Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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.

You know perfectly well the translator meant the verdict, not the sentence. It's not difficult to extract meaning from the context.

So we are now down to analysing peripheral minutiae, rather than your grossly erroneous belief Hellmann's inauspiciously annulled report has the same legal status as Massei's and Nencini's.

A true gentleman with manners would graciously put their hand up as having erred.

 

[LondonJohn]

You know perfectly well the translator meant the verdict, not the sentence. It's not difficult to extract meaning from the context.

So we are now down to analysing peripheral minutiae, rather than your grossly erroneous belief Hellmann's inauspiciously annulled report has the same legal status as Massei's and Nencini's.

A true gentleman with manners would graciously put their hand up as having erred.

I suppose the chutzpah's admirable, if nothing else

 

[acbytesla]

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!

It is, isn't it? What's really a hoot is playing bridge with Bill and Warren in Omaha. Sorry, can't use the last names..but you know who they are. I also taught Eric C and Eddie VH how to jam. They all think Amanda's innocent too.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

It will do no good for Vixen to read this - Vixen will just keep on keeping on with the nonsense.

But this is what Bruno/Marasca say about the status of Nencini's conviction. No matter, Vixen rarely reads prior to Section 9.4, or anything after Section ten of their report.

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of
the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same,
leading to its annulment.

In fact, in the presence of a scenario marked by many contradictions, the
referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously
observed – should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given Article 530, section 2,
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

At this point only one matter remains to be resolved, regarding the type of
annulment - i.e., whether it should be decided with or without a new trial.......​

Other than all the mentions of Bruno/Marasca saying they are annulling the verdict, Vixen is quite correct, M/B never say they are annulling the verdict.

Why Vixen lies like she does is a mystery.

 

[Planigale]

Bruno-Marasca do uphold the lower court finding that Amanda was at the scene. It is true of UK law that facts found are not for a higher court to overturn. If there is a point of law in how the lower court treated it (for example, wrong case precedent or an interpretation that is not within the bounds of a reasonable court [=perversity]) then, if it is material, they will send it back down for the disputed fact/s to be weighed up again. If it is an obvious error or not material, then a higher (appeal) court might correct the error itself there and then, although they are usually loath to do so.

In Italy all defendants automatically get two appeals. In the UK, you can appeal, but you have to get it past the sift in the higher court. Nine out of ten appeals fail at the sift stage. However, you can still appeal yet again, if you are still not happy.

Once convicted in the UK, it is is quite rare for (a) an appeal to be allowed, or (b) to get it overturned on appeal. Usually it requires a clear miscarriage of justice, or new evidence coming to light. The US system is derived from the UK's (adversarial, as opposed to Latin Europe's information-gathering largely inquistorial system).

AIUI Judge Massepi (_Sp?) erred in how she treated the fact of who was in the bathroom, this was the basis of the appeal (her erroneous interpretation), not the fact itself.

Sorry, Planigale lost all credibility when he or she claimed that the finding of DNA 36(i) as Amanda's on the knife cancelled out the finding of Mez' on the blade. Tesla and Bill are spin doctors, and bagels is a "Rudy-did-it theorist", regardless of the real facts.

Re your sarcastic chess comment: do have a look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11135436#post11135436

I did not say this. There are two separate issues here.
1) The finding of the victim's DNA on the blade. There were many procedural irregularities, the process followed in this sample was literally unique amongst all the other samples processed in this case, and no adequate explanation was given why different procedures were followed in this case.
2) The presence of Knox's DNA on the knife means nothing. There is no time stamp to DNA. DNA is deposited by innocent and guilty people alike. At most one can conclude Knox touched a knife that was in the kitchen draw of the flat of her boyfriend where she was staying after the murder. Even if this was the murder weapon all one could conclude was the DNA was deposited at the time of or after the knife was cleaned, one can however be certain it was not deposited at the time of the murder. If it not the murder weapon then of course the DNA is irrelevant. The location of the DNA can tell nothing about the purpose to which the knife was put. (What is the correct way to hold a kitchen knife if you are from Seatle?) What are the chances of DNA relocating on an item during storage
3) The knife was ordered to be retested looking to confirm the presence of the victim's DNA. This was not confirmed. Finding Knox's DNA again added no further information - Knox probably touched the knife in the kitchen draw of the flat where she was staying. Touching a utensil is not a crime. Leila Schnapps / 'Thoughtful' a pro guilt commentator observed finding Kercher's DNA on a second test would make it highly likely even at LCN levels this was a genuine finding. (Her analysis of the timing of the arrival of the postal police is well worth reading although I cannot recall where it was posted or if it is still available - she is an example of how logical analysis whatever ones opinions improves everyones understanding.) This was not found.

 

[Antony]

You know perfectly well the translator meant the verdict, not the sentence. It's not difficult to extract meaning from the context.

We knew what the translator meant - yes. It wasn't clear from the claims you were making that you did.

So we are now down to analysing peripheral minutiae,

Only because of your frankly bizarre claim that there is some obscure privileged status still held by the Nencini report.

rather than your grossly erroneous belief Hellmann's inauspiciously annulled report has the same legal status as Massei's and Nencini's.

Looking at the grounds and terms of the decision cited respectively by Chieffi and by Marasca:

• Chieffi stated that Hellmann should have ordered a test of the last sample from the alleged murder knife (apart from improperly criticising Hellmann's interpretation of evidence);
• Marasca ruled that the correct verdict from the Nencini trial should be "NOT GUILTY".

IOW, Chieffi picked up Hellmann on "peripheral minutiae"; while Marasca overturned and reversed Nencini's entire enterprise - in effect, as I stated earlier, reinstating the Hellmann verdict. Any questions?

A true gentleman with manners would graciously put their hand up as having erred.

There have been many instances in this discussion where the same thing should be said about you.

 

[Mr Fied]

Interesting

This is interesting, from John Kerchers statement to Mignini Nov 2007.

Question: Did your daughter ever speak of being concerned about something, of having unpleasant encounters?
Answer: No. My daughter was always calm and cheerful and never told me of having a problem with anyone.
Question: Did you speak with her about her (female) friends who lived with her?
Answer: I remember that Meredith spoke to me, in a joking way, of Amanda as a very confident but a little eccentric girl. Meredith's impression of her was that Amanda was a very self-confident girl, who boasted that she was an excellent singer and who would make them notice her skill if she had a guitar.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/7-Nov-2007-Statement-John-Kercher.pdf

 

[Desert Fox]

I assume you are putting in contrast to what he wrote later? This case seems to have it in spades where every little activity of Amanda is later examined and it is then seen in some sort of sinister light.

 

[Mr Fied]

I assume you are putting in contrast to what he wrote later? This case seems to have it in spades where every little activity of Amanda is later examined and it is then seen in some sort of sinister light.

Yes.

It seems that once Amanda and Raff, but especially Amanda, were put in the frame, lots of peoples views changed dramatically.

What were once little quirks that no one bothered about, later turned into obvious signals of guilt.

It seems strange that JK would not bring up his daughter's "dislike" of Amanda when asked. Did the British girls and Mignini influence his change of heart?

 

[Vixen]

We knew what the translator meant - yes. It wasn't clear from the claims you were making that you did.


Only because of your frankly bizarre claim that there is some obscure privileged status still held by the Nencini report.


Looking at the grounds and terms of the decision cited respectively by Chieffi and by Marasca:

• Chieffi stated that Hellmann should have ordered a test of the last sample from the alleged murder knife (apart from improperly criticising Hellmann's interpretation of evidence);
• Marasca ruled that the correct verdict from the Nencini trial should be "NOT GUILTY".

IOW, Chieffi picked up Hellmann on "peripheral minutiae"; while Marasca overturned and reversed Nencini's entire enterprise - in effect, as I stated earlier, reinstating the Hellmann verdict. Any questions?



There have been many instances in this discussion where the same thing should be said about you.

Rubbish. Hellmann has not been "reinstated". He is a pariah. He was sacked, er, "retired". I fully expect to see him face charges of bribery and corruption, together with abuse of office in the near future. The grapevine is claiming he received over €1m- in bribes, together with the €250K sports car shortly after the disgraceful declaration of innocence and freeing the kids, enabling Amanda to flee the country and never come back.

 

[acbytesla]

This is interesting, from John Kerchers statement to Mignini Nov 2007.

Question: Did your daughter ever speak of being concerned about something, of having unpleasant encounters?
Answer: No. My daughter was always calm and cheerful and never told me of having a problem with anyone.
Question: Did you speak with her about her (female) friends who lived with her?
Answer: I remember that Meredith spoke to me, in a joking way, of Amanda as a very confident but a little eccentric girl. Meredith's impression of her was that Amanda was a very self-confident girl, who boasted that she was an excellent singer and who would make them notice her skill if she had a guitar.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/7-Nov-2007-Statement-John-Kercher.pdf

It is amazing, isn't it? This whole story about how Meredith was complaining loudly about Amanda was in truth nonsense. John Kercher should be ashamed of himself and owes Amanda Knox a sincere apology. He also owes one to Raffaele.

 

[Vixen]

Yes.

It seems that once Amanda and Raff, but especially Amanda, were put in the frame, lots of peoples views changed dramatically.

What were once little quirks that no one bothered about, later turned into obvious signals of guilt.

It seems strange that JK would not bring up his daughter's "dislike" of Amanda when asked. Did the British girls and Mignini influence his change of heart?

If Mez had been aware she was living with an unhinged psychopath, she'd hardly have remained living there. John Kercher was told by a good friend of Mez, that on a return flight to London from Italy, Mez spent the entire journey complaining about Amanda's behaviour. That indicates Mez suffered real alarm bells about this kiddie.

In testimony, John Kercher, being an honest upright Brit who values being honest and truthful in the witness box, could only speak for himself. Referring to what someone else said is pure hearsay, and isn't considered valid evidence, so he didn't indulge in it.

 

[query grind]

A little more on the 2 intruders...

http://corrieredellumbria.corr.it/news/cronaca/214893/Omicidio-Meredith--Guede-rilancia-.html

The trial began on February 25 against an Italian and a man Moroccan origin, shows that the two who
February 18, 2009 and March 19 of that year the seals are broken in the property of breaking into Via della Pergola, they have the specific precedents behind. Li catch on among other things fingerprints. They would enter from the outside window. Breaking of the seals, damage and theft aggravated the charges. To be noted that manipulation of the scene of the crime would not affect the investigation: all reports - including the bra clasp - were
"Crystallized" in the inspections carried out by the investigators and from the scientific to the murder of British student close took place on 1 November 2007. But there is a question that is not answered: because the two have entered? In the first break-in thieves they had left the "messages". Knives, an envelope with the address of the police, candles, cigarette butts, an insulating tape with lots of footprints. In that of March 19 they took away the mattress of the bed Mez.

Moroccan....would anyone like to say...Hicham Khiri???? What are the chances they are included on that bra clasp?

 

[query grind]

an honest upright Brit

Now there is an oxymoron. What next? A quiet American? A comical German? An honest Italian? An ugly Kiwi?

 

[Antony]

Rubbish. Hellmann has not been "reinstated".

OK genius, kindly explain how the Hellmann verdict differed from the official current legal status of the case. Amanda and Raff are both free and definitively cleared of murder.

The final decision of the Italian Supreme Court coincides with the Hellmann verdict in every practical way - the effect of the Hellmann verdict is official and final.

This is a paraphrase of the 2 Supreme Court sessions in this case:

• Chieffi on Hellmann (March 2013) - "Why didn't you order a test of the last sample?"
• Marasca on Nencini (March 2015) - "NO! That was the wrong answer! The correct answer was NOT GUILTY!"

Chieffi ruled (illegally) that Hellmann hadn't been trying hard enough to do the prosecution's work for them, but Marasca ruled that Nencini's verdict was unlawful because it was not supported by evidence - which is exactly what the PIP have been saying all along.

Yet, somehow in guilterland ideology, the Hellmann verdict was coruscated and shredded, while the Nencini verdict still retains validity. Explain.

He is a pariah. He was sacked, er, "retired". I fully expect to see him face charges of bribery and corruption, together with abuse of office in the near future.

It would indeed be a curious development to arraign a judge for "corruption", when his verdict has been duplicated by the highest court in the country.

The grapevine is claiming he received over €1m- in bribes, together with the €250K sports car shortly after the disgraceful declaration of innocence and freeing the kids, enabling Amanda to flee the country and never come back.

Yet the final ISC decision was to declare them innocent and confirm their freedom - exactly the same as Hellmann without possibility of referral.

 

[Vixen]

Now there is an oxymoron. What next? A quiet American? A comical German? An honest Italian? An ugly Kiwi?

We still value honesty, decency and fair play here.

Compare and contrast the dignified, polite, bearing of the Kercher family to that of the Sollecitos or the Knoxen and Mellan.

 

[Vixen]

OK genius, kindly explain how the Hellmann verdict differed from the official current legal status of the case. Amanda and Raff are both free and definitively cleared of murder.

The final decision of the Italian Supreme Court coincides with the Hellmann verdict in every practical way - the effect of the Hellmann verdict is official and final.

This is a paraphrase of the 2 Supreme Court sessions in this case:

• Chieffi on Hellmann (March 2013) - "Why didn't you order a test of the last sample?"
• Marasca on Nencini (March 2015) - "NO! That was the wrong answer! The correct answer was NOT GUILTY!"

Chieffi ruled (illegally) that Hellmann hadn't been trying hard enough to do the prosecution's work for them, but Marasca ruled that Nencini's verdict was unlawful because it was not supported by evidence - which is exactly what the PIP have been saying all along.

Yet, somehow in guilterland ideology, the Hellmann verdict was coruscated and shredded, while the Nencini verdict still retains validity. Explain.


It would indeed be a curious development to arraign a judge for "corruption", when his verdict has been duplicated by the highest court in the country.


Yet the final ISC decision was to declare them innocent and confirm their freedom - exactly the same as Hellmann without possibility of referral.

No. Bruno-Marasca's court- unlike the bent Hellmann court - pointedly did NOT declare them innocent or exonerated, at all. It merely dropped the charges under a different rubric of "insufficient evidence".

In addition, it doesn't have the jurisdiction to overturn nor criticise Chieffi's court or written reasons.

 

[acbytesla]

If Mez had been aware she was living with an unhinged psychopath, she'd hardly have remained living there. John Kercher was told by a good friend of Mez, that on a return flight to London from Italy, Mez spent the entire journey complaining about Amanda's behaviour. That indicates Mez suffered real alarm bells about this kiddie.

In testimony, John Kercher, being an honest upright Brit who values being honest and truthful in the witness box, could only speak for himself. Referring to what someone else said is pure hearsay, and isn't considered valid evidence, so he didn't indulge in it.

John Kercher is a liar. As a tabloid writer in Britain, this is pretty much a prerequisite for the job. So the idea that he is an honest upright Brit is laughable. And of course the idea that Meredith was living with an unhinged psychopath is simply another one of YOUR LIES. Making **** up is what you do.

 

[acbytesla]

No. Bruno-Marasca's court- unlike the bent Hellmann court - pointedly did NOT declare them innocent or exonerated, at all. It merely dropped the charges under a different rubric of "insufficient evidence".

In addition, it doesn't have the jurisdiction to overturn nor criticise Chieffi's court or written reasons.

More lies. Yep... More lies.

 

[Vixen]

John Kercher is a liar. As a tabloid writer in Britain, this is pretty much a prerequisite for the job. So the idea that he is an honest upright Brit is laughable. And of course the idea that Meredith was living with an unhinged psychopath is simply another one of YOUR LIES. Making **** up is what you do.

British journalists are trained to the highest standards to check and double-check facts.

The DAILY MAIL and GUARDIAN have downgraded to appeal to the American market, and the concurrent public fetish for useless celebrities.

Apart from that, it is one of the best presses in the world.

Do you have any instances of John Kercher being "a liar"?

No, we thought not.