Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Here's what they wrote:

No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would
have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede
were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).
This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already
highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis,
removing some biological traces while leaving others.
9.4.1. 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).
​

They certainly didn't have to write this section or they could have left it at " it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed
fact of the trial," but they didn't. Why did they write the last section? I think the only way to read that section and not think they are agreeing with the lower court on her presence is a form of conformation bias or having a vested interest.

Here is what Cheli wrote:

Hence it isn’t particularly surprising that Marasca agrees with Guede’s ruling about the presence of multiple attackers and the burglary being staged: ruling otherwise would have caused a major “conflitto in giudicato”, and probably that was also one of the causes of the annulment of the first acquittal.

There is however a difference: while Marasca writes very few words, if any, in upholding the concept of a staged burglary, so much so that one derives it was deemed staged more from the verdict than from the ruling, he expands quite a bit on the reasons for supporting the multiple attackers theory.

Some of those reasons are the usual ones and have been debated for years, and I will not discuss them further now (lack of defensive wounds, just to quote one), but while this could just be a mechanical rehashing of corny arguments, there is also something new that makes me think the judges of the panel, or at least a majority of them, really believed in what they were writing.

Specifically they really believed that Meredith Kercher’s killer was much more “criminally skilled” than petty thief Rudy Guede and, all the more so, than two nerdy students.​

The particularly strange thing is the use of Knox's infamous "confession/accusation" statements in the SC judgement - when these statements were (correctly) excluded from the murder trial process!

What I see here is a terrific amount of backside-covering. I think that the first instinct of Italian judges - from the top down - is the preservation of the system, and the preservation of the sanctity and fairness of the system. In many respects this is inevitable: criminal justice systems soon start to crumble if the public gets even a whiff of a belief that those orchestrating the system don't really know what they are doing. Judges need to be seen as ubermenchen if their authority is to be unquestioningly accepted.

So in this particular case, I see the Marasca SC panel trying extremely hard to minimise any criticism of all the previous trials - especially when it comes to deliberation and verdicts. At the same time, IMO it was crystal clear to the Marasca SC panel that there simply was zero credible, reliable evidence of Knox's participation in the murder, and that therefore their primary role (and what IMO should have been their sole role) was to acquit Knox and Sollecito and refuse the state any recourse to retry.

So outside of the "biggie" - acquitting Knox and Sollecito in the most definitive terms short of there having been proof positive that they were innocent - it looks clear to me that the Marasca SC panel was bending over backwards to try to justify the previous monstrous applications of law by their judicial colleagues in the lower courts. This also extended to an unwillingness to criticise the prosecutors to the proper extent - and this speaks once again to the wholly improper way in which prosecutors are considered (both formally and culturally) to be "on the same side" as the judges and part of the judiciary. I think Marasca et al also deliberately held back on attacking the police to the proper extent - again, if the public loses confidence in the police (especially where gross negligence and incompetence are involved, and even more so where malpractice may be involved), then there are potentially huge ramifications upon law and order.

Personally, I think that outside of the "headlines" (i.e. the unequivocal acquittal of Knox and Sollecito), the Marasca SC report reads like a bumbling piece of political prose whose primary objective is protection of the criminal justice system. In my opinion, the reports veers off again and again into areas in which it ought to have no remit and no reason to pass comment or opinion.

And once again, I believe that a lot of this is due to the malign ongoing influence of (and reactionary attitude towards) the old inquisitorial system, where courts were tasked with determining the "judicial truth" of any crime, and then to convict or acquit people within that overarching "truth" narrative. However, under its current constitutional obligations (which, don't forget, were somewhat forced upon Italy by the Council of Europe - Italy didn't unilaterally choose to modernise properly), the sole job of all the courts in the Knox/Sollecito trial process - up to and including the SC - was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito regarding the crimes with which they'd been indicted and charged.

The Marasca SC panel therefore could - and should, IMO - have simply stuck to examining the actual evidence (and lack of evidence) and its reliability and credibility, concluded (correctly) that there was zero credible, reliable evidence pointing to the guilt of either, acquitting both on that basis, and ruling that the utter paucity of proper evidence (and the gross incompetence and negligence with which this case was investigated and prosecuted) mean that no further trial would be appropriate. Full stop.

 

[acbytesla]

Here's what they wrote:

No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim
was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would
have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede
were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).
This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already
highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis,
removing some biological traces while leaving others.
9.4.1. 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).
​

They certainly didn't have to write this section or they could have left it at " it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed
fact of the trial," but they didn't. Why did they write the last section? I think the only way to read that section and not think they are agreeing with the lower court on her presence is a form of conformation bias or having a vested interest.

Here is what Cheli wrote:

Hence it isn’t particularly surprising that Marasca agrees with Guede’s ruling about the presence of multiple attackers and the burglary being staged: ruling otherwise would have caused a major “conflitto in giudicato”, and probably that was also one of the causes of the annulment of the first acquittal.

There is however a difference: while Marasca writes very few words, if any, in upholding the concept of a staged burglary, so much so that one derives it was deemed staged more from the verdict than from the ruling, he expands quite a bit on the reasons for supporting the multiple attackers theory.

Some of those reasons are the usual ones and have been debated for years, and I will not discuss them further now (lack of defensive wounds, just to quote one), but while this could just be a mechanical rehashing of corny arguments, there is also something new that makes me think the judges of the panel, or at least a majority of them, really believed in what they were writing.

Specifically they really believed that Meredith Kercher’s killer was much more “criminally skilled” than petty thief Rudy Guede and, all the more so, than two nerdy students.​

I'm not trying to be difficult or just a "homer". None of this really matters. But look at the words they keep using "certainly acceptable" "fact of the trial" They also say "supposed presence". This is NOT saying it is BM's conclusion.

If they wanted to say they were there, why the hell not say it out straight. IMV, they were trying to not offend anyone. Like letting a girl down easy. "It's not you babe, it's me."

 

[whoanellie]

I do too. We can talk all day about how crazy the guilters are, but I'm convinced that there is something wrong with us when we engage her at this point. The case is over, it's been decided.

I'm sure we all know the there is marginal if any value in this never ending argument. So why do we do it? It's not like this inane discussion about the motivation will change anything. Are we going to change Vixen's mind....about anything? Nope. Will she persuade any of us? Nope.

And yet we keep doing it, me included.

The first step is to admit that you have a problem.[emoji6]

 

[whoanellie]

I think you all missed the only significant point in the Vixen "scientific method post".

She was pulling legs on the temps and water definition but not the part about repeated tests being necessary. Or maybe she was on that as well, but if we need to boil water numerous times what about a DNA test?

We would need to replicate the experiment many times before we can reject the null hypothesis.
~ The Empirical Method, aka the scientific method.

You may be correct, but how does one distinguished between feigned and genuine ignorance?

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[acbytesla]

The first step is to admit that you have a problem.[emoji6]

It's always been the second step for me that's always been the problem.

 

[acbytesla]

You may be correct, but how does one distinguished between feigned and genuine ignorance?

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Yea, ever since When Harry left Sally, I'm never 100 percent sure whether anything is real.

 

[Grinder]

By the way, my hypothesis is that vixen is a male despite the username. I have no interest in performing an experiment to test my hypothesis.

Instead of hypothesised the machine translators I've used translates the word as assumed in 9.4 - Your sentence a difference in meaning I was struggling to put words to. To me if you substitute assumption it is a stronger statement.

By the way, my assumption is that vixen is a male despite the username. I have no interest in performing an experiment to test my assumption.

At any rate it is a slippery slope to second guess the meaning of every point especially when stating they only wrote it but didn't mean it. Obviously Nencini or Massei wouldn't be fooled nor would most of Italy if a computer salesman in Seattle can see through. And Tesla that wasn't a shot, really anybody in Seattle or most anywhere.

Vixen and Mach could claim, as they do, that M&B never believed they were not guilty but felt political pressure. Surely Bill will be able to find widespread support for the not guilty verdict. The PGP can reinterpret the report in the same way and say they didn't mean the police investigation was bad but they needed to give some reason to combat the mountain of evidence against the kids.

For whatever reason they decided to find not guilty and end the trials, I'm glad they did but I doubt these guys are that much better than all the rest.

 

[Numbers]

Instead of hypothesised the machine translators I've used translates the word as assumed in 9.4 - Your sentence a difference in meaning I was struggling to put words to. To me if you substitute assumption it is a stronger statement.

By the way, my assumption is that vixen is a male despite the username. I have no interest in performing an experiment to test my assumption.

At any rate it is a slippery slope to second guess the meaning of every point especially when stating they only wrote it but didn't mean it. Obviously Nencini or Massei wouldn't be fooled nor would most of Italy if a computer salesman in Seattle can see through. And Tesla that wasn't a shot, really anybody in Seattle or most anywhere.

Vixen and Mach could claim, as they do, that M&B never believed they were not guilty but felt political pressure. Surely Bill will be able to find widespread support for the not guilty verdict. The PGP can reinterpret the report in the same way and say they didn't mean the police investigation was bad but they needed to give some reason to combat the mountain of evidence against the kids.

For whatever reason they decided to find not guilty and end the trials, I'm glad they did but I doubt these guys are that much better than all the rest.

Right, we can't be sure of the intent of the CSC, except we know that under Italian law and ECHR case-law, the definitive final acquittal cannot be reversed.

It does seem to me from reading the Marasca CSC panel MR in English translation that, as they write, the panel did not believe that evidence of guilt existed. They are quite clear that they consider the idea of selective cleaning of DNA physically impossible, and the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito not reliable. They make the point that even if Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage (whether or not at the time of the murder), there is no evidence of them in the murder room.

But if one were seeking an underlying motivation for the CSC to acquit, consider that the Italian authorities did not want the case reviewed by the ECHR because that would expose the violations of procedure that the Italian courts use to unfairly convict.

For example, an ECHR review would find that the DNA raw data, the electronic data files, were unfairly denied to the defense, a violation of Convention Article 6. It would be called a violation of "equality of arms" (discovery) or of the right of the accused to be given all necessary facilities for his or her defense. That would become case-law and affect all past, current and future cases in Italy (and all the Council of Europe States).

By granting an acquittal on the murder/rape charges, the possibility of the ECHR reviewing that Convention violation and others is very much reduced. That is because the ECHR only reviews cases of "victims", and an acquitted person is not (generally) considered a victim of an unfair trial, with only a few exceptions, such as a trial that is unfairly long.

 

[Numbers]

I think you all missed the only significant point in the Vixen "scientific method post".

She was pulling legs on the temps and water definition but not the part about repeated tests being necessary. Or maybe she was on that as well, but if we need to boil water numerous times what about a DNA test?

We would need to replicate the experiment many times before we can reject the null hypothesis.
~ The Empirical Method, aka the scientific method.

The point of Vixen's post, of course, was not at all the physical chemistry experiment, but an attempt to distinguish empirical or scientific reasoning from legal reasoning. Excerpts from Vixen's post:

"Empiricism and legalese are two completely different concepts and ne'er the twain shall meet."

"Our reasoning The facts are these and we don't care whether or not you agree or whether or not they are scientific. Facts found by the lower courts which we cannot dispute are: XYZ.

Recommendations What shall we do? We will annul on the grounds of Section 530 para 2.

THEREFORE We have annulled it.

~ the legal method."

Vixen's statement is not factual. The Marasca CSC panel did apply scientific reasoning, for example, regarding the physical impossibility of selective cleaning of DNA and the need to distinguish DNA contamination from probative DNA evidence.

Vixen may not agree with the scientific merit of these concepts, or may be ignorant that they are accepted as true by experts and have been demonstrated by experience (experiment) and inference, or may be advancing a "guilt" viewpoint that must disregard scientific validity (possibly as a social science experiment or as a satirical effort). However, objectively, the Marasca CSC panel is presenting a scientifically valid position on these DNA issues.

 

[Mike1711]

Empiricism and legalese are two completely different concepts and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Grade 6 chemistry lesson to show water boils at 100 degrees fahrenheit 32 degrees centigrade. How to write it up.

Experiment to show water boils at 100 degrees fahrenheit 32 degrees centigrade. The null hypothesis is that water does not boil at 100 degrees F 32 degrees C.

Apparatus One bunsen burner, one glass beaker, 500mls of a colourless, odourless and tasteless liquid that is anhydrous to litmus paper, therefore we determine it is water, H2O, One mercury thermometer. One stopwatch.

Method Place beaker of H2O over ignited bunsen burner. Set stopwatch. When water boils note time and temperature.

Results Water boiled after eight minutes at 100 degrees F and 32 degrees C.

Conclusion In this experiment the water boiled at this temperature. We would need to replicate the experiment many times before we can reject the null hypothesis.
~ The Empirical Method, aka the scientific method.

Motivational Report

Abstract The verdict of this court is per Section 530 para 2 insufficent evidence.

Appealed from the Nencini verdict.

The points of appeal listed in terms of priority.

Discussion of the issues as set out above.

Subsections for ease of reference.

Our reasoning The facts are these and we don't care whether or not you agree or whether or not they are scientific. Facts found by the lower courts which we cannot dispute are: XYZ.

Recommendations What shall we do? We will annul on the grounds of Section 530 para 2.

THEREFORE We have annulled it.

~ the legal method.

Think of law as being like taxation, it is all rule-based and predicated on previous case law and can change every time the government passes a new law. Heck, it doesn't even have to be logical.

So many errors, so little time. Just two.....I have no time for more

A) Error number one. Your hypothesis that water boils at 100 degrees (Celsius!) (sample group of one) proves to be incorrect for any altitude other than sea level on Earth.

B) Error number two. Nencini. Clue for you. Same error. You work out why you're wrong. I don't have the time nor patience to argue with arrogance.

 

[Mike1711]

Well proof one was at the scene at the time of the murder and never called the police or informed them of what happened is huge circumstantial evidence of involvement in the murder. You said it wasn't.

"Did they have Rudy's print in the murder knife?"



So basically they know he was there at the time.




Not interested in S.A. I would have thought with your acclaimed expertise in Italian law you would have been aware of the significant changes made there to the legal system in the mid eighties.

"Are you referring to their writing on multiple attackers? They found them not guilty correctly but they seem as wacky as the rest of the judges in Italy".



So you don't know Italian law.


"How did Nencini change Massei's motive as it was a "fact"?"



You should reread the reports on motive. In fact, I believe the changing motive was a focus for M&B.

You do realize that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. There was no direct evidence on the murder. Some think testimony on circumstantial evidence is direct evidence but it is really only direct testimony on circumstantial evidence.

Btw, I think motive is not necessary but shockingly the Italians disagree.

I have never claimed to be an expert on Italian law. If you missed my earlier posts you can read them upstream. The commonality is that SA Law is in part derived from the same law as Italian Law.

"So basically they know he was there at the time." Yes they know this as well as a lot more.

Motive can be obtained by inference without making it fact. Example:- What is the motive for terrorism? The court can hypothesise but it won't affect the verdict. Some courts may say it's the invasion of Iraq and others, the spread of Islam. It doesn't matter to the verdict when a terrorist is caught and it isn't a judicial fact.

Motive is not necessary to determine guilt. It helps, but it is not essential. The changing motive in the AK/RS is more a reflection on the confusion and confirmation bias of the courts than anything else.

 

[Mike1711]

If Bruno-Marasca can say, OK so the pair were there when Mez was murdered, but it doesn't mean they did it, you can apply exactly the same logic to Rudy.

Three lower courts found that Rudy was the accessory whilst Amanda was the person who dealt the fatal blow. What Bruno-Marasca seem to be extrapolating from this is, yeah, yeah, yeah, she might have gripped the knife, but it's still not proof of murder. We-ell.

You are cherry picking.

Firstly B/M did not establish that Ak/RS were "there". The lower courts did. B/M simply echoed this when they wrote about "strong suspicions".

Can you apply the same logic to Rudy? Of course not. There is other compelling evidence against Rudy.

Your last paragraph is your own distorted interpretation. It's wrong.

 

[Mike1711]

Bruno-Marasca do not state, "maybe they were there, but maybe they were not". Read Section 9 again, which leads straight onto Section 10 with no further discussion of the matter. It is an edict Amanda was there and Raff with her.

Gallileo was postulating abstract principles which were just too much for the ignoramus masses to take in. In this case we are lucky, as seeing is believing.

Even Gallileo-lovers Bruno-Marasca can see the pair were there and therefore believe it, as much as they do not want to.

I know B/M did not say they weren't there. That was not their mandate. They were not charged with establishing presence. They were told that presence was proved. They accepted this and dealt with the murder which WAS their mandate.

But maybe in reality they weren't even there. Yes the possibility is extremely likely despite that you don't like it.

 

[Mike1711]

If a lower court made a finding "the earth is flat" the verdict would immediately be overturned as perverse, with queues of expert witnesses long enough to go around the Equator several times.

Whilst a judge in a merits court has indeed wide-ranging powers and a broad remit to come to the verdict, it is constrained by the bounds of reasonableness. Nowhere does Nencii or Chieffi say Massei was perverse or unreasonable.

Bruno-Marasca had to go seriously left-field in their written reasons, blaming the "incompetent" police investigation and the media attention, neither of which were mentioned during the merits trial.

As I say, they have ruled that Amanda was there, covered in Mez blood, covered for sex assaulter Rudy, yet there is no proof she was involved.

Seriously, WHAT?!

It doesn't work like this in law.

 

[Mike1711]

http://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-the-italian-criminal-justice-system-work-22678

"In Italy there is a constitutional right to appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation, which can agree with the Court..."

...not on points of fact.

 

[Mike1711]

https://www.justlanded.com/english/Italy/Articles/Visas-Permits/Legal-System

"Criminal Courts in Italy

The criminal legal process involves judges, tribunals and assize courts ( corte d’assise), which include juries ( giudici popolari), unlike other courts which are composed entirely of lawyers. Once a trial has been concluded and judgement passed, a party found guilty can appeal the decision to an appeal court. If the appeal fails, it may be possible to appeal to the supreme court, but only on the grounds of the wrong interpretation or application of the law by a judge."

 

[Numbers]

https://www.justlanded.com/english/Italy/Articles/Visas-Permits/Legal-System

"Criminal Courts in Italy

The criminal legal process involves judges, tribunals and assize courts ( corte d’assise), which include juries ( giudici popolari), unlike other courts which are composed entirely of lawyers. Once a trial has been concluded and judgement passed, a party found guilty can appeal the decision to an appeal court. If the appeal fails, it may be possible to appeal to the supreme court, but only on the grounds of the wrong interpretation or application of the law by a judge."

This is not correct.

The Italian Constitution provides that a case can always be appealed to the Court of Supreme Cassation after the first appeal. By Italial procedural law, either or both sides may appeal (even a winning prosecutor may appeal).

The Italian Constitution in Article 111 states in its relevant clause: Appeals to the Court of Cassation are always allowed in cases of violation of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

The grounds for appeal are not simply restricted to the alleged incorrect interpretation or application of the law by a judge. The actual allowed reasons for appeal are provided for in Italian procedural law, CPP Article 606. They include, for example, under Article 606.1 (e), that an appeal may be based on the grounds of the lower court judgment having been lacking, contradictory, or illogical.

Thus, under CPP Article 606.1 (e) an alleged incorrect interpretation of evidence is an allowed reason for an appeal, and this means that the CSC may review the evidence as recorded in the records of the lower courts with respect to the lower court's interpretation of evidence.

There is also a provision, CPP Article 606.1 (d), for the CSC to review a lower court judgment based on an appeal alleging failure of admission of decisive evidence by the lower court when requested by a party at the trial evidentiary hearing.

The CSC also has the legal authority to "decide on the issues raised ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings and on those issues which could not have been raised at the appeal stage"; CPP Article 609.2. The ex officio issues would include, under Italian procedural law, questions about failure by judges to admit or exclude evidence, since CPP Articles 190 and 191 include provisions for judges admitting or excluding evidence ex officio.

There is no mechanism for the CSC to hear new evidence, but it may take note of written legal and factual information.

 

[Mike1711]

This is not correct.

The Italian Constitution provides that a case can always be appealed to the Court of Supreme Cassation after the first appeal. By Italial procedural law, either or both sides may appeal (even a winning prosecutor may appeal).

The Italian Constitution in Article 111 states in its relevant clause: Appeals to the Court of Cassation are always allowed in cases of violation of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.

The grounds for appeal are not simply restricted to the alleged incorrect interpretation or application of the law by a judge. The actual allowed reasons for appeal are provided for in Italian procedural law, CPP Article 606. They include, for example, under Article 606.1 (e), that an appeal may be based on the grounds of the lower court judgment having been lacking, contradictory, or illogical.

Thus, under CPP Article 606.1 (e) an alleged incorrect interpretation of evidence is an allowed reason for an appeal, and this means that the CSC may review the evidence as recorded in the records of the lower courts with respect to the lower court's interpretation of evidence.

There is also a provision, CPP Article 606.1 (d), for the CSC to review a lower court judgment based on an appeal alleging failure of admission of decisive evidence by the lower court.

The CSC also has the legal authority to "decide on the issues raised ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings and on those issues which could not have been raised at the appeal stage"; CPP Article 609.2. The ex officio issues would include, under Italian procedural law, questions about failure by judges to admit or exclude evidence, since CPP Articles 190 and 191 include provisions for judges admitting or excluding evidence ex officio.

There is no mechanism for the CSC to hear new evidence, but it may take note of written legal and factual information.

It is correct....and so too are you, Numbers.

As I posted earlier it's time matters such as the AK/RS case were brought to the Italian Constitional Court. Until this happens the contradiction between Constitution and Law remain. The only way to change unconstitutional law is through the Constitutional Court. Unless somebody does this the law remains.

 

[andreajo]

If a lower court made a finding "the earth is flat" the verdict would immediately be overturned as perverse, with queues of expert witnesses long enough to go around the Equator several times.

Whilst a judge in a merits court has indeed wide-ranging powers and a broad remit to come to the verdict, it is constrained by the bounds of reasonableness. Nowhere does Nencii or Chieffi say Massei was perverse or unreasonable.

Bruno-Marasca had to go seriously left-field in their written reasons, blaming the "incompetent" police investigation and the media attention, neither of which were mentioned during the merits trial.

As I say, they have ruled that Amanda was there, covered in Mez blood, covered for sex assaulter Rudy, yet there is no proof she was involved.

Seriously, WHAT?!

I agree with you that it is unlikely that B/M both believed that Amanda Knox was present and covered in Meredith's blood and that there was insufficient evidence to convict. My take is the reverse of yours, though. I see the acquittal as being the main thrust of the report. I therefore believe that it is unlikely that your interpretation of the 'rulings' on blood-covered presence at the murder is correct.

A recent Twitter convo I read summed it up clearly and succinctly:

"Amanda Knox was never declared innocent."

"Of course she was ya <person lacking the sense God gave a goose>. They let her go, didn't they?"

 

[Numbers]

It is correct....and so too are you, Numbers.

As I posted earlier it's time matters such as the AK/RS case were brought to the Italian Constitional Court. Until this happens the contradiction between Constitution and Law remain. The only way to change unconstitutional law is through the Constitutional Court. Unless somebody does this the law remains.

Only a court may bring a question or case to the Italian Constitutional Court, as I understand Italian procedural law. There is no provision for persons to bring such cases, IIUC. If you are aware of any provision for an individual (not a court) to bring such a case, please post the citation.

I think the contradiction you are suggesting may depend on an incorrect restrictive reading of the Constitution; "always allowed in cases of violation of the law" does not mean "only allowed in cases of violation of the law". The actual Italian procedural law allows appeals in addition to those based on questions of interpretation of law, but also on the grounds of judgment and admission of decisive evidence.

In fact, CPP Article 530.2 requires a judge to acquit if there is insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the accused committed the crime, so a conviction judgment in the face of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof is a violation of Italian law. Thus, the CSC must review the record of evidence in an appeal where the reasons for appeal include the allegation that the grounds of the conviction were insufficient, contradictory or lacking (including illogical), to conform to Article 111 of the Italian Constitution.