Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

From Chieffi:

P.Q.M. [for these reasons]
Annuls the challenged judgment limited to the crimes in paragraph A (in which par. C is
included), B), D), E) and to the aggravating factor in article 61 number 2 of the Criminal
Code with regard to paragraph F) and remands to a new judgment at the Court of Assizes
of Appeal of Florence.

Do google the word, "annul" and let us know how you get on.

See above.

You appear incapable of understanding that I'M NOT ARGUING THAT CHIEFFI DID NOT ANNUL HELLMANN.

Do you understand that now, at least?

What I'm arguing is this:

MARASCA ANNULLED NENCINI (AND, BY EXTENSION, MASSEI) IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

Which therefore invalidates your nonsense claim that Nencini and Massei somehow have more legitimacy in Italian law than Hellmann (which was the source of hour original bogus claim).

Do you get it now? Please say you do.

 

[Vixen]

Not only that, but Marasca/Bruno in effect reinstated the Hellmann verdict, and for the same reasons as Hellmann: that there was no genuine evidence.

Oh dear me, no. Bruno-Marasca do not refer to Hellmann anywhere. Their report was annulled, ripped up, spiked, binned.

 

[acbytesla]

Putin's a pushover. Madeline Albright said at lunch the other day that the State Department was thinking about asking Italy to extradite Mignini and Stefanoni to face charges in the US.

Yea ...and I slept with Morgan Fairchild....yeeeeaaa, that's the ticket.

 

[Vixen]

See above.

You appear incapable of understanding that I'M NOT ARGUING THAT CHIEFFI DID NOT ANNUL HELLMANN.

Do you understand that now, at least?

What I'm arguing is this:

MARASCA ANNULLED NENCINI (AND, BY EXTENSION, MASSEI) IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

Which therefore invalidates your nonsense claim that Nencini and Massei somehow have more legitimacy in Italian law than Hellmann (which was the source of hour original bogus claim).

Do you get it now? Please say you do.

Nowhere in the report does Bruno-Marasca decree that Massei or Nencini are annulled.

Do let us know when the penny drops.

 

[LondonJohn]

Putin's a pushover. Madeline Albright said at lunch the other day that the State Department was thinking about asking Italy to extradite Mignini and Stefanoni to face charges in the US.

You're kidding! I was having pre-dinner drinks with Colin Powell, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nigel Short and the Prince of Wales the other week (which was a bit annoying to be honest, since it meant I had to take time out from judging the short list for the Booker Prize and from working on my third Masters) and Powell said that no such decision had yet been made.

The funny thing is that we all played impromptu speed chess at the drinks party, and I beat them all despite being just a dilettante amateur who rarely even plays. Funny old world!

 

[bagels]

Does this not spell out to you that the door is left open for sufficiency of evidence?

It's what every single acquittal in the USA means, insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore Not Guilty. There isn't an "extra special" acquittal for "really innocent" people here. Apparently there is in Italy but it doesn't carry in procedural differences. I don't know why they have it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nowhere in the report does Bruno-Marasca decree that Massei or Nencini are annulled.

Do let us know when the penny drops.

F
F
S

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?? Once again, I shake my head and give up.

 

[Antony]

Oh dear me, no. Bruno-Marasca do not refer to Hellmann anywhere. Their report was annulled, ripped up, spiked, binned.

Which is why I used the phrase "in effect". The situation after March 2015 is exactly what it would have been 2 years earlier, had Chieffi acted correctly and confirmed Hellmann.

 

[LondonJohn]

Massei and Nencini are NOT annulled. They remain key parts of each stage of the due process. Hellmann-Zanetti have been written out of the history, except as a piece of legal curiosity.

Oh brother.

If one court says "guilty", but then a higher court overrules that court and says "not guilty", then the higher court annuls the lower court's verdict (and, by definition, the motivation supporting that verdict)

MASSEI AND NENCINI WERE ANNULLED BY THE VERDICT OF THE MARASCA SC PANEL.

Oh, and black is black and white is white. Just so you know........

 

[Vixen]

See above.

You appear incapable of understanding that I'M NOT ARGUING THAT CHIEFFI DID NOT ANNUL HELLMANN.

Do you understand that now, at least?

What I'm arguing is this:

MARASCA ANNULLED NENCINI (AND, BY EXTENSION, MASSEI) IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

Which therefore invalidates your nonsense claim that Nencini and Massei somehow have more legitimacy in Italian law than Hellmann (which was the source of hour original bogus claim).

Do you get it now? Please say you do.

Here you go: Bruno-Marasca annulled the sentence, not Massei's and Nencini's report, as Chieffi did with Hellmann's report:

THEREFORE
According to article 620 lett. a) of the code of criminal procedure, it is annulled without appeal
the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of paragraph b) of the rubric for being extinct for
prescription;
according to articles 620 lett. I) and 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure, in relation
to the crime of slender, annuls without appeal the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of
paragraph a), d) and e) of the rubric for having not committed the act.


Are we clear now that Hellmann's report has no legal standing at all, whereas Massei's and Nencini's remain perfectly respectable upstanding legal documents in the annals of Italian Law?

 

[LondonJohn]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!

Marasca did not merely annul the sentence of Nencini. My God!

If that were the case, then the guilty verdicts would have stood, but only the sentence would have been changed/scrubbed.

There's no hope here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here you go: Bruno-Marasca annulled the sentence, not Massei's and Nencini's report, as Chieffi did with Hellmann's report:

THEREFORE
According to article 620 lett. a) of the code of criminal procedure, it is annulled without appeal
the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of paragraph b) of the rubric for being extinct for
prescription;
according to articles 620 lett. I) and 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure, in relation
to the crime of slender, annuls without appeal the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of
paragraph a), d) and e) of the rubric for having not committed the act.


Are we clear now that Hellmann's report has no legal standing at all, whereas Massei's and Nencini's remain perfectly respectable upstanding legal documents in the annals of Italian Law?

Sorry - you're now seriously trying to argue (with a straight face..?) that Marasca's SC panel merely annulled the SENTENCING of the lower courts, rather than the verdicts and associated judgements?

No hope. No hope at all.

 

[Vixen]

Oh brother.

If one court says "guilty", but then a higher court overrules that court and says "not guilty", then the higher court annuls the lower court's verdict (and, by definition, the motivation supporting that verdict)

MASSEI AND NENCINI WERE ANNULLED BY THE VERDICT OF THE MARASCA SC PANEL.

Oh, and black is black and white is white. Just so you know........

It's lamentable you cannot admit you are wrong, and instead of owning up that you foolishly and mistakenly believed Hellmann was a legally valid document all this time, we now have to tolerate a long-winded charade - laced with bitter sarcasm - of pretending that Massei and Nencini were also annulled,

 

[Mr Fied]

Does this not spell out to you that the door is left open for sufficiency of evidence?

No, the door has been closed.

It was left open, for 46 days. Ooops, sorry, the crack police did put some tape across it.

I think it is a bit late now for anyone to go back and "find" some DNA or bloody footprints.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's lamentable you cannot admit you are wrong, and instead of owning up that you foolishly and mistakenly believed Hellmann was a legally valid document all this time, we now have to tolerate a long-winded charade - laced with bitter sarcasm - of pretending that Massei and Nencini were also annulled,

MASSEI AND NENCINI WERE ANNULLED IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY (BY MARASCA) AS HELLMANN WAS ANULLED (BY CHIEFFI).

If you can't understand that, it's not my fault. Nor, any longer, is it my concern. Ciao!


ETA and this is a disgusting misrepresentation of my position - and one which you have been explicitly corrected on twice now. For the very last time, I am not arguing (and have never argued) that "Hellmann was a legally valid document". I am stating that the way in which Hellmann was treated by the Chieffi SC ruling is EXACTLY THE SAME as the way in which Nencini (and by extension Massei) was treated by the Marasca SC ruling - and therefore if one is saying that Hellmann is "scrubbed from history" etc, one also must say exactly the same about Nencini and Massei. But I expect this sort of misrepresentation and strawman strategy by now. Shame.

 

[Grinder]

No. OJ had a full trial and the verdict was 'Not Guilty'. As the prosecutors cannot appeal this, it was final.

In the Bruno-Marasca they used penal code 530 para 2 which doesn't use the Italian word for acquittal, it uses the phrase "charges dropped".

This makes sense, as section 530 para 2 is not within the normal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (the judges erred in using it), and is a means for a lower, merits court to leave the door open for a case with "insufficient evidence" to be brought back if better evidence does come up within SOL.

Source: Translator's note to Marasca: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term
“proscioglimento” used 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.

Yes quoting TJMK and Machiavelli is so convincing. Maybe if a mainstream source made mention of this or the C&V labs being closed or well just about anything you claim it would be, well, a breath of fresh air.

 

[Vixen]

Sorry - you're now seriously trying to argue (with a straight face..?) that Marasca's SC panel merely annulled the SENTENCING of the lower courts, rather than the verdicts and associated judgements?

No hope. No hope at all.

Look up the word "THEREFORE", and you will realise that in the Italian documents this word coming as it does at the very end, signifies the CONCLUSION (following from the reasoning).

In the Chieffi report, it annuls the entire Hellmann document and if you read what precedes the THEREFORE it tears Hellmann's reasoning to pieces in the most humiliating way.

The Bruno-Marasca report does not single out either Massei's Report nor Nencini's Report for excoriation. It is merely the verdict that's reversed NOT the motivation reports.

 

[Mr Fied]

It's what every single acquittal in the USA means, insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore Not Guilty. There isn't an "extra special" acquittal for "really innocent" people here. Apparently there is in Italy but it doesn't carry in procedural differences. I don't know why they have it.

Correct.

Any trial that results in a not guilty verdict, has done so due to insufficient evidence.

The prosecution puts it's case, and if the case is not proven, the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.

 

[Vixen]

MASSEI AND NENCINI WERE ANNULLED IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY (BY MARASCA) AS HELLMANN WAS ANULLED (BY CHIEFFI).

If you can't understand that, it's not my fault. Nor, any longer, is it my concern. Ciao!

Nope. No sign of any admission of being mistaken.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look up the word "THEREFORE", and you will realise that in the Italian documents this word coming as it does at the very end, signifies the CONCLUSION (following from the reasoning).

In the Chieffi report, it annuls the entire Hellmann document and if you read what precedes the THEREFORE it tears Hellmann's reasoning to pieces in the most humiliating way.

The Bruno-Marasca report does not single out either Massei's Report nor Nencini's Report for excoriation. It is merely the verdict that's reversed NOT the motivation reports.

A minute ago you were arguing that it was only the SENTENCE that was reversed!

And what do you think the motivation reports are, if not reports to support and explain the reasoning for the verdict(s)?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a joke. And a disgrace.