Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Perhaps you should reword this to whether or not Bush received the most votes in Florida.

It is both a legal fact and an actual fact he won in FLA - look it up.

 

[Grinder]

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?

He only had blood on one shoe. Or we could go with your favorite, Hellmann, and imagine his shoe came off during the murder.

Least likely the kids cleaned only one side of his prints.

Since the PGP including you, accept the kids could have murdered Meredith without leaving a trace in her room why couldn't it have been Koko or some other accomplice of Rudi?

 

[Grinder]

Bill did you ever acknowledge Mignini didn't start the PR story in 2011 as you asserted?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill did you ever acknowledge Mignini didn't start the PR story in 2011 as you asserted?

I'm not sure the assertion was that Migini started the PR meme (per se) from that side of the fence, but it is clear that he cited what was - for him - the source of what he implied was a PR was against him and his prosecution. What was new (from what I could find) was Mignini claiming it.

But rather than Seattle, he cited the Narducci case, and particularly Douglas Preston for the PR war from Knox's side of the fence. There's no information I can find that, before losing with the Hellmann verdict in 2001, that he cited some other PR campaign, particularly one controled by the Mellas's, or coming from Marriott's firm.

That one, in my view, was an invention of Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau when they found their voice diminished in the USA, once Rolling Stone and the NYTimes started reporting the case in earnest.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - here's "The Guardian" piece by Tom Kington, the day of the 2011 acquittal, the one where Mignini implied he was losing the case due to a conspiracy (note, this was based on an interview immediately before the 2011 verdict was announced):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/03/giuliano-mignini-knox-prosecutor-conspiracy

Just before the final summing up in the Knox appeal began, Mignini discussed his handling of an older case, the "Monster of Florence" serial killer, and his belief that his investigation of the 1985 death of a freemason, Francesco Narducci, that he linked to the case was mysteriously blocked.

"I have felt under attack ever since I investigated Narducci," he told the Guardian. "It all started there."​

Mignini has claimed Douglas Preston, the US novelist who challenged Mignini's theories about the Monster of Florence, is masterminding a US press campaign against him over his handling of the Knox case. "It's all Preston," he said.

So it was unsurprising that Mignini should add a touch of conspiracy theory to his summing up in the Knox appeal, claiming that "our judicial system has been subjected to a systematic denigration by a well-organised operation of a journalistic and political nature".​

Not surprisingly, a former regular poster to this very thread agreed with Mignini on that last part!

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure the assertion was that Migini started the PR meme (per se) from that side of the fence, but it is clear that he cited what was - for him - the source of what he implied was a PR was against him and his prosecution. What was new (from what I could find) was Mignini claiming it.

But rather than Seattle, he cited the Narducci case, and particularly Douglas Preston for the PR war from Knox's side of the fence. There's no information I can find that, before losing with the Hellmann verdict in 2001, that he cited some other PR campaign, particularly one controled by the Mellas's, or coming from Marriott's firm.

That one, in my view, was an invention of Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau when they found their voice diminished in the USA, once Rolling Stone and the NYTimes started reporting the case in earnest.

Ah but is that what you said?

People who continue to think AK/RS guilty of something, tend to pull out accusations of a massive PR campaign in the United States. This PR campaign is supposed to have been masterminded by Knox's family and a second-tier PR firm in Seattle.

The truth?

The truth is that one of the origins of this PR campaign myth is Giuliano Mignini himself. After the Oct 2011 acquittals he told the UK's The Guardian:


It is interesting to see how this canard has migrated over the years.

Yes he talked about Narducci in 2011 but the PR Supertanker meme had been in this case for years at that time. He wasn't an originator of this.

 

[Vixen]

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.

From a professional translator (not google translate). Source: Machiavelli, on TJMK, for it is he:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]

Read that last sentence twice.

In their summary, Bruno-Marasca cite Section 530 Para II by reason of insufficient evidence. Where they say "not guilty" or "did not do it" they are simply citing what it says in the text book under article 530 para 2, verbatim.

What was wrong with Hellmann? He allowed his own sentimental opinions seep in and acted outside of his remit, like some avuncular clown giving kids sweets at Christmas.

ETA The full article is well worth a read, here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...anslation_of_the_marasca_bruno_report_7_of_7/

 

[Vixen]

He only had blood on one shoe. Or we could go with your favorite, Hellmann, and imagine his shoe came off during the murder.

Least likely the kids cleaned only one side of his prints.

Since the PGP including you, accept the kids could have murdered Meredith without leaving a trace in her room why couldn't it have been Koko or some other accomplice of Rudi?

Nice try, but there was also a massive gap between his footsteps in the hallway and the bare footprint on the bathmat.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
What was wrong with Hellmann? He allowed his own sentimental opinions to seep in and acted outside of his remit, like some avuncular clown giving kids sweets at Christmas.

Wow! And here I thought it was Massei who 'allowed his own sentimental opinions to seep in and acted outside of his remit' what with his reliance on Stefanoni's lies, obfuscation, and crap science . . .

 

[Grinder]

From a professional translator (not google translate). Source: Machiavelli, on TJMK, for it is he:



Read that last sentence twice.

In their summary, Bruno-Marasca cite Section 530 Para II by reason of insufficient evidence. Where they say "not guilty" or "did not do it" they are simply citing what it says in the text book under article 530 para 2, verbatim.

What was wrong with Hellmann? He allowed his own sentimental opnions seep in and acted outside of his remit, like some avuncular clown giving kids sweets at Christmas.

Wow you have uncovered Mach's true identity? Has any other source discovered this huge mistake?

You know that Mach thinks a heroin addict high at the time could see 50 meters in the dark and identify the people he saw even though he remembered nothing until months later. Hellmann disagreed.

Not very articulate on what was wrong with Hellmann except the verdict.

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]

Funny one puts proscioglimento into google and it comes out acquittal. Do you think Marriott bribed Google?

Well there must be quite a dust up over this in Italy. He says it could be "dropping the charges", what else could it be? Maybe acquitted?

It must be major news in Italy that the case isn't over - but wait - the reports from Italy say it's over, hmmmm.

 

[Grinder]

Nice try, but there was also a massive gap between his footsteps in the hallway and the bare footprint on the bathmat.

Could have been Koko's foot in the bathroom or more likely the blood wore off his shoe and when he turned around and went back (maybe even after being outside) no more prints.

How again do you imagine the kids got all of one shoe but left the prints of the other? Do you think they ran out of bleach ?

 

[LondonJohn]

*sigh* the Marasca ruling was basically that Knox and Sollecito should in effect never have been tried - that the quality and volume of "evidence" was so poor/compromised/corrupt/mishandled/omitted that Knox and Sollecito should never even have been charged, let alone tried.

And that is why the Marasca panel chose the unusual route of basically cancelling the whole stupid and mendacious trial process against Knox and Sollecito. It's crystal clear in the report that this is what's happened. And that of course is explicitly why Marasca did not send the case back to any lower court: Marasca's scathing verdict was that no court in the country would ever be able to try Knox or Sollecito. Marasca was stating implicitly that there weren't even any merits against which to measure the guilt or non-guilt of Knox or Sollecito. It was that bad.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow you have uncovered Mach's true identity? Has any other source discovered this huge mistake?

You know that Mach thinks a heroin addict high at the time could see 50 meters in the dark and identify the people he saw even though he remembered nothing until months later. Hellmann disagreed.

Not very articulate on what was wrong with Hellmann except the verdict.

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]

Funny one puts proscioglimento into google and it comes out acquittal. Do you think Marriott bribed Google?

Well there must be quite a dust up over this in Italy. He says it could be "dropping the charges", what else could it be? Maybe acquitted?

It must be major news in Italy that the case isn't over - but wait - the reports from Italy say it's over, hmmmm.

Surely it couldn't be the case that Machiavelli is a biassed and compromised "source", who flatters to deceive? I don't consider Machiavelli to be a trustworthy primary source on this case for one instant.

 

[Vixen]

Wow you have uncovered Mach's true identity? Has any other source discovered this huge mistake?

You know that Mach thinks a heroin addict high at the time could see 50 meters in the dark and identify the people he saw even though he remembered nothing until months later. Hellmann disagreed.

Not very articulate on what was wrong with Hellmann except the verdict.

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]

Funny one puts proscioglimento into google and it comes out acquittal. Do you think Marriott bribed Google?

Well there must be quite a dust up over this in Italy. He says it could be "dropping the charges", what else could it be? Maybe acquitted?

It must be major news in Italy that the case isn't over - but wait - the reports from Italy say it's over, hmmmm.

Google do not do specialist translation. As you know, what something means in every day speech can have a very specific fixed narrow meaning in law (for example: "prejudice"). Likewise proscioglimento explicitly means a non-binding acquittal in the Italian Penal Code, equivalent to "charges dropped", which implies the charges can be applied again should the prosecution decide.

Hence, it can be seen more and more that it is a serious legal error for Bruno-Marasca to even quote Article 530 para 2.

 

[LondonJohn]

Google do not do specialist translation. As you know, what something means in every day speech can have a very specific fixed narrow meaning in law (for example: "prejudice"). Likewise proscioglimento explicitly means a non-binding acquittal in the Italian Penal Code, equivalent to "charges dropped", which implies the charges can be applied again should the prosecution decide.

Hence, it can be seen more and more that it is a serious legal error for Bruno-Marasca to even quote Article 530 para 2.

Total bollocks.

The nature and severity of the Marasca SC action means that no further prosecution of Knox or Sollecito will EVER be possible or permitted. The only thing that would change that would be if for some reason the Marasca ruling were to be successfully challenged. And that hasn't happened yet - let's see if it will be, eh.....?

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about on this issue. You're ignorant of the facts. Anhydrous, even.

 

[Vixen]

*sigh* the Marasca ruling was basically that Knox and Sollecito should in effect never have been tried - that the quality and volume of "evidence" was so poor/compromised/corrupt/mishandled/omitted that Knox and Sollecito should never even have been charged, let alone tried.

And that is why the Marasca panel chose the unusual route of basically cancelling the whole stupid and mendacious trial process against Knox and Sollecito. It's crystal clear in the report that this is what's happened. And that of course is explicitly why Marasca did not send the case back to any lower court: Marasca's scathing verdict was that no court in the country would ever be able to try Knox or Sollecito. Marasca was stating implicitly that there weren't even any merits against which to measure the guilt or non-guilt of Knox or Sollecito. It was that bad.

How can Bruno-Marasca possibly know Knox and Sollecito should in effect never have been tried when two lower courts First Instance and the Appeal Court found them unanimously guilty?

In effect you are saying Bruno-Marasca do not base their verdicts on the outcome of the trial and are therefore thoroughly corrupt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah but is that what you said?



Yes he talked about Narducci in 2011 but the PR Supertanker meme had been in this case for years at that time. He wasn't an originator of this.

I'd suggest that Mignini had never heard of the PR Supertanker meme.... but invented one of his own when he needed an excuse for losing.

 

[LondonJohn]

How can Bruno-Marasca possibly know Knox and Sollecito should in effect never have been tried when two lower courts First Instance and the Appeal Court found them unanimously guilty?

In effect you are saying Bruno-Marasca do not base their verdicts on the outcome of the trial and are therefore thoroughly corrupt.

Because the Marasca panel could clearly (and correctly) see that all the lower courts had completely botched the evaluation and weighing of the reliability/credilbility of virtually every single piece of prosecution evidence in this case. That's how.

It's really not hard to figure out if one's eyes and mind are actually open.

 

[Grinder]

Google do not do specialist translation. As you know, what something means in every day speech can have a very specific fixed narrow meaning in law (for example: "prejudice"). Likewise proscioglimento explicitly means a non-binding acquittal in the Italian Penal Code, equivalent to "charges dropped", which implies the charges can be applied again should the prosecution decide.

Hence, it can be seen more and more that it is a serious legal error for Bruno-Marasca to even quote Article 530 para 2.

proscioglimento' found in these entries
Inglese:
exoneration

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/proscioglimento

 

[Vixen]

proscioglimento' found in these entries
Inglese:
exoneration

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/proscioglimento

Is there an Italian legal boff in the house? Methos?