Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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.

But I thought you were happy with Bruno-Marasca?

Read past the first few pages and you can find the real crux of the matter hidden away in the back pages. Welcome to my world.

 

[Vixen]

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.

It is only inane because the Pollyanna-style method of "Whistle a happy tune" whilst firmly covering your ears with your hands renders all inane, even the implications of the report.

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens,
bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens,
brown paper packages tied up with strings,
these are a few of my favorite things.

Why are we discussing the Bruno-Marasca report? acbytesla is right.

 

[Grinder]

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.

AIUI people here believe that when some court rules on something it becomes a fact that the next court can not change. I believe that it is a custom that a ISC panel will respect another's findings but only as circumstantial evidence to be considered by the next court. For me an example would be a coroner's ruling a death is a murder would be used by the trial court as evidence but the defense could argue against the ruling.

Here people have stated that the multiple attacker "fact" was established by Rudi's ISC final judgment. Of course, even if that is the case, it wouldn't mean the others had to be A&R.

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.

 

[Grinder]

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.

FOR THESE REASONS
Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the
ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because
the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric
because the appellants did not commit the act.
Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the
crime of calumny in three years of confinement.
Thus decided 27/03/2015

Clear now?

 

[Numbers]

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.

It's important to note that the Italian system is not identical to the US, UK, or SA systems.

Here is a reference that provides some detail on the Italian Constitutional Court:

www.commonlii.org/in/journals/INJlConLaw/2010/1.pdf
page 4

Here is a summary:

The Italian Constitutional Court is a separate entity from the ordinary Italian judicial system. It is defined in the Constitution in Articles 134, 135 and 137. Article 137 states that its necessary functions are to be specified by law.

The Italian Constitutional Court provides indirect review of the constitutionality of laws, arising out of cases before the ordinary courts. One of the parties, or the judge, in a case before an ordinary court may raise a question of the constitutionality of the law relating to the case. If the judge agrees that there is a question, the judge pauses the ordinary court proceedings and prepares a "certification order" which is sent to the Constitutional Court, defining the issue including the specific law and constitutional provision in question.

Only the Italian national or a regional government may directly file a case with the Constitutional Court, and that is only for the review of a disputed law within 60 days of its passage.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That's right, I was using what I thought was a simple example of empirical method with my old chemistry teacher's words still ringing in my ears as a fresh-faced 11-year old..

"1h, I am going to ask you what are these two substances I have in front of me."

"Water and washing up liquid, sir."

"No. In my class, this is an odourless, colourless, tasteless liquid with a neutral pH..."

Etc.

I don't agree Bruno-Marasca were being 'scientific' when they said "selective cleaning is impossible", bearing in mind only a very limited part of the murder room was DNA tested, and even then, what would it mean in the case of someone resident there; it could come from any date.

People who go into law tend to be wordsmiths rather than hard scientists.

When I was in insolvency practice, the lawyers were always asking me to do their calculations for them.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Disagree all you want. That is your right. Yet to my reading, it is the reason why (in Sections 9.4 to the end of Section 9) M/B can review all those judicially generated factoids, synoptically summarize them......

....... and still say they prove nothing.

 

[Numbers]

AIUI people here believe that when some court rules on something it becomes a fact that the next court can not change. I believe that it is a custom that a ISC panel will respect another's findings but only as circumstantial evidence to be considered by the next court. For me an example would be a coroner's ruling a death is a murder would be used by the trial court as evidence but the defense could argue against the ruling.

Here people have stated that the multiple attacker "fact" was established by Rudi's ISC final judgment. Of course, even if that is the case, it wouldn't mean the others had to be A&R.

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.

What is being referred to is that a final judgment in one case may be used as evidence in another, later case. That is Italian procedural law, I don't have the CPP article at hand. I am sure this was discussed previously on ISF, by me and others.

What the Marasca CSC panel MR criticized as contrary to Italian law and constitution is use of the final judgment of Guede's fast-track trial to introduce Guede's unexamined statements into the Knox - Sollecito trial by Nencini. This is one of their grounds for annulling Nencini's verdict. I discussed this in a previous post on ISF.

Marasca did not go so far as to dispute the CSC final judgment that Guede had co-conspirators. That was not at issue before the Marasca CSC panel. There was no credible evidence that the co-conspirators were Knox or Sollecito. Of course, there was no credible evidence of any co-conspirators presented by the prosecution. That does not necessarily mean that were no co-conspirators, but if there were, the prosecution never presented any evidence of a perp other than Guede, such as, for example, DNA from the murder room or Meredith's body.

The DNA evidence allegedly obtained from the bra strap hook is not credible because of the issues of contamination and the irregular way Stefanoni tested it. That includes the apparent secretly performed double testing as discussed at www.amandaknoxcase.com.

 

[Vixen]

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?"

In the UK a potentially guilty person can be acquitted on the grounds of a mistrial. One case that springs to mind is the one featuring singer Tulisa and the secret sheikh (_sp?), a tabloid news reporter who disguised himself as someone wanting to buy cocaine so that he could write an article about Tulisa procuring cocaine from a dealer.

It was ruled an unethical way to attain a 'story', so was thrown out.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't agree Bruno-Marasca were being 'scientific' when they said "selective cleaning is impossible", bearing in mind only a very limited part of the murder room was DNA tested, and even then, what would it mean in the case of someone resident there; it could come from any date.
People who go into law tend to be wordsmiths rather than hard scientists.

When I was in insolvency practice, the lawyers were always asking me to do their calculations for them.

It's telling that guilters go back and forth on this issue of, "DNA cannot be dated," depending on what they're talking about.

If it is an untested, presumed semen stain, it is all right not to test it because, as Massei said, even if they found the owner of the semen they'd not be able to put a date to the time of deposit.

Yet the DNA against Knox and Sollecito...... horrors, the DNA has a "best before" date like bread at the supermarket.

So much for being a wordsmith.

 

[Bill Williams]

In the UK a potentially guilty person can be acquitted on the ground sof a mistrial. One case that springs to mind is the one featuring singer Tulisa and the secret sheikh (_sp?), a tabloid news reporter who disguised himself as someone wanting to buy cocaine so that he could write an article about Tulisa procuring cocaine from a dealer.

It was ruled an unethical way to attain a 'story', so was thrown out.

Which has nothing to do with this case, because as Grinder kindly quoted from M/B....

FOR THESE REASONS
Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the
ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because
the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric
because the appellants did not commit the act.Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the
crime of calumny in three years of confinement.
Thus decided 27/03/2015​

You always miss that part. I wonder why?

 

[Numbers]

That's right, I was using what I thought was a simple example of empirical method with my old chemistry teacher's word still ringing in my ears as a fresh-faced 11-year old..

"1h, I am going to ask you what are these two substances I have in front of me."

"Water and washing up liquid, sir."

"No. In my class, this is an odourless, colourless, tasteless liquid with a neutral pH..."

Etc.

I don't agree Bruno-Marasca were being 'scientific' when they said "selective cleaning is impossible", bearing in mind only a very limited part of the murder room was DNA tested, and even then, what would it mean in the case of someone resident there; it could come from any date. People who go into law tend to be wordsmiths rather than hard scientists.

When I was in insolvency practice, the lawyers were always asking me to do their calculations for them.

Your statement makes no sense.

DNA as deposited is not visible to the naked eye, and one cannot therefore select some DNA to be cleaned rather than some other DNA.

Likewise, blood from one person cannot be observed to be different from another person by the naked eye.

One must do biochemical testing in either case: to tell one person's DNA or blood from another's. It is absurd to believe that Meredith's murder had such test equipment, equivalent to a forensic lab, available.

 

[Vixen]

FOR THESE REASONS
Pursuant to Article 620 letter A) Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; annuls the
ruling under appeal with respect to the crime under charge B) of the rubric because
the crime is extinct due to statute of limitations;
pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric
because the appellants did not commit the act.
Recalculates the sentence imposed upon appellant Amanda Maria Knox for the
crime of calumny in three years of confinement.
Thus decided 27/03/2015

Clear now?

Not really. The Italian word here is the equivalent of "=drops the charges", not acquitted, which implies they can still be charged.

 

[Mike1711]

It's important to note that the Italian system is not identical to the US, UK, or SA systems.

Here is a reference that provides some detail on the Italian Constitutional Court:

www.commonlii.org/in/journals/INJlConLaw/2010/1.pdf
page 4

Here is a summary:

The Italian Constitutional Court is a separate entity from the ordinary Italian judicial system. It is defined in the Constitution in Articles 134, 135 and 137. Article 137 states that its necessary functions are to be specified by law.

The Italian Constitutional Court provides indirect review of the constitutionality of laws, arising out of cases before the ordinary courts. One of the parties, or the judge, in a case before an ordinary court may raise a question of the constitutionality of the law relating to the case. If the judge agrees that there is a question, the judge pauses the ordinary court proceedings and prepares a "certification order" which is sent to the Constitutional Court, defining the issue including the specific law and constitutional provision in question.

Only the Italian national or a regional government may directly file a case with the Constitutional Court, and that is only for the review of a disputed law within 60 days of its passage.

Seems pretty straight forward.

 

[Vixen]

Your statement makes no sense.

DNA as deposited is not visible to the naked eye, and one cannot therefore select some DNA to be cleaned rather than some other DNA.

Likewise, blood from one person cannot be observed to be different from another person by the naked eye.

One must do biochemical testing in either case: to tell one person's DNA or blood from another's. It is absurd to believe that Meredith's murder had such test equipment, equivalent to a forensic lab, available.

There was zero DNA obtained of Rudy in Filomena's room, scene of the 'burglary', yet you never argue that it's "impossible for Rudy to have selectively cleaned up his DNA whilst leaving the mixed DNA of Mez and Amanda".

IMV if a perp commits what he or she knows is a crime, they are perfectly capable of selective cleaning. Commonsense says you wipe those areas you believe you've come into contact with. It's not rocket science. Even if it is difficult, it is not "impossible".

How do you account for Rudy's missing footsteps in the hallway?

 

[Bill Williams]

There was zero DNA obtained of Rudy in Filomena's room, scene of the 'burglary', yet you never argue that it's "impossible for Rudy to have selectively cleaned up his DNA whilst leaving the mixed DNA of Mez and Amanda".

IMV if a perp commits what he or she knows is a crime, they are perfectly capable of selective cleaning. Commonsense says you wipe those areas you believe you've come into contact with. It's not rocket science. Even if it is difficult, it is not "impossible".

How do you account for Rudy's missing footsteps in the hallway?

If found, DNA of people who live in the cottage is not particularly interesting. You yourself a few posts ago said that DNA cannot be dated.

Did the PLE do a thorough forensic sweep of Filomena's room? Probably not. Mixed DNA outside of Meredith's room only becomes interesting in the guilter-mind when it is conceded that there is NO forensic presence of either Raffaele or Amanda in Meredith's room.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really. The Italian word here is the equivalent of "=drops the charges", not acquitted, which implies they can still be charged.

Yes really. It's bizarre you would say this.

 

[Welshman]

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 has refused to address the issue I raised in my post which is how can Vixen and other PGP be in a position to attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying when they lie themselves and condone and ignore the lies of others. The term hater is perfectly appropriate because PGP have a virulent hatred of Amanda.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

Wrong again.

Facts established in law may be wrong but they remain legal facts.

Such a legal fact which is not necessarily correct is:-

George W. Bush won the Florida State in his first presidential election. Legal fact? Yes but actual fact? ??????????????? Dunno.

 

[Grinder]

Not really. The Italian word here is the equivalent of "=drops the charges", not acquitted, which implies they can still be charged.

Here's the Google translation:

In view of art . 620 letter . a) cod.proc.pen . , annuls the contested judgment without referring the concerning the offense referred to in Chapter b ) of the address book to be extinct The offense for r
the
prescription; and the
having regard to Articles . 620 letter . I) and 530 , paragraph 2 cod . proc . pen .; Excluding the aggravating
art. 61 n , 2 cod. pen . , in connection with the crime of slander , cancels without the referral
t
the
F
k
judgment in regard to the offenses referred to in Chapters a) , d) and e ) of section for not v the applicants have committed the crime .
THE
!
It restates the sentence imposed on the applicant Amanda Marie Knox for the murder of 1 4 slander in three years ' imprisonment . the
t
F
So decided on 27.03.2015

You said M&B never said they were not guilty and they did.

Where do you get the idea the case can be reopened?

What did you specifically find wrong with the Hellmann ruling?

You do understand civil law is much more complicated than criminal law.