Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

As you yourself pointed out, the main headers for the acquittal - or rather the technical 'dropping of charges', as implied by section 530 para2 - were "the investigation was stunningly flawed' and 'the media attention'.

As there is no prohibition of media activity under Italian law (as there would be, say, in the UK) nor the jury/judges sequestered during the hearing (as in the UK) then it is grossly and manifestly illogical, as well as legally improper (as there are no legal constraints in the first place) for Bruno-Marasca to acquit on these grounds. The 'flawed investigation' they state is based on new DNA contamination evidence, for Massei and Nencini had rejected this claim, 'new', as it is based on Gill's submission introduced post-first and -second instance hearing, which was never cross-examined in court, and astonishingly, flawed witnesses of the defense, who were attacked by B-M as being of low character, and... introduced to the court by Raff's counsel Avv Bongiorno herself! (It was the defense fault, did you miss this?)

You tell me what is manifestly illogical.

Ah, er, no. What is remarkable is the constant "PR war" of a few who seem to want to speak for what the Marasca/Bruno report says - or more properly what they think it says. Read Section 10 of the report, for (in his/their own words) what they, themselves, think they are saying.

What is manifestly illogical is the logical path you go down in a post such as this, trying to paint Marasca's reasoning into a corner of your choosing.

That "the investigation was stunningly flawed' and 'the media attention' are cited in Marasca's report doesn't seem to paint him into that corner - despite your best efforts.

You also claim to know stuff - without citation - that nails home your point.

People on your side of the fence talk about how the Marasca report is internally manifestly illogical, then turn to it to make your own logical points. The truth is that in its brevity Marasca does hold together, within the constraints of not stepping on what it believes to be "judicial truths" arrived at by former ISC panels. Even with that said, it combines the judicial truths into a synoptic narrative, which at the end says proves nothing.

In the interests of citation, the following is what Marasca/Bruno concluded after all this.....

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same,leading to its annulment.

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the
referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed –
should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2,
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

At this point only one matter remains to be resolved, regarding the type of
annulment - i.e., whether it should be decided with or without a new trial - which
depends, obviously, on the objective possibility of further investigation which could
unravel the perplexing aspects, and offer answers of certainty, perhaps through new
technical investigations.

The answer is certainly negative.​

That highlighted part is Marasca/Bruno's conclusion drawn from the attempt to put together a synoptic narrative (cf. 9.2).

In short.... "The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence." The manifest illogic, acc. to M/B belongs to those who still promote a guilt view.

 

[Bill Williams]

Saul Kassim's findings are based on long-term torture sessions. Amanda originally claimed she was 'interrogated for 53 hours with tag teams of police coming in at her every hour'.

Kassim was deceived and you note he has now distanced himself from her acordingly.

Even Good Samaritans have had their reputations tarnished by this Great Hoax.

On such terms are PR wars fought. Fight away........ it's your nickel.

 

[LondonJohn]

Saul Kassim's findings are based on long-term torture sessions. Amanda originally claimed she was 'interrogated for 53 hours with tag teams of police coming in at her every hour'.

Utter nonsense. Have you, for example, bothered to watch the Discovery documentary I linked to yesterday? Kassim conducted entirely valid and relevant analysis of a case that was in many respects extremely close to that of Knox.

Oh and you've grossly misrepresented Knox's (and others') claims about her interrogation. Unsurprisingly. Shame.

Kassim was deceived and you note he has now distanced himself from her acordingly.

Total crap. Kassim has not "distanced himself from her" at all. Where do you get this rubbish? And why do you think you have the right to flat-out lie on this thread?

Even Good Samaritans have had their reputations tarnished by this Great Hoax.

You're deluded. Tell us all again what this so-called "Great Hoax" is. I could do with a laugh. At the expense of your risible "argument".

 

[LondonJohn]

It is indeed true. The case of Derek Bentley is called to mind, who was hanged for the 1953 murder of a policeman in England. His younger companion pulled the trigger, but it was Bentley who took the greater legal portion of blame for saying, "Let him have it".

It is not UNIVERSALLY true. What you're doing here is called "moving the goalposts". Any statement (or utterance) made by a defendant must first be properly tested, in order to assess its credibility and reliability.

(Oh and you have a significantly imperfect grasp of the core issue in the Craig/Bentley trial as well. Bentley was hanged because of the laws relating to joint enterprise (which I can explain more fully if required). Of course, sections of the media erroneously homed in on the "Let him have it" angle, since it was eye-catching and sensationalist. But one would expect anyone who had a serious interest in jurisprudence and criminal justice to understand the real situation.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Kassim was deceived and you note he has now distanced himself from her acordingly.

Total crap. Kassim has not "distanced himself from her" at all. Where do you get this rubbish? And why do you think you have the right to flat-out lie on this thread?

You're deluded. Tell us all again what this so-called "Great Hoax" is. I could do with a laugh. At the expense of your risible "argument".

I must disagree. Vixen is not deluded. Vixen has an agenda.

In support of that agenda Vixen will outright lie. Will flood the thread with those kinds of posts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you seriously claiming that Micheli, Massei and Nencini who spent years as serious criminal law judges and practising criminal law barristers (unlike, you note, Bruno or Marasca) do not know how to treat evidence in their fact finding?

Hahahahahaha yes of course, that's exactly what I am claiming! Because that's exactly what happened!

In turn, are you claiming that Italian Supreme Court justices would make the mistake of judging that lower courts had failed to treat evidence lawfully and properly, if in fact the evidence had been treated lawfully and properly?

My Supreme Court judges trump your Appellate Court and 1st Instance Court judges! I love this game

 

[acbytesla]

FIFY.

The statute of limitations begins as of the point of the last act. In Amanda's case, the tort of calunnia has been a continuing act, on which is predicated the whole Great Hoax of 'Amanda was railroaded by the Italians', including a book that perpetuates the hoax released in 2011, for which an advance of $3.4m was made, for the profit of ghost writer Linda Kulman and publishers HarperCollins (who may well imagine they are exempt from European Proceeds of Crime Acts, being careful not to publish ATT in Europe), and repeated on numerous occasions on tv appearances since.

That's NOT what we hear from Amanfa's lawyers. I expect that they know better than you.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How would you know this to be true? Are you an expert on Italian law? Perhaps you can provide the appropriate citation of Italian law that supports this conclusion?
If you provided this I might believe your argument has some merit. As it is, I think you are of course talking out your backside. Feel free to prove me wrong...if you can,

It is a fact appeal courts only deal with errors in points of law, perversity and 'in the public interest'.

You cannot appeal on any other ground and it is always based on the judge's reasoning for the verdict.

You cannot appeal on the grounds of facts.

Again, this is not a citation of Italian law. Instead, it is more you talking without actually knowing.
Try again.

 

[Vixen]

Ah, er, no. What is remarkable is the constant "PR war" of a few who seem to want to speak for what the Marasca/Bruno report says - or more properly what they think it says. Read Section 10 of the report, for (in his/their own words) what they, themselves, think they are saying.

What is manifestly illogical is the logical path you go down in a post such as this, trying to paint Marasca's reasoning into a corner of your choosing.

That "the investigation was stunningly flawed' and 'the media attention' are cited in Marasca's report doesn't seem to paint him into that corner - despite your best efforts.

You also claim to know stuff - without citation - that nails home your point.

People on your side of the fence talk about how the Marasca report is internally manifestly illogical, then turn to it to make your own logical points. The truth is that in its brevity Marasca does hold together, within the constraints of not stepping on what it believes to be "judicial truths" arrived at by former ISC panels. Even with that said, it combines the judicial truths into a synoptic narrative, which at the end says proves nothing.

In the interests of citation, the following is what Marasca/Bruno concluded after all this.....

​

That highlighted part is Marasca/Bruno's conclusion drawn from the attempt to put together a synoptic narrative (cf. 9.2).

In short.... "The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence." The manifest illogic, acc. to M/B belongs to those who still promote a guilt view.

Are you testing your latest theory on me?

You claim M/B only reach their judgment in their 'conclusion'. This would be completely wrong. However, they have not actually done this.

They have explained the outcome of their reasoning in Section 9. Section 10 is merely a summing up of the verdict, as summarised at the start.

Supreme Court judges do not produce documents as though they are an inquiry or a White Paper for a Bill put before Parliament/Congress.

A judge judges. A judgment gives you the judges' judgment and their word is final.

They are not asking for your opinion back. It is not an open-ended document. It is only synoptic insofar as demonstrating they have considered the issues under appeal - and falls well short of being satisfactory IMV as media attention was never a legal point - they are not presenting a rational balanced newspaper article. They are saying, "we are the judges and this is how it is." No, "if's"; no, "but's"; not even any, "even if's". Full stop. Period.

 

[Vixen]

Utter nonsense. Have you, for example, bothered to watch the Discovery documentary I linked to yesterday? Kassim conducted entirely valid and relevant analysis of a case that was in many respects extremely close to that of Knox.

Oh and you've grossly misrepresented Knox's (and others') claims about her interrogation. Unsurprisingly. Shame.





Total crap. Kassim has not "distanced himself from her" at all. Where do you get this rubbish? And why do you think you have the right to flat-out lie on this thread?





You're deluded. Tell us all again what this so-called "Great Hoax" is. I could do with a laugh. At the expense of your risible "argument".

Really? I challenge you to produce the date of the last time Kassim ever commented on the Amanda Knox case.

 

[Vixen]

Hahahahahaha yes of course, that's exactly what I am claiming! Because that's exactly what happened!

In turn, are you claiming that Italian Supreme Court justices would make the mistake of judging that lower courts had failed to treat evidence lawfully and properly, if in fact the evidence had been treated lawfully and properly?

My Supreme Court judges trump your Appellate Court and 1st Instance Court judges! I love this game

Actually, it is a fact that the Fifth Chambers are a lesser court than the First from whence Avv Bongiorno successfully manipulated the case away from.

Bruno and Marasca have NO experience in murder cases, being commercial and civil law judges.

I can guarantee that Massei and Nencini are expert criminal law barristers/judges, who have followed the proper legal career path of passing exams and showing themselves to be outstanding legal practitioners in criminal law.

Political judges such as Bruno and Marasca, are now BARRED from being Supreme Court judges whilst in political office and it is now mandatory to be a career judge, thanks to their embarrassing themselves with their embarrassing MR, delivered two months after the deadline.

 

[Vixen]

It is not UNIVERSALLY true. What you're doing here is called "moving the goalposts". Any statement (or utterance) made by a defendant must first be properly tested, in order to assess its credibility and reliability.

(Oh and you have a significantly imperfect grasp of the core issue in the Craig/Bentley trial as well. Bentley was hanged because of the laws relating to joint enterprise (which I can explain more fully if required). Of course, sections of the media erroneously homed in on the "Let him have it" angle, since it was eye-catching and sensationalist. But one would expect anyone who had a serious interest in jurisprudence and criminal justice to understand the real situation.)

Your wonderful Bruno and Marasca, whose praises you have been lauding on here prolifically have themselves taken Amanda's utterings as being verbatim* evidence of her being present at the murder scene.

* There, another long word for you to look up on wikipedia.

 

[Vixen]

That's NOT what we hear from Amanfa's lawyers. I expect that they know better than you.

What is it "we hear from Amanfa's lawyers", seeing as you are a close confidant, or so you imply?

 

[bagels]

Really? I challenge you to produce the date of the last time Kassim ever commented on the Amanda Knox case.

10 seconds on google shows....this year.

 

[Vixen]

Again, this is not a citation of Italian law. Instead, it is more you talking without actually knowing.
Try again.

You have been told how appeals work. Your turn to explain in which way you believe it is incorrect.

 

[Desert Fox]

10 seconds on google shows....this year.

Looks like he still stands by Amanda Knox's confession being false and due to police pressure
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...manda-knox-and-truth-behind-false-confessions

 

[bagels]

Looks like he still stands by Amanda Knox's confession being false and due to police pressure
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...manda-knox-and-truth-behind-false-confessions

I guess he couldn't escape the PR supertanker, covering up the damning evidence of Knox's DNA being found in her own sink.

 

[Vixen]

10 seconds on google shows....this year.

My google search under 'recent news'; 'past year' shows just ONE mention, and that is self-professed Amanda-advocate Nina Burleigh quoting a throw away line from Kassin as she cashed in with a NEWSWEEK article in March 2015 after the Bruno-Marasca verdict.

She writes, as though it is given "Amanda was coerced into confession" when Bruno-Marasca found no such thing:

The Italian Supreme Court ruled that Knox’s confession could not be used in the trial, but it hung over her head from that day on because in Italy, civil cases filed against criminal defendants by victims run concurrent with criminal cases, and that confession would be admissible in the civil proceedings. In Perugia, the statement was almost universally seen as definitive proof of Knox’s guilt. And legal experts say a confession, even a bogus, coerced one, permanently taints a trial and damns a defendant. “Everything changes after the confession, from interpretation to evidence to lay witnesses,” says Saul Kassin, a John Jay College criminologist and expert in false confessions and their effects.

http://europe.newsweek.com/will-amanda-knox-be-dragged-back-italy-murder-case-314970?rm=eu

 

[Vixen]

Looks like he still stands by Amanda Knox's confession being false and due to police pressure
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...manda-knox-and-truth-behind-false-confessions

In this article they are using old quotes about Amanda in the introduction. The new interview doesn't mention her at all and focuses on false confessions of innocent people in general.

 

[acbytesla]

You have been told how appeals work. Your turn to explain in which way you believe it is incorrect.

Bull.. You ACT as if you ACTUALLY KNOW. Cearly you are pulling your thoughts from the guilter sites, that's why pretty much all we see out of you is their nonsense and not actual facts. I KNOW very little of Italian law. And it's damn clear you know little as well.

So quit pretending that you do. Or provide actual citations. BS is just chewed up grass.