in the Italian System (or ours for that matter) for the Supreme Court to do that. They finalize all judgements in the Italian System but they don't make determinations of the details, how could they?

 

[Grinder]

Not quite, M&B are saying that they find acceptable the conclusion that she was there from the 'facts' Nencini relied upon to determine that. They cannot possibly determine whether the evidence presented to develop those 'facts' (the two statements, Amanda's note, the scream 'evidence') truly adds up to that (it doesn't of course) because that's not their job and it would be a logistical impossibility. Therefore they must take that at face value, they didn't examine that evidence for themselves nor did they hear the arguments in court regarding those specific items, that was the job of Massei, Hellmann and Nencini, and in this instance they're responding to Nencini.

Okay let's parse this out a bit.

First they say that being at the cottage when Meredith was murdered does not mean she was involved in the murder. While technically true, it seems quite the stretch. They then go on saying with "this premise" we accept as

"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.​

in which they explain why the court ruled and in a positive way. They certainly don't in any way say this with but rather quite supportive. Then if that isn't clear enough they add

" 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)​

They are clearly discussing evidence. They are clearly saying Nencini was not off his head to come to that conclusion.

They had already made the point the work of the ILE sucked and after they reviewed the case and the evidence made the determination the case was not made. Yet for some reason after undoing Nencini they felt a need to pat him on the head?

I put up M&B on the money. They determined that the kids didn't steal the money because the crime didn't exist.

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”
​

It appears they made a ruling based on what they thought of the evidence of the money being stolen.

I noticed you brought up the 'multiple attackers' thinking it supported the idea that the ISC can make 'findings' of this sort. That's not quite what happened, Micheli is the one responsible for that, the ISC just signed off on it and as theirs is the final step it then becomes a judicial 'fact'--but that 'fact' was developed by the Micheli Court. Do you understand the distinction here?

Yes (may I have a jelly bean?) The multiple attacker fact started with Micheli in Rudi's FT trial but didn't become a "judicial fact" until the ISC ruled. Btw, when the question of whether A&R had representation in trial that produced the "multiple attacker fact" came up here I made the case that they had because it's included in the MR. The kids' defense did present experts during Rudi's trial as it was concurrent with their preliminary hearing. They most likely didn't have standing in the appeals.

The ISC didn't hear the evidence on whether there were multiple attackers, they relied upon what Micheli ruled which was developed by the prosecution producing its dubious 'evidence' and/or mistakes which they claimed added up to multiple attackers and the Guede defense essentially agreeing because that was to the advantage of their client. Micheli was the one who might have determined it wasn't enough but since he did not the ISC can't really, they didn't hear that evidence.

Well it doesn't seem to work that way. M&B changed the verdict based on their analysis of the evidence. The Giordano court could have reviewed the evidence of multiple attacker in the same way but they didn't.

And it is, presuming one takes the evidence used to determine that Amanda stated she was there and the scream evidence (etc) at face value, which they must do for legal and logistical reasons. Without checking for themselves (which they can't do) they accept that from Nencini at face value but then go on to point out that even if it's true it doesn't make her guilty of murder, that requires evidence in its own right and that's completely missing.

Actually they took it from Chieffi. 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.​

 

[Vixen]

You're dreaming. It's over baby. And doesn't Italy have any statute of limitations laws?

Statute of limitation does not apply to serious crimes such as murder. In addition, personal injury arising years after an event has no statute of limitation, if it can be shown the PI arose as a consequence of the tort.

What do you mean, "It's over baby"? Do you imagine yourself to be Captain America?

 

[Vixen]

You're the one who seems to be ranting. But nationalism does come into play. Americans are protected by our principles and while we can't enforce those principles abroad, we can and often do use those principles to protect US citizens in the States.

Treaties between countries work both ways. Italy extradited a bunch of US armed forces guys some years back, and by mutual agreement the US Secretary of State will seriously consider any Italian State request for extradition. The latest offense is a felony and the judge will rubber stamp it on autopilot. Full stop. Period.

 

[Vixen]

Absolutely NOT. This is a very fuzzy area of the law with pretty much no precedence.

What if Grinder? And how does one determine if it is definitive? Another court case? What if it was a piece of crap evidence? Should a defendant have to forever waste his money time and life having to answer to the courts? Shouldn't a defendant be allowed to move on with his life and not have a cloud of potential financial ruin forever hanging over his head?

When is "enough"?

That would be a political matter, one for the legislature, not the courts. The courts simply follow directions as set down by law.

If there are disputed legal issues, it is just a question of holding a preliminary hearing to determine if there is a case, including whether the court has jurisdiction.

If it has jurisdiction and there is a case - and in this case there is given the two guilty verdicts of the lower, merits, courts and the legal determinations of Bruno and Marasca. It could be argued the police 'errors' (so-called) are hardly the fault of the litigant.

 

[Vixen]

Keep in mind we're arguing with someone who believes with total zeal that although all the evidence on its surface makes it appear as though a simple crime occurred with Rudy the thief raping and murdering Meredith, if you examine the evidence through a vigorous intellectual scope, like doing Lacanian psychoanalysis, what you will find is in fact the very opposite of what you expected.

These 16 footprints in Meredith's blood belonging to the thief and his DNA in her genitals suggest a certain simple reality, but if we look deeper we discover a quite different reality...a virtual texture...but we can perform a translation on the evidence and invert it. Rudy Guede the wall climbing knife carrying burglar is the Big Other. Amanda Knox betrays her oedipal dispositif with the father figure who penetrates with the knife. In a sense she becomes Rudy Guede. This symbolic transformation creates the violence of the Real. Thus it should be obvious to any lay juror that Amanda Knox is the real killer.

You DO know Bruno & Marasca ruled that Amanda covered for Rudy?

Clearly she is less prejudiced than you.

 

[Vixen]

You miss the point that the Marasca CSC panel ruled on the Nencini verdict and motivation report, not on the Chieffi CSC panel judgment.

You miss the point Nencini had a very limited remit. The remainder was res judicata, and as such Bruno & Marasca erred in (a) evaluating the merits and (b) issuing verdicts on legal points that had never been pleaded by either party, a serious legal error.

In effect, Bruno & Marasca issued a pardon, when they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Only the Renzi government have the power to acquit a defendant found definitively guilty by a court of law. B&M did not argue Massei's reasoning was wrong. Do not be deceived by the term 'lower court'. Massei's court is superior in terms of assessing the facts of the case and again, B&M went beyond their remit and erred in reversing Massei's facts found which had not been remitted back to Nencini. This is because those merits were rubber stamped by Chieffi.

 

[Vixen]

I am not interested in listening to **you**. Your claim is that you have absolute truth in what the Italian-language of the M/B-report means. You. Not Luca Cheli, not Francesco Maresca, not Andrea Vogt, not Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca or Bruno. Not Bongiorno not de Nunzio. You. Already in your postings you have shown yourself to be at odds with Luca Cheli, who is also an Italian-language commentator.

You may find it "comical and surreal" that one can actually do a survey of Italian language news-citations to find how this is playing in Italy, among Italians. Laugh away. But laugh at th vast, vast majority of Italian outlets who regard Giuliano Mignini as a buffoon, who has persecuted two innocents. It means nothing to you that that survey tends to buttress Cheli's view of things and not yours. Indeed, in the three news sources there are which seem to uphold your view, one of them is one even you call "imprecise". (Speaking of comical!) Two of those three have been published on-line since the Sept 2015 release of the M/B report, and both cite the allegation of Amanda's admission in her first memorale as proof of her being at the cottage. Not even Hellmann, Zanetti, and I presume Bruno or Marasca believe that that bit of evidence proves what those lone sources say it does.

All the rest of Italian sources see it (in general terms) Cheli's way. Both English translations sustain the notion that what followed Sections 9.2/9.3 were synoptic amalgams of the prosecution and defence cases; smashed together to demonstrate that even if everything so-combined was true, there was still no evidence that either of the kids committed murder.

It is comical that you would wish to play word games with a unilingual, English speaker on an obscure website like ISF. It is revealing that you do not wish to play these word games with your fellow Italians.

You also do not wish to talk about the way former-guilters like Andrea Vogt tell arm-chair detectives to "move on", and quit tormenting the original victims to all this - the Kerchers. Francesco Maresca, the Kerchers' lawyer, has said that this is definitively over.

You could be less comical by playing your word games with Francesco Maresca. At the very least he's someone who matters.

You do not understand what makes Italian journalists tick.

 

[Vixen]

I agree. But Machiavelli continues to argue that the BM motivation opens the door to a possible, even probable civil action. I argue it does the opposite. I am also saying that in the event a civil action is pursued in Italy and they allow it, a US court would say that any judgment against Knox would be unenforceable as a result of the previous CSC ruling. That she cannot be made to answer in any way for an already decided case.

You need to be able to distinguish between wishful thinking=how you would like things to be; and legal reality. If protocol and jurisdiction allow a civil suit, then it is not for a judge to take a personal stand against it. A judge's first duty is to the court, not acbytesla or Amanda Knox.

 

[Vixen]

I agree that the Italian courts apparently have a tendency to arbitrarily violate their own laws and constitution, and of course ECHR case-law, based on what we have seen in the Knox - Sollecito case.

Suppose that, contrary to Italian law, a civil suit against Amanda or Raffaele for the murder of Meredith succeeded in finding one or both liable. They could appeal that verdict. A civil verdict in Italy may be appealed to a second-instance court, and eventually to the CSC (civil division). In the case of appeals, only the final verdict of the CSC is definitive.

Would a US court make a foreign civil judgment enforceable against someone resident in the US? That all depends. Here is some information:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comity_of_nations



Again, a US court would review the laws of Italy and find that the civil trial had violated Italian law, as previously discussed. The acquittal ended any legal civil case against Amanda Knox in Italy and this would mean the US court would not accept the illegal Italian civil judgment. The lack of fairness and the clear presence of fraud in the police procedures and Massei and Nencini trials, as partly acknowledged by the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, would also argue against the US court accepting the illegal Italian civil judgment.

Note that if the US court looks for fraud in the case, it would be examining the details of how the trial was conducted and the reliability and meaning or interpretation of the evidence.

So I continue to believe that any civil action in Italy, or its acceptance by a US court, is simply not going to happen. The case is over, with the exception of some issues such as the ECHR considering the application Amanda has lodged against Italy and a potential revision trial. There is also the matter of compensation for miscarriage of justice. There could be grounds for other ECHR applications by Raffaele or Amanda. I suspect Italy will let the calunnia against the police charge expire due to statute of limitations, but we shall see.

Wishful thinking. Italy cannot let the police charge expire. It is not like a slander charge or newspaper libel (for example, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, Oggi or Raff). Amanda has made extremely serious allegations against the police. They are now obliged to make an appearance and answer the charges. It's not something they can ignore.

 

[Vixen]

Not true in mathematics there are several 'alternative algebras' defined as having non-associate multiplication e.g.malcev algebra or octonions. In simple Euclidian geometry there will be a single alternate angle.

I agree alter as a noun in latin does precisely mean the other of two. But not in English. Even in latin alternare the verb means taking turns and is not limited to two persons or things.

The latin alter means 'other' and thus becomes a tautology to say, 'the other other' and anyway, still implies 'one other'.

It's an error to confuse 'alternative' with alternate.

I will carry on using the term 'alternative' correctly.

 

[Vixen]

They did not need to, the Italian constitution says people are innocent until conviction is confirmed by cassation. Therefore Sollecito is and ALWAYS was innocent. Knox is and ALWAYS was innocent of murder, theft, etc. She is presently guilty of callunia.

I think ECHR may well rule that the conviction violated her rights, this will not void her conviction, and I am unsure if the Italian system has a way to void it. Potentially a civil litigant could put a freeze on damages paid from Italy to Knox pending the outcome of a civil action.

Respectfully, you are mixing the concept of presumed innocence with the fact finding a merits court is tasked to do. It does find legal facts. One them being in this case that it is a fact Amanda was at the murderscene.

 

[Vixen]

Technically in this allusion you mean a transubstantiation.

Maybe a transfiguration if lights were seen.

 

[Vixen]

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

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

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

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

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

Er, would this be the same Raffaele who wheeled in criminal mafiosi Aviello and child murderer, kidnapper and extortionist Alessi as his two key defence witnesses?

 

[Vixen]

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

Well, as long as you are not hypocritically only using the term for Amanda and Raff like the other PIP's.

 

[Vixen]

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

Thank you for confirming their ruling defective. Not obliged to smoke anything unconstitutional.

 

[Vixen]

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

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

I suspect the PIP's like to use the term to downplay the kids' culpability in the matter ('diminished responsibility').

 

[Vixen]

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

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

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

That's where they err. They have not shown that Massei and Nencini's verdicts were outside the range of reasonableness, and don't forget judges have wide-ranging powers. You cannot appeal a verdict or overturn it merely because you disagree with it or don't like it.