Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove previously moderated content

As for being a carnival barker: LOL.

At least I am not a schnorrer going from wedding to wedding for free hospitality like the object of your cause, latching onto one innocence project after another, in the hope innocence will some how rub off onto one's own case.

Perhaps we can get such an attorney to find someone on Death Row to confess on his death bed to the Kercher murder.

PS who manufactures all these deathbeds? I've never seen one at John Lewis.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 12

 

[Bill Williams]

The reason for the lack of disturbance - for example, a glass of water on the desk remains upright - is the very fact of more than one attacker and of being forcibly restrained. Massei heard all the evidence from all the expert medics, forensics and others (including a wide range of defense experts for both Amanda and Raff, separately) and came to the conclusion as follows (Massei Report):

Meaning, of course, that Massei substituted his own imagination for the expert reports in front of him.

This goes a long way to buttressing what the Marasca/Bruno report eventually found in acquiting the pair - it is probably wrong in law, even in Italy, to substitute one's imagination for science.

 

[Bill Williams]

I cannot reveal my source. Try OGGI if you want a public source.

Sure, you can speculate a satanic rite. However, there is no evidence the alleged perps are satanists, although Raff showed a strong leaning towards the dark side.

Why did you edit out your libellous remark that Raffaele's visit to the grave was an example of Raffaele' "leaning to the dark side"?

 

[Bill Williams]

But when the Marasca Report came out, it was clear that the reason for the definitive and forceful nature of the acquittals/annulments was that they deemed there to be no reliable, credible evidence pointing to the participation of Knox or Sollecito in the murder, and they also deemed that there never would be (hence the decision not to retry). In many ways, this was actually a far more binding and fair verdict than any ruling that Knox and Sollecito were definitely factually innocent (thus 530.1), since I don't think this can ever be proven (and nor does it need to be, of course).

Yes.

What is missed in the argument that the person accused has, hypothetically, an airtight alibi, and a CPP Article 530.1 acquittal is justified, being, for example, in Seattle rather than at the murder site in Perugia at the relevant time, is that the prosecution could and would "refute" that argument by claiming that the accused had ordered the murder from the distant site.

But the defense counter to the prosecution would be that there was no evidence of such an order. Just as in the actual case, the lack of reliable and credible evidence of presence of the accused in the murder room was attributed to an impossible clean-up.

The prosecution would again claim that lack of evidence is not an indication that something has not occurred. That is the basic prosecution and guilter meme or theme. It is a rejection of the concept that guilt must be proven BARD by the prosecution and the guilters.

So one can argue that even in the case of the hypothetical "airtight" alibi, an acquittal must be based on the concept of insufficient evidence or proof, there being no reliable evidence of the communication from Seattle to Perugia of an order to murder someone.

All of this sane commentary is in contrast to those who try to imply that 530.2 is a euphemism for, "We would have found them guilty if we'd only had a wee bit more judicially generated, factoid evidence."

There are some who believe that Italians in general believe that this is what the Marasca/Bruno panel was telegraphing, that the pair got away with something.

Counter to this is the standard of guilt in all democratic countries. As per above with the Ghomeshi trial in Canada, there are 13 kinds of not guilty and only one kind of BARD Guilty. When the prosecution in the Ghomeshi trial, or armchair-jurists here on this thread argue for one of the upper-level of those 13 kinds of Not Guilty actually mean that the court thought them guilty but not enough to convict.......

....... then that is a recipe, as the analyst in the Ghomesi case said, for wrongful convictions. Gee, where have we heard of this phenomenon in Italy!

 

[LondonJohn]

Why did you edit out your libellous remark that Raffaele's visit to the grave was an example of Raffaele' "leaning to the dark side"?

I'm intrigued about the portentous refusal to "reveal a source". How exciting! We're obviously in "Deep Throat" clandestine territory here! This is Big Boys' Stuff!!!

(Or perhaps it isn't....... )

 

[Bill Williams]

"Twitter users: you are not above the law."

Actor James Woods has won a round in an attempt to force Twitter to reveal the identity of one of its anonymous users.

A user pseudo'ed, "Abe List", has gone on a campaign accusing Woods of some sort of misconduct. Woods wants to sue this user for $10M, but Twitter has stood behind America's First Amendment.

Yet Woods has convinced a judge that whoever "Abe List" is, may now be compelled to come to court to explain why his/her comments/campaign cannot be dismissed as "Twitter hyperbole".

Courts in Canada and the USA have occasionally set a higher standard for proof of defamation on internet services, saying that such speak more resembles inflamed face-to-face debate that can reach unfortunate levels explainable by the heat of the moment, with no real intent to defame.

With the Woods' ruling, courts seem now able to see where that bar is now set.

In any case, those who believe that their own anonymity somehow shields them from their libellous campaigns should take note. Further, as the Ghomeshi case in Canada has highlighted, even ten-year-old e-mails, texts and tweets tend to stick around to be admissible!

See: http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/11/james-woods-vs-twitter/

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm intrigued about the portentous refusal to "reveal a source". How exciting! We're obviously in "Deep Throat" clandestine territory here! This is Big Boys' Stuff!!!

(Or perhaps it isn't....... )

My bet is that Vixen's secret source is not Mark Felt. No one goes to Mark Felt any more.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 12

 

[Vixen]

Meaning, of course, that Massei substituted his own imagination for the expert reports in front of him.

This goes a long way to buttressing what the Marasca/Bruno report eventually found in acquiting the pair - it is probably wrong in law, even in Italy, to substitute one's imagination for science.

Did you see how silly Itrona's theory was? That all the small cuts on Mez' hands weren't from a knife prick, but from Mez falling precisely on that small sliver of glass and it somehow caused the multiple hand injuries.

Not Massei's "imagination", but pure common sense that judges in his position have ladles of, having to listen to preposterous theories all day long from defence attornies.

 

[Vixen]

Why did you edit out your libellous remark that Raffaele's visit to the grave was an example of Raffaele' "leaning to the dark side"?

It wasn't relevant to what was known pre-trial.

Any objections?

 

[Desert Fox]

"Twitter users: you are not above the law."

Actor James Woods has won a round in an attempt to force Twitter to reveal the identity of one of its anonymous users.

A user pseudo'ed, "Abe List", has gone on a campaign accusing Woods of some sort of misconduct. Woods wants to sue this user for $10M, but Twitter has stood behind America's First Amendment.

Yet Woods has convinced a judge that whoever "Abe List" is, may now be compelled to come to court to explain why his/her comments/campaign cannot be dismissed as "Twitter hyperbole".

Courts in Canada and the USA have occasionally set a higher standard for proof of defamation on internet services, saying that such speak more resembles inflamed face-to-face debate that can reach unfortunate levels explainable by the heat of the moment, with no real intent to defame.

With the Woods' ruling, courts seem now able to see where that bar is now set.

In any case, those who believe that their own anonymity somehow shields them from their libellous campaigns should take note. Further, as the Ghomeshi case in Canada has highlighted, even ten-year-old e-mails, texts and tweets tend to stick around to be admissible!

See: http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/11/james-woods-vs-twitter/

On Reddit there seems to be a lot of defamation on various cases where people spout stuff that there is no evidence of with cases as well. I would likely argue that Reddit is worse than Twitter.

 

[Bill Williams]

Did you see how silly Itrona's theory was? That all the small cuts on Mez' hands weren't from a knife prick, but from Mez falling precisely on that small sliver of glass and it somehow caused the multiple hand injuries.

Not Massei's "imagination", but pure common sense that judges in his position have ladles of, having to listen to preposterous theories all day long from defence attornies.

What is noted here is that you favour judges being biased against the defence.

 

[acbytesla]

The reason for the lack of disturbance - for example, a glass of water on the desk remains upright - is the very fact of more than one attacker and of being forcibly restrained. Massei heard all the evidence from all the expert medics, forensics and others (including a wide range of defense experts for both Amanda and Raff, separately) and came to the conclusion as follows (Massei Report):

MasseI is a moron.

As I said, anyone can come up with a scenario.

 

[Vixen]

I have no objections at all, and am relieved you don't deny deleting it. What I was hoping for was a twinge of conscience at libelling someone caused you to take corrective action.

Raff did visit the victim's grave. It is not libellous.

 

[Vixen]

What is noted here is that you favour judges being biased against the defence.

You think 'falling on a sliver of glass' is a better explanation than "a series of knife pricks" for the slash marks on Mez's hands?

 

[Vixen]

As I said, anyone can come up with a scenario.

Sadly, for you, Massei as a judge gets a handsome six-figure salary for it and you don't.

 

[LondonJohn]

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response.

(Excerpt from report of Lalli (autopsy pathologist), Massei Report (Eng Trans), p112, my bolding)


Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala

 

[Grinder]

It seems to me that the only option for the judges in this case was a para 2 acquittal. The crime did occur. The accused were competent, and were otherwise able to be tried (e.g. not asserting diplomatic immunity). The accused did not accept they commited the act but assert e.g. self defence or legitimate use of force. There is not absolute proof of innocence e.g. an unimpeachable alibi, e.g. CCTV and eye witness testimony that Knox was in Seattle at the time.

Para 2 seems to be the only option. This seems to cover the whole range between (but not including) definitely innocent and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot see how para 1 could be applied.

Well para 1 can be used if the accused didn't commit the crime. As LJ posited it would be a para 1 acquittal some thought after the verdict a complete vindication was coming. It was a big fight between PGP and PIP as the PGP said it was a para 2 but the PIP disagreed.

Most every time I've made the point that there is a difference there has been a push back that 530 is moot, not really used, that because they're both acquittals it doesn't matter anyway but there is a difference and the Italians know it. Cheli made that clear both in his article and to katy_did.

This often comes up when certain PIP go off on how Italians are reacting, statements of full exoneration and of course the synoptic meme.

I'm not sure and doubt anyone here or for that matter anywhere know for sure what options the Italians have left. One would think no more trials for the murder could be brought against the kids but here in the good old US after being found not guilty in state court they can be tried for a different charge for the same act in federal court.

Is anyone claiming"1 doesn't really exist"? I know I'm not saying that. I'm saying - and have consistently said - three things: 1) all of 530 is now in fact moot in Italian law, since there's only one form of acquittal; 2) Nonetheless, the code still bafflingly and clumsily requires convicting judges to cite which para of 530 they have used; 3) they appear to have adopted a practice of using para 1 where either a) they ruled that no crime ever even took place, or b) they can be satisfied that the defendant was factually innocent; and using para 2 for every other acquittal (from zero evidence of guilt to evidence just falling short of BARD).

So then we get gobbledygook like the above. There is only one form of acquittal but they use 1 when no crime existed or the defendant was factually innocent (as distinct from fictionally innocent?) and use 2 for all other acquittals. So it would appear there are several forms of acquittal, including 1 and 2 but also 3 and 4.

At any rate I've maintained and maintain there are different acquittals and they mean different things to the Italians. Similar to "not guilty" and "not proven" meaning different things to the Scottish.

As I said back after the MR they might have benefited from another full trial as the ISC MR left meat on the bone for both sides. A para 1 would have left those PG bones clean.

 

[Mike1711]

There is no debate that they were found not guilty. There is a difference between one and two. Why the PIPs don't want to admit it is baffling.

Let's be clear.

Two includes "a lack of evidence" which in this case is zero evidence as emphasised by Marasca Court of Appeal. In some countries this would mean...."thrown unceremoniously out of court into the garbage can".

In other words.....there is no case. It doesn't address guilt or innocence, it merely emphasises.....

THAT

THERE

IS

NO

CASE

TO

BE

ANSWERED

TO

BY

THE

ACCUSED

 

[Vixen]

I really like that you quoted me there. That's word for word what I said about your chess boast. You still never addressed the showstopper post regarding your absurd notion about not finding any of Rudy's prints in Filomena's room being proof of staging.

It is actually Amanda who goes on television bragging "You can't prove I was there".

By the same argument, there is no proof Rudy burgled Filomena's room.

Get your timeline right, and things become logical.

 

[Grinder]

Let's be clear.

Two includes "a lack of evidence" which in this case is zero evidence as emphasised by Marasca Court of Appeal. In some countries this would mean...."thrown unceremoniously out of court into the garbage can".

In other words.....there is no case. It doesn't address guilt or innocence, it merely emphasises.....

THAT

THERE

IS

NO

CASE

TO

BE

ANSWERED

TO

BY

THE

ACCUSED

Your formatting really wins the day

The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence

The M&B report makes it clear that the investigation was bungled. They make it clear the DNA evidence wasn't handled properly. But they chose para 2 and not 1. While normally a para 2 would be sent down again and a para 1 would be unusual at the ISC level, this court found a two but didn't send it down.

Luca Cheli article is educational on this. He anticipated a MR with light and shadows because of the para 2 acquittal.

From my reading there are questions left hanging by this ruling. Most likely not a new court case on the murder, but in the press as demonstrated by the RAI show and press reaction.