Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

As ask before can you provide any credible source that says lower courts establish judicial facts before the ISC writes them up?

What evidence is there against Rudi that proves he was involved in the murder versus being there as he admits?

They didn't just echo with strong suspicions.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Thanks for this. I particularly appreciate the cites of the applicable Italian laws. Do you happen to know if this concept of "judicial fact" is actually a law in Italy and if so, at what time in the process does it get set in stone?

Cheli writes about it as if it only takes place at the ISC level and for example the multiple attackers was something M&B had to accept. Cheli indicates M&B, while bound by the ruling, not only accepted the "judicial fact" but expanded on it showing they totally believe the fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for this. I particularly appreciate the cites of the applicable Italian laws. Do you happen to know if this concept of "judicial fact" is actually a law in Italy and if so, at what time in the process does it get set in stone?

Cheli writes about it as if it only takes place at the ISC level and for example the multiple attackers was something M&B had to accept. Cheli indicates M&B, while bound by the ruling, not only accepted the "judicial fact" but expanded on it showing they totally believe the fact.

Damn - I'm still looking for the owner/originator of the observation....

But this is what was meant by that poster who said that this whole case was composed of "judicially generated evidence," rather than the kind of evidence those of us way, way up in the bleachers think of when we think of..... ah, er, evidence.

So.... M&B riffed off of one judicially generated fact to expand on it? Great! It becomes a slightly better judicially generated fact, but judicially generated nonetheless.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for this. I particularly appreciate the cites of the applicable Italian laws. Do you happen to know if this concept of "judicial fact" is actually a law in Italy and if so, at what time in the process does it get set in stone?

Cheli writes about it as if it only takes place at the ISC level and for example the multiple attackers was something M&B had to accept. Cheli indicates M&B, while bound by the ruling, not only accepted the "judicial fact" but expanded on it showing they totally believe the fact.

I am unsure exactly what people mean when they write about something being a "judicial fact" and whether the reference is to a legal provision or to a custom of the Italian courts. It is true that certain judgments of the CSC are final and definitive according to Italian law, but there are exceptions.

An acquittal by the CSC is indeed final and definitive, but a "final" conviction - that is, one confirmed by the CSC - may be subject to a revision trial under the provisions of CPP Article 630 and Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011. Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011 is the one that allows for a revision trial when it is necessary to reopen proceedings in order to comply with a final judgment of the ECHR.

A regular CSC panel does not have authority to overturn a previous final conviction judgment; only a revision trial has that authority, according to CPP Article 648. The revision trial judgment itself may be appealed to the CSC.

In the Italian system, legal and factual findings of a first-instance trial court may be challenged by the second-level appeal court, and the appeal court is allowed, on the decision of the appeal judge, to hear the entire case or parts of it - including evidence - de novo; CPP Article 602.

Another provision of Italian law is that in a referral trial (one held after an annulment of a trial by the CSC), "the referral judge shall conform to the judgment of the Court of Cassation as regards any issue of law it has decided upon"; CPP Article 627.3. Note that the wording does not include "issues of fact", which are the domain of the referral court.

CPP Article 628.2 states: The judgment of the referral judge may, in any case, only be appealed for arguments which do not concern the issues already decided by the Court of Cassation or due to failures to comply with the provision of CPP Article 627.3. Again, note that this must be a reference to issues of law as decided by the CSC.

It seems to me that "judicial fact" refers to either final decisions of the CSC as laid out as certain (not hypothetical or a possibility) in a CSC motivation report (which meaning may have some legal basis) or to any statement by any court that other courts, under customary "professional courtesy", subsequently choose not to challenge (which meaning has no apparent legal basis).

 

[Numbers]

I should correct my quote from the Italian Constitution Article 111. It should read:

The Italian Constitution in Article 111 states in its relevant clause: Appeals to the Court of Cassation 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.

 

[Vixen]

I have posted this before but I thought I would give Vixen another reminder of how hypocritical it is for her and other PGP to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying :-

* The prosecution told numerous lies which can be found on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html. The prosecution released false information to the media about the purchase of bleach receipts, the washing machine running, Amanda showering in a bloody bathroom, a missing Harry Potter book . The prosecution lied in court. Stefanoni lied about the amount of picograms on Raffaele's knife, Comodi lied in court about the time Amanda called her mother, Stefanoni lied about changing gloves and prosecutor Crini lied saying that Raffaele's knife matched the imprint on Meredith's bed. The haters slavishly defenend corrupt prosecutors who told numerous lies.

* The haters have spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele's supporters. Below is an extract from the chapter "The Truth About the Hate Campaign Against Amanda Knox" Finding Justice in Perugia about the lies the haters have spread about Candace Dempsey :-

Ganong claims that Candace lied about her age on her Linked In account when in fact it was a typo. Candace's age was listed as 20 years younger than it actually was. Who would attempt to shave 20 years off their age? Ganong knows it was a typo but the truth is of little importance. Ganong‘s friend Andrea Vogt asked Candace about the Linked In error while they were both covering the case in Italy. There is no doubt that Vogt relayed the information about the typo back to Ganong.

Ganong often repeats her claim that Candace lied about working at the Spokesman-Review early in her career; when in fact Candace was a summer intern, working all the beats, including courts and police. The lie claim began when Monica Guzman of the Seattle PI interviewed Candace about her book deal in 2008. Guzman asked Candace where she got her training and she said, "At the Spokesman-Review." End of story. Peggy has been calling her a liar ever since. This despite the fact that the Spokesman-Review itself interviewed Candace for her book a year later and said she was a summer intern there.

* Books, documentaries and films about the case are often riddled with falsehoods. The following are examples :-

John Kercher's book Meredith. The falsehoods are detailed on http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox...arable-damage-caused-by-wrongful-convictions/ http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870&sid=82fc62b3185cbd71f41e0c2cd6559958

The lifetime move the falsehoods are detailed in chapter 2 of finding justice in Perugia.

Barbara Nadeu's book Angel Face. As with John Kercher's book the falsehoods are detailed on http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/ and the chapter Injustice in Perugia on the media.

A documentary on British Television is Amanda Knox guilty the rebuttal can be found by searching "is Amanda Knox guilty youtube rebuttal"

John Follain's book which are detailed

The haters have never complained about the falsehoods in the items listed above. In fact, John Kercher's book Meredith received glowing 5 star reviews on Amazon.

* The haters spread lies in the comments sections of articles about the case and Amazon reviews.

Heiress Amazon review WTBH - "For starters was found cleaning the place with bleach when the police arrived". Truth: Amanda was not caught cleaning when the police arrived.

Bejamin Fletcher "BRFC are back" Amazon review WTBH - "They've found Meredith's blood on a knife in his apartment". Truth: There was no blood on Meredith's knife.

Christina comments page 7 Amazon review WTBH - "whose is the female fooprint who applied female sized bruises on MK's neck in strangulation" Truth: There were no female footprints in Meredith's room or female thumbprints on Meredith's neck.

JF Rodrigue Amazon review WTBH - " She was doing cartwheels in the police station." Truth: It has been proved Amanda did not do cartwheels.

Wendy Murphy in her blog - "pro Amanda forces forget to note the knife was found hidden in a shoebox far back inside a coset at Sollecitito's apartment and that the knife had been scrubbed with bleach." Truth:The knife was found in Raffaele's kitchen drawer and the knife had not been cleaned with bleach.

* The haters have set up a fake themurderofmeredithkercher.com which is full of falsehoods. These falsehoods are detailed here http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/anti-amanda-knox-deceptive-wiki/ and here http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-interrogation/. The haters have lied saying their wiki is based on court documents when in fact their website contains claims which do not appear in court documents. For instance the website claims one of Meredith's friends was so concerned aboout Amanda's behaviour she went to the police. This never happened and does not appear in court documents. The wiki lies about the contents of court documents. The wiki claims the knife tested for Meredith's biological material when in fact C&V wrote in their report the knife tested negative for the human species.

* The haters have on TJMK have lied about Amanda's father saying he used to beat Amanda and her mother. No evidence has emerged Kurt Knox beat Amanda or her mother.

* TJMK has often used the claims of people who lied about their credentials. For instance, TJMK promoted Ellie Ewing a woman who created a blog "lies my mother told me" where she represented herself as a psychologists with many years of experience when dicussing the murder of Meredith Kercher. The reaility was Ellie Ewing had no experience or qualifications as a psychologist.

* There were instances of witnesses lying in this case. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner.

* Rudy Guede lied about having a date with Meredith and someone else attacked Meredith. The haters have never attacked Rudy for lying. In fact, many haters support and defend Rudy.

* The Chiefi report written to annull the Hellman aquittal and the Nenci motivation report were full of falsehoods. The falsehoods can be found by searching "Injustice anywhere forum Nenci stupid errors" and "Injustice Anywhere forum Chieffi report errors". The haters never complained about these the falsehoods in these reports.

The haters accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying but lie themselves and have condoned and ignored the lies of others. The mind boggles at this hypocrisy.

You don't do yourself any favours by calling the public "haters". It's not a Justin Bieber fanclub full of 11-year olds where anyone who doesn't like him is a "hater". It's grown adults here.

 

[Vixen]

Bill,

This whole concept of "judicial facts" is a strange law indeed. What surprises me about Italian Law is that Judicial Facts seem beyond the scope of a defendant's appeal.

In South Africa only the State has no right to overturn erroneous facts of finding in lower court rulings. This I think is fair and correct in terms of double jeopardy. Even if new evidence comes to the fore this still does not allow for an appeal by the state.

In Italy it seems erroneous findings of fact remain cast in stone in the event of defendants appeal, as was the case in the AK/RS appeal. The only way around this for a defendant would be, I think, to go to the Constituional Court in Italy. This is the case in South Africa which has human rights embedded in the Constitution.

Similarly so in Italy as I understand things.

It's time for someone to challenge this absurdity of Italian Law in their Constitutional Court and the AK/RS would be a good start. There is a belief in South Africa that Oscar Pistorius may challenge his murder conviction in the Constitutional Court. I don't think he has much chance but he will do anything to delay going back to jail.

It emphasises the need to get it right at the First Instance court. For example, it was no good the defence making an application for the pillow stain to tested after the trial, when its strategy was to 'keep shtum' about it during the trial. A judge is bound to be tempted to dismiss it on the grounds of 'out of time' and a suspicion of bad faith motive.

 

[Vixen]

....yes and even if these legal facts were true, the actual reality of which is beyond the scope of the B/M court, then RS and AK are still innocent.

In other words giving full credence to the prosecutions absurd theory it still proves nothing.

Nowhere in their MR do Bruno-Marasca state the pair are innocent, 'did not do it' or that they are 'exonerated'.

In fact, what they have actually done is drop the charges, which means in theory, the pair can be charged again with the same crime, without any double jeopardy.

 

[Vixen]

I agree totally with your logic. The law is.....as they say, an ass.

A "point of law" differs from a "point of fact" in legal terms only. It's the system.

AK/RS were acquitted on points of law. There was no other way to do it. Italian law states you must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The B/M court ruled on a point of law. It is a legal nonsense to convict a person on the basis that "they were there" without proof that "they did it".

It is pretty obvious that the B/M court did some pretty nifty legal gymnastics to ensure avoiding a judgement in contradiction of the "points of fact".

When I studied law as part of my university degree (about 40 years ago) it was a commonly held view (rightly or wrongly, but my lecture, Professor Raymond Suttner seemed pretty sure) that Italian Law floundered under a confused system based on a thinly disguised presumption of guilt. Looking back I can now understand the convoluted Italian legal system to which Prof. Suttner alluded. (Prof. Suttner was a highly controversial anti apartheid activist who was constantly harassed by the apartheid government. His abilities and credentials are beyond reproach...(in case you feel inclined to discount an apartheid era academic).

Strangely enough the apartheid era government had a pretty astute legal system which by and large undermined the apartheid government. I mention this because the enlightened Judges of those days often had to couch their judgements carefully, mindful of the fact that they had to stay within the bounds of a very flawed legal system.

It is obvious to me that the B/M court did likewise. The AK/RS case prior to the B/M finality is a minefield of absurdity. Hellmann saw this and was admonished severely by the "clan".

Judges are very reluctant to admonish lower court "factual errors" (see Oscar Pistorius appeal) and the B/M court did a pretty fine job of finding innocence without treading on toes. (other than the pro-guilt fools.)

The B/M court saw the case for what it is. Woefully lacking in evidence and motive. Referring the case to a lower court in light of this was pointless as there is no case based on the dreadful investigation which proved nothing other than investigative incompetence. The reason for this is obviously that Mignini had "solved the case"'and needed to taylor the evidence.

Without being obvious the B/M court said in their judgement that the lower courts (other than Hellmann) and the investigators were a disgrace.

This is what the press said and that is the truth. The pro-guilters just cannot countenance such a verdict and will do whatever they can to descredit the judgement.

This highlights nicely that courts of law are instruments of the state and it is always good to read of policemen and women, barristers and judges who will find ways of cocking a snook at bad law in the interests of human rights. For example, you often hear of a kindly policeman turning a blind eye to a wayward youngster found drunk at the wheel of a car or involved in petty crime.

However, this human rights attitude doesn't work for psychopathic killers, because (a) psychopaths do not learn from their mistakes , (b) they are unconsionable, they have no remorse, (c) they have a sense of entitlement, (d) they feel no distress about their personality disorder and rarely, if ever, seek treatment, (e) they have a need for instant gratification and will only worry about the consequences later, (f) their emotions are extremely shallow, with rage being their only real emotion, often resulting in tragedy, as in the Kercher case, (g) they are constantly restless, always seeking change and thus (h) they often cause chaos in their wake, (i) badly injuring all those in their path, including Good Samaritans, kindly cops, Innocent Project human rights lawyers, well-meaning journalists, supportive family members, etc.

The psychopath will use all these good, kind, decent people quite happily, knowing they are indeed guilty but happy to play a masquerade. Victims of con-merchants often feel badly hurt and are left with post-traumatic stress symptoms. The psychopath could not care less about any of this, which is why my recommendation is to turn around and run away fast from having any contact with this type. If you think one day Amanda and Raff will thank you when they have their $'000m's in their pockets, you are probably setting yourself up for a big disappointment. Especially when it dawns on you, you have been duped and used.

 

[Vixen]

Machiavelli is a puzzle. I've crossed swords with him many times in this thread in past continuations. He's bested me a few times - but when he is bested he slightly modifies and ushers in formerly unspoken conditions to explain why he could claim to have been formerly "right" even without the conditions.

The contortions he's willing to enter into are incredible. The one which tops the cake is his view of Anna Donnino, the police translator from the night of Nov 5/6 2007. He readily admitted that she acted more than a translator - more than just someone who stayed with the project of ensuring that each side understood the nuance of idiom of each language.

He agreed wholeheartedly with Donnino herself that she was right to act as a **mediator** between two parties who were at an impasse. Mach was quite accepting that Donnino was right to insert herself into the interrogation in her suggestions to Knox that she had simply forgotten, because of trauma, much like Donnino herself had similarly forgotten because of her own trauma on another matter.

Indeed, Mach called her intervention like a diplomat would do.

Every time I've tried to quit this case and move on to something else, I've run into malarky like that which is, frankly, irresistibly intriguing!

Mach's take on the M/B report when all we unilingual-English speakers had were machine translations was similar. When a competent translation came out, it showed Mach was willing to massage the record to suit his agenda.


My own background is in professional accountability tribunals and policy, which has a different set of assumptions. I acted as a lay-judge in a professional accreditation hearing where the process was supervised by a staff-lawyer, and where the laws of evidence in our jurisdiction applied.

As the head-judge in one, it was my responsibility to write up what amounted to the "reason for judgement" for the case/decision based on preponderance of the evidence. As such, yes, it is limited experience - but I know something about the challenge of taking an already-decided-upon, quasi-judicial decision, and THEN have to write up the reasons.

The staff lawyer's role was one I very much appreciated because he never once did our job for us - being essentially the triers of fact as well as the arbitrators of process - but he kept us on the straight and narrow; knowing that everything we decided was essentially the subject of appeal in a civil court.

As such it's been fascinating reading through the motivation reports of the various courts. In the AK/RS process alone, there have been 5. Five!

As such the one comment (I wish I remember who said it, because it deserves citation!) which made the most sense to me was something akin to, "All the evidence against AK/RS was judicially generated." This included the evidence which was generated by a faulty investigation and prosecution - eventually accepted as "judicial fact" by one of the courts.

This also includes the DNA evidence, in that early on one of the defence lawyers petitioned that court to have access to Stefanoni's DNA data, the electronic data files etc. Stefanoni offered a compromise to what in most places is standard full disclosure (!) and the court backed Stefanoni, basically telling the defence, "Either call her a liar, or quit asking for full disclosure!"

In a country where calunnia and defamation is thrown around like a football, the defence backed down... and volia, DNA evidence was now a "judicial fact", despite being judicially tainted.

"All the evidence against AK/RS was judicially generated." This includes the original investigators eye-balling the potential climb in through Filomena's window, and instead of testing it simply declared it impossible.

And on and on. Having written reasons for judgement myself which (apparently) survived the urge to have it appealed, all this intrigues me.... apparently with no end!

I disagee with this platitude. Whilst Italy, like South Africa, it seems, is still largely tribunal-styled with a panel of judges gathering information and coming to verdicts between them, for which they have to provide written reasons and the defendant/s has automatic right of appeal, OTOH, they do have adversarial procedures as we know it in the UK and USA insofar the prosecution for the state and the defence have equal opportunity to present their case at trial stage. If the defence did a poor job, then they have to take responsibility as they had no excuse.

At the end of the trial, the judges have to uphold one side or the other, there can be no fence-sitting.

The merits court discovers the facts. It is therefore important the defence makes sure that any exculpatory facts are put forward.

It simply is not the case the prosecution have carte blanche. In the UK the police and prosecution were beginning to despair of trial by jury as juries tend to be sympathetic to the plight of the defendants, whom they can see in front of them, and often deliver a "not guilty" verdict because they want to "rescue" the defendant from jail.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks for this - however, your crack that this would be boring reveals a lot about the way you wish to spin this. Let's quote from it.....

​

Did you read that? The "supposed presence"? Which part of that is hard to understand - that what is to come in the rest of Section 9 is, in fact, the synoptic recreation from at least two sources - including from previous rulings (not just Nencini's). A synoptic recreation that is not meant to establish factuality......

.... but to demonstrate how contradictory and ludicrous the case always had been; based on a "supposed presence", one that even if true still means they should have been acquitted by Nencini.​

It's always worth bearing in mind that a legal use of a word is often very different from a colloquial usage. "Supposed" implies doubt in every day speech. To Bruno-Marasca they are saying "supposed presence [arising from the facts found]".​

 

[Vixen]

So, when Vixen posted the wrong info about the boiling and freezing points of water, was she lying or merely mistaken?

ROFL. "Bill", I am delighted to have given "John" such happiness.

 

[Vixen]

There's the problem right there. This is something you say. It has been adequately explained to you many times, yet you charge onward undaunted.

More importantly, no one in Italy is arguing as you are arguing. The most there has been is isolated reports that says that even though Marasca/Bruno acquitted, Amanda's fist memorale places her at the scene. No one in Italy is extending it to what "you say".

Why is that?

You also claim (contradicting your earlier post) that "they have ruled". They did not such thing.

To clarify, they reiterated what were the facts of the case, as ruled by the lower courts and rubberstamped by peer Chieffi. They ruled it was ruled and remains ruled, as opposed to dismissed or overturned, as defective.

 

[Vixen]

What proof is there that Rudy was involved in the murder? I don't claim to have the answer, but there is considerable circumstantial evidence, which on close examination stands up a conclusion of guilty to murder. Would I stake my life on it? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

The fact that people are convicted on less could account for the numerous innocent people behind bars. We live in an imperfect society with imperfect people living under imperfect laws. Are RK/RS innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. Would I put my life on it? Well I would be tempted if the right offer came along and proof could be established.


"Did they have Rudy's print in the murder knife?"
No that weapon is still at large.


"What did he think of the major revisions of the mid eighties?"
He = Suttner presumable and "major revisions" relates to South Africa, presumably?? Don't know. I graduated in 1981, but I do know he was part of an underground movement against the apartheid government in a very prominent way. I was involved as well but on a more low key menial level working for the opposition party to the Apartheid regime. That was the Progressive Federal Party led by Dr. Frederick Van Zyl Slabbert.

"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".
The Courts of Appeal in South Africa (and I presume in Italy) have some strange constraints which often result in strange writing. I haven't read the Oscar Appeal Report but will do so when I receive it, however the court of appeal slams the lower court judge, Judge Masipa, and then offers her an olive branch by commending her handling of the case. A case she got hopelessly wrong!! Weird stuff. Additionally the Court of Appeal in the Oscar case was forbidden by law to examine judicial facts. We all know the lower court screwed up the case and in the process introduced some weird "judicial facts" which are untouchable in the Appeal hearings. Italian Law appears to similar but more onerous oddities.

"How did Nencini change Massei's motive as it was a "fact"?"
Motive carries only circumstantial weight. I would think, for Nencini and Messei, motive is an embellishment to the case. If it's there, great but if it isn't it doesn't matter. Nencini could (should?) have left this out without having to alter his verdict. "Judicial facts" don't have specific definition and the fine line between what is fact and what is theory helps to confuse the process.

The Law is an Ass.

Think about it. A fact is a fact, or it was never a fact to begin with. How a judge interprets these facts are the points of law which can be appealed against.

Quite often, the appeal is there as the ethical right to correct any legal errors arising from the trial. In Masipa's case, she erred in treating the shooting of the person behind the bathroom door wrongly, leading to the defective verdict of culpable homicide, rather than first degree. This is what was successfully appealed.

 

[Vixen]

I think it is hysterical to read people from both sides trying to claim any court having a sensible ruling across the board. Hellmann was the closest IMO but he had his own weirdness such as the calumny verdict and Rudi losing his shoe during the murder.

M&B do clearly find them not guilty but go out of their way to expand on the multiple attacker theory (see Cheli) and do agree with the lower court's assessment of Amanda being there during the murder.

I don't believe anything becomes a judicial fact until ruled on by the ISC else Hellmann and Nencini couldn't have changed Massei's ruling. No ISC ruling (unless I missed it in Chieffi) ruled Amanda was there because of the statement or notes. M&B were not bound to say they agreed with Nencini on this point, but they did.

I still believe the thinking of the Italians is different from most of the west. They do put two and two together and get 5 sometimes, 4 other times and once in a while 3.

How much simpler it would be if they just said guilty or not guilty.

Hellmann's report was dreadful. Talk about an amateur.

IMV the problem with Italy is that the judges seem to enjoy trumping one another and quashing each other's verdicts.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

I apologise in quoting Wikipedia...

"A constitutional court is a high court that deals primarily with constitutional law. Its main authority is to rule on whether laws that are challenged are in fact unconstitutional, i.e., whether they conflict with constitutionally established rights and freedoms."

Courts, generally, do not bring actions. Individuals (in the broad sense of the term) do. Courts hear the arguments brought by individuals. "Rights and freedoms" belong to individuals and not courts.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Short of committing a murder in public or having a cctv recording, then it will be near inevitable 99.9% murder is solved by circumstantial evidence.

 

[Vixen]

No. We are not.

Misremembering = genuinely having faults in recall with no underlying intent to deceive.

Lying = deliberately and intentionally deceiving by giving a version of events that you know to be false.

Can the difference between the two be seen and understood now?

Amanda testified in court she had never suffered amnesia before.

In addition, when asked a question by a police officer you don't lead them up the garden path.

 

[Vixen]

In her book, (if she was Amanda) that would by lying.

Not really; it could be a broken thermometer.

 

[Vixen]

I keep thinking that someone is going to call me up and say, "fooled you!"

Glad to have spread such joy and hilarity.