Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

The PGP made a big deal over the fact that Amanda's defense lawyers didn't make noise of her mistreatment by the police. They never really made the case well she was led to say Patrick. As even the partially brain dead Barbie noted the defense could have done a much better job.

The lack of public criticism of the judiciary and the police doesn't mean there isn't criticism.

 

[bagels]

They filed with the ECHR as soon as Chieffi finalized the charge though.

 

[Welshman]

The PGP made a big deal over the fact that Amanda's defense lawyers didn't make noise of her mistreatment by the police. They never really made the case well she was led to say Patrick. As even the partially brain dead Barbie noted the defense could have done a much better job.

The lack of public criticism of the judiciary and the police doesn't mean there isn't criticism.

There was a poster here called RandyN who was scathing about the performance of the defense.

 

[Grinder]

They filed with the ECHR as soon as Chieffi finalized the charge though.

Sure but they didn't fight it from day one. The "confession" has always been the #1 reason for PG and gave them the racist angle IMO. Why didn't the defense come out in early 2008 and say it was obvious the police had created the statement in every way? There must be a way to file charges or demand the recording that one of us here knows from sources still exists

I think you will not find anything they did when it counted.

 

[Grinder]

There was a poster here called RandyN who was scathing about the performance of the defense.

yes I just about mentioned him just now - it was one thing he and I agreed on many many times. As I said earlier, even Barbie commented on the weak job the defense did in Massei. Mignini read the Mirror story on the noise ticket but the defense didn't read the story of Patrick's treatment by the PLE.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sure but they didn't fight it from day one. The "confession" has always been the #1 reason for PG and gave them the racist angle IMO. Why didn't the defense come out in early 2008 and say it was obvious the police had created the statement in every way? There must be a way to file charges or demand the recording that one of us here knows from sources still exists

I think you will not find anything they did when it counted.

Where was Johnny Cochrane when he was needed?

 

[Numbers]

Ten hours to decide
"It is a ruling that surprised us, I did not expect, we take note. The length of the board room I think there was a big debate, "said Maresca yet. The closed session lasted 10 hours. "He has not a name who was with Rudy Guede - added the lawyer - The judges felt that the evidence was not sufficient." "I think it is a defeat for the Italian justice system," he then said, according to the report the British newspapers. The microphones of the Italian reporters spoke of "incomplete justice."

And yet, on the side of Mez, rises the voice of his sister Stephanie: "We are shocked ...," he said on the phone with the legal Maresco. The family waited in London the Court of Cassation of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. "There have been a few words," he said his attorney Maresca. "You asked me if there would be another appeal - he added - and I've had to say no ...."
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/15_ma...d8-11e4-831f-650093316b0e.shtml?refresh_ce-cp

This means that the case of the murder of Perugia, at least from a criminal point of view is closed here and that under Italian law there is only one culprit Rudy Guede
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...ssolti-cassazione-non-commesso-fatto/1542857/

The comments of the deputy prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola is astonishment: "I am curious to read the ruling. I take note of the decision, and I have the utmost respect for the decisions of the Court ". Costagliola had represented the prosecution on appeal together with Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comfortable.

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...ssolti-cassazione-non-commesso-fatto/1542857/

Above an example of the fear Italians have of criticizing anything judicial.

The lack of comments about anything to do with the rulings seem systemic. The defense for Amanda never filed a charge about the interrogation, IIRC didn't mention mistreatment for years.

An excerpt from your cited article:

The defense of Amanda: "In police headquarters false confession"
In defense of Amanda they had talked last hearing defenders Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova. "The night that Amanda was brought to the police station without an interpreter, and after five hours of interrogation without a lawyer and she was made to sign the minutes, something must have gone wrong because there is neither a registration nor a video: that was a false confession ".

 

[acbytesla]

You and bagles don't understand how witness testimony works. A court has no way of knowing whether a witness is credible or discreditable, except in the context of the whole case. A pillar of the community will be seen as more credible than a low-life drugdealer. Ultimately though, what court does is look at the testimony as a whole and it is usually obvious which witnesses are the more credible.

In the case of Quinatavalle, he may have been backward in coming forward. However, the facts are: two shiny bottles of ACE bleach HAD been recently purchased, against the context of Raff having a cleaning lady, and who was instructed to always use Raff's preferred medical disinfectant, Lysoform.

In addition, you can see in the police video he had a pail full of damp rags and used latex gloves, and also in the bin in the bathroom. By amazing coincidence, on the murder night, he had variously either a burst pipe (one of Amanda's stories) or a leaking pipe (the other) and it happened either before 20:40 (according to witness, Raff Papa) or after 23:00 (Amanda, who put dinnertime back and back).

In a letter to Papa, Raff said he once cooked the flatmates a fish dinner. Amanda claimed they ate the fish 23:00 murder night, and he had blood on the back of his hand. Raff wrote in his Prison Diary he'd cooked for Mez at his flat (Amanda said Mez had never been there) and must have "pricked the back of her hand then".

When the Postal Police arrived next morning at the cottage, a mop was propped by the door and Amanda had no coat on, suggesting she had only stepped out momentarily (according to CD - or was it BN - to throw out some water onto the gravel). Raff claimed Amanda began merrily mopping up whilst he made breakfast earlier that morning, whilst it was he who mopped in another version.

So much water! The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish, and Filomena claimed the clothes in the machine were still freshly steaming. So much cleaning going on! All the mops, buckets, ACE, damp rags. What was going on?

In addition, Amanda liked to get up at 6:00 am. Why would she claim it was 10:30am on this particular morning? Straight away, a judge will have his or her curiosity piqued. Forensic IT guys tell the court Raff turned back on his phone at about 6:00 and someone downloaded a whole load of grunge music around that time. Raff told police he carried on sleeping after Amanda left his flat at about 10:30 to fetch a mop from the cottage to clean his still wet floor from the night before.

In the context of all of this, a local respected shopkeeper claims he saw the rare sight of a young student type up 7:45am outside his shop waiting for it to open, who then went scuttling to the cleaning department.

So Quintavalle states she was wearing jeans. Straight away the judges are wondering at what point did she change into a nice white skirt, and why?

Police didn't think she'd had a shower. Why make it up unless it is to "explain" Amanda pottering about in the bathroom and whizzing around barefoot?

So you see, against that context, Quintavalle's testimony is of interest to the court, given Amanda didn't call the police once, and Raff, not until almost 13:00 pm the next day.

Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning? Why would she lie about having done so? Why lie about what time you slept to? What's with all the bleach in Raff's apartment when he prefers medical disinfectant? Why all the rags and latex gloves? What's with the washing machine? What's with the mop ? Ah, yes...he had a massive leak - or burst pipe - the night before.

That explains everything.

It explains nothing because it's clear it didn't happen. The bleach in Raffaele's apartment had been there "prior to the murder". There were plenty of cleaning supplies at both Raffaele's apartment and at the cottage. And of course, there was no cleanup so there is little reason to be waiting at the store and of course Quintavalle contradicts both himself and his employees.

It's clearly a false memory and you'd have to be a moron not to be able to figure that out.

A year is simply too damn long

 

[Numbers]

The PGP made a big deal over the fact that Amanda's defense lawyers didn't make noise of her mistreatment by the police. They never really made the case well she was led to say Patrick. As even the partially brain dead Barbie noted the defense could have done a much better job.

The lack of public criticism of the judiciary and the police doesn't mean there isn't criticism.

A memory expert, Carlo Caltagirone, testified on her behalf in the 2009 trial; the transcript has not been translated to English, to my knowledge.

As far as I know, the testimony of the memory expert was not discussed in the Hellmann motivation report; I am not sure if it was in the Massei motivation report.

If the testimony provided a significant defense (and the Italian text of the testimony runs 80 pages), it would be a violation of Convention Article 6, right to a fair trial, for the convicting court not to discuss and refute the testimony in its motivation report convicting Knox of calunnia. The ECHR considers failure of a convicting court to examine a significant defense argument an indication of an arbitrary judgment and thus a violation of Article 6. Of course, there are several other reasons that the ECHR could use to find that there was a violation of Article 6, or even Article 3, in the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba.

 

[bagels]

Sure but they didn't fight it from day one. The "confession" has always been the #1 reason for PG and gave them the racist angle IMO. Why didn't the defense come out in early 2008 and say it was obvious the police had created the statement in every way? There must be a way to file charges or demand the recording that one of us here knows from sources still exists

I think you will not find anything they did when it counted.

Their defense from my point of view seems bad, but I have no frame of reference for how these things go in Italy.

 

[Numbers]

Just a little clean-up in the likely interpretation of CPP Article 530.4. That paragraph states:

By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.
___

In an earlier post, I had suggested that CPP Article 530.4 means that someone acquitted but with a specification of "lack of mental capacity" or insanity could be ordered held in a mental health facility within a prison, as long as that person was diagnosed as insane and dangerous.

However, for those acquitted under any other specification, the most likely interpretation is that this paragraph allows the judge to legally order the release of a person imprisoned or otherwise held (such as under house arrest) in remand, awaiting the final verdict. (In Italy, about one-half of the prison population consists of persons awaiting trial, including final sentence, according to Luparia's essay in Gialuz et al. Such persons are considered not guilty according to Article 27 of the Italian Constitution.) According to ECHR case-law, an acquitted person must be released immediately (that is, as soon as possible) from remand imprisonment. Consistent with this, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were released from prison very soon after the (provisional) acquittal by the Hellmann court.

 

[Numbers]

Clearing up another issue regarding Italian procedural law and the effects of final acquittal.

I had previously posted information on CPP Article 652, Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages.

Article 652 establishes that the final judgment of acquittal with specification that the accused did not commit the act (crime) and several other specifications has binding effect on restitution and compensation of damages in the civil or administrative trial, as long as that trial was joined or could have been joined to the criminal trial, and thus had not been brought to trial before the criminal proceedings had begun.

For completeness, I should also mention CPP Article 654:

CPP Article 654 Effects of the criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal in other civil or administrative trials.

1. The final criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect in the civil or administrative trial on the accused person, the civil party and person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings. Such effect shall be valid only if the trial concerns a right or a legitimate interest that may be recognized by ascertaining the same material acts that were under prosecution, provided that the ascertained facts were considered essential for the purposes of the criminal decision and provided that the civil law sets no limitations to the evidence of the controversial subjective stance.
___

My interpretation of Article 654 is that, following a final acquittal, the accused who has been finally acquitted is for all time free from being subject to further civil action by the civil party who had lodged an action against the accused for the acts alleged in the criminal trial.

However, following a final conviction, the accused remains liable to civil action for the acts of the crime, by the civil party who has joined the civil action to the criminal proceedings.
___
The significance of CPP Article 654 is, then, that for someone finally acquitted, there can be no new civil trial by the civil party who had joined the criminal proceedings on the same acts alleged in the criminal trial.

In contrast, CPP Article 652 addresses the damages and compensation.

I maintain that these two CPP articles prevent the Kerchers from launching any new civil action against or collecting any damages or compensation from Knox or Sollecito on the same (alleged) acts. And that is why Maresca, the Kerchers' lawyer, stated that there was no longer any new avenues open for the Kerchers to follow.

 

[Planigale]

Mach as ever say some interesting things;
"This is where you are mistaken. Witnesses don't have to "prove" things to you. For whoever claims a witness is lying, the burden of proof is n the claimant.
There isn't such a thing as a witness that is merely "unreliable" for no reason. When one claims a witness is unreliable, needs to point to significant evidence of that."

I think Mach is telling the truth here. When the ear witness accuracy was questioned the request for a formal scientific assessment was denied on the basis that it impugned the witness. Because of the concept of 'honour' in the Italian system witnesses are given undue weight.

The scientific truth is that eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable - multiple objective studies have confirmed this. Memories are flexible and continually recreated. It is easy to induce false memories by 'careless' questioning of witnesses. The late presenting witnesses were found by a single journalist who had opportunity to question them and persuade then to come forward in an undocumented manner. This in itself endangers the reliability of the memory. In a scientific justice system the unreliability of witnesses should be accepted and their testimony judged as such. In Mach's further statements we see definite evidence of created memories.

Mach; "Don't forget he said that after he saw the newspaper photo he still did't fel 100% certain. It's important not to miss this point. He said he became certain about the girl's identity only later on, actually he said he became 100% certain when he saw Knox in the courtroom. "

Memory cannot become more certain after a year. Especially with the publicity and photographs of Knox. The truth is why would he remember a girl who he did not know, and could not reliably identify close to the time of the event. Why would he remember the day and time without some external event to link it to. We see in this case how Curatalo and Sollecito both got confused about days, and the postal police about times.


Mach; "And the burden of proof is reversed"

An interesting observation. In particular Mach emphasises that simple unreliability is not sufficient for the Italian courts one has to show motive.

Further we see a distortion of objective again about 'honour'. So Quintavale is initially questioned about purchase of bleach, Quintavale says no she did not purchase bleach. Then Mach says that Quintavale was not specifically asked did she come in for another reason than purchasing bleach. So it is quite possible she came in but when shown a photo by a policeman investigating a murder and asked did she come into to purchase bleach and cleaning products Quintavle answers 'No', but would conceal the fact she was there, but did not purchase bleach. But why should it matter if Knox was there but did not purchase bleach? Because in the Italian system making Knox out to seem a liar is important. It does not matter that Curatalo apparently provides an alibi, what is important is that he shows Knox to be a liar, a wicked and sinful woman who deserves to be punished. Similarly here the importance of Quintavale here becomes not that he witnessed Knox purchasing cleaning materials (for the selective DNA clean up?), but that he establishes her as a liar as she says she was in bed with Sollecito at that time. It does not matter that this is a further alibi placing Knox away from the flat further limiting the time in which she could have done the alleged staging and cleaning and disposal of her clothes and cleaning materials, what is important is to importune her honour.

 

[Planigale]

Vixen previously posted;(with reference to the incorrect preservation of the bra hook)

"It didn't need to be tested twice as all parties were agreed the results were sound.
Fingerprints are not tested twice, either."

This is simply untrue.
The defence objected to the results on the bra strap. Hellman requested the sample to be retested by independent experts. No one denies that the court had the right to request further testing of the hook by court appointed experts. However the independent experts were unable to verify the result because the evidence had not been suitably stored. Elements of dispute included 1) the presence of epithelials which Stefanoni had asserted but not directly looked for by microscopy 2) The failure of Steffanoni to replicate the typing of the DNA extract on the bra strap which would have been normal practice to run duplicates but noticeably for critical pieces of evidence (why only these?) Steffanoni did not run duplicates - the bra hook, the blade of the knife.

(FWIW re pt 1 I think Steffanoni was correct, and C&V wrong here. Epithelials should be present on a bra strap, and microscopy would not determine if Sollecito's or Kercher's. Theoretically one might do FISH looking for a Y chromosome, but that would not take things much further forward. The only source DNA realistically is from epithelials (including saliva) and blood. Where Steffanoni was in error was in discounting secondary transfer for trace DNA.)

 

[Planigale]

You and bagles don't understand how witness testimony works. A court has no way of knowing whether a witness is credible or discreditable, except in the context of the whole case. A pillar of the community will be seen as more credible than a low-life drugdealer. Ultimately though, what court does is look at the testimony as a whole and it is usually obvious which witnesses are the more credible.

In the case of Quinatavalle, he may have been backward in coming forward. However, the facts are: two shiny bottles of ACE bleach HAD been recently purchased, against the context of Raff having a cleaning lady, and who was instructed to always use Raff's preferred medical disinfectant, Lysoform.

But what relevance has this to do with the case? There is no evidence that bleach had any role in the crime. The pictures of the bleach bottles do not show that they were shiny. The pricing on them showed they were not recent. What happened to the bleach receipt? If the bleach was purchased before the murder what relevance is it? none of this is relevant.

In addition, you can see in the police video he had a pail full of damp rags and used latex gloves, and also in the bin in the bathroom. By amazing coincidence, on the murder night, he had variously either a burst pipe (one of Amanda's stories) or a leaking pipe (the other) and it happened either before 20:40 (according to witness, Raff Papa) or after 23:00 (Amanda, who put dinnertime back and back).

So is Knox unreliable because she confused the terms leaking pipe with a burst pipe? What is the difference? How does the terminology relate to likely guilt or not? Could you link the police video showing the pail of damp rags and latex gloves I have not seen this. What relevance are they? Did they find the victim's blood on these rags or the gloves? If not so what - is he bad because he cleaned or because he did not throw the rubbish out? most people have rubber (latex) gloves in the kitchen I myself have a pair of pink marigolds.

In a letter to Papa, Raff said he once cooked the flatmates a fish dinner. Amanda claimed they ate the fish 23:00 murder night, and he had blood on the back of his hand. Raff wrote in his Prison Diary he'd cooked for Mez at his flat (Amanda said Mez had never been there) and must have "pricked the back of her hand then".

You are conflating separate statements and trying to compose a single one. This is deceitful. There is no indication that the various fish referred to are one and the same! Sollecito did not say or imply he cooked a meal for the flatmates on the night that Knox said she ate dinner at Sollecito's at 23.00.

When the Postal Police arrived next morning at the cottage, a mop was propped by the door and Amanda had no coat on, suggesting she had only stepped out momentarily (according to CD - or was it BN - to throw out some water onto the gravel). Raff claimed Amanda began merrily mopping up whilst he made breakfast earlier that morning, whilst it was he who mopped in another version.

Again you conflate different statements to make something new. Why do you do this? Do you need to convince yourself? You only do your case a disservice by making stuff up. There was no mop outside - no one said this (if you think they did find the testimony). Where is the coat testimony? The mopping was in Sollecito's flat what relevance has this to the murder? No one claims Kercher was murdered at Sollecito's and the body transported. So what if someone mopped at Sollecito's?

So much water! The postal police claimed to hear the washing machine cycle come to a finish, and Filomena claimed the clothes in the machine were still freshly steaming. So much cleaning going on! All the mops, buckets, ACE, damp rags. What was going on?

More untruths. Where is the testimony about the washing machine? You have just made this factoid up. Where is Filomena's testimony the clothes were steaming - how would she know? Did the police allow her to unload the washing machine at the crime scene as they allowed her to disturb the scene of the break in and remove things from the crime scene? Remember none of the cleaning materials had any evidence of blood or DNA of the victim. There was no evidence of cleaning in most of the flat - the bloody shoe prints in the hall were unsmeared.Is everyone with bleach, rubber gloves and cleaning cloths a murderer? These are normal household items.

In addition, Amanda liked to get up at 6:00 am. Why would she claim it was 10:30am on this particular morning? Straight away, a judge will have his or her curiosity piqued. Forensic IT guys tell the court Raff turned back on his phone at about 6:00 and someone downloaded a whole load of grunge music around that time. Raff told police he carried on sleeping after Amanda left his flat at about 10:30 to fetch a mop from the cottage to clean his still wet floor from the night before.

Where is the reference about Knox liking to get up at 6AM? It was a holiday she had a new boyfriend - I can think of reasons she might have been in bed a bit longer that morning. We have been through this the forensic guys cannot tell if the phone was turned on or off. All they got was that it connected and disconnected from the network. What relevance is a music download (was this to the phone or computer?)

In the context of all of this, a local respected shopkeeper claims he saw the rare sight of a young student type up 7:45am outside his shop waiting for it to open, who then went scuttling to the cleaning department.

So Quintavalle states she was wearing jeans. Straight away the judges are wondering at what point did she change into a nice white skirt, and why?

Or did he see someone else?

Police didn't think she'd had a shower. Why make it up unless it is to "explain" Amanda pottering about in the bathroom and whizzing around barefoot?

It does not matter what the police thought, they could think Jack the Ripper fell through a worm hole and committed the crime, that have to present evidence. What evidence is there that Knox did not have a shower that morning? Did anyone note if the shower was damp?

So you see, against that context, Quintavalle's testimony is of interest to the court, given Amanda didn't call the police once, and Raff, not until almost 13:00 pm the next day.

Why did Filomena not call the police? Why does it make any difference whether Sollecito a native Italian speaker called the police in Knox's presence, or if Knox with a poor grasp of Italian tried to communicate with police - it seems to me an immaterial different who actually spoke on the phone as hey were together at the time. Would it make a material difference if Knox had dialled the number? Then she would technically have called the police?

Why would she buy bleach first thing in the morning? Why would she lie about having done so? Why lie about what time you slept to? What's with all the bleach in Raff's apartment when he prefers medical disinfectant? Why all the rags and latex gloves? What's with the washing machine? What's with the mop ? Ah, yes...he had a massive leak - or burst pipe - the night before.

That explains everything.

She did not buy bleach first thing in the morning that is untrue.
She did not lie as she did not do so.
What is the significance of the time she slept to?
The important issue would seem to be there were un or only partially used bottles of bleach that were old (evidence by old bleach labels and cleaning lady saying previously present so obviously not used up in any cleaning extravaganza. people have cleaning cloths and rubber gloves that is normal. They had not been used for cleaning blood.
There is no evidence the washing machine was on when the police arrived you are wrong about this. It has been explained to you before, but you appear to have false ideas fixed in your head and to be unable to incorporate new facts.
mops are normal most people have at least one.
What is the significance of a leaking versus a burst pipe?

 

[Numbers]

Mach as ever say some interesting things;
"This is where you are mistaken. Witnesses don't have to "prove" things to you. For whoever claims a witness is lying, the burden of proof is n the claimant.
There isn't such a thing as a witness that is merely "unreliable" for no reason. When one claims a witness is unreliable, needs to point to significant evidence of that."

I think Mach is telling the truth here. When the ear witness accuracy was questioned the request for a formal scientific assessment was denied on the basis that it impugned the witness. Because of the concept of 'honour' in the Italian system witnesses are given undue weight.

The scientific truth is that eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable - multiple objective studies have confirmed this. Memories are flexible and continually recreated. It is easy to induce false memories by 'careless' questioning of witnesses. The late presenting witnesses were found by a single journalist who had opportunity to question them and persuade then to come forward in an undocumented manner. This in itself endangers the reliability of the memory. In a scientific justice system the unreliability of witnesses should be accepted and their testimony judged as such. In Mach's further statements we see definite evidence of created memories.

Mach; "Don't forget he said that after he saw the newspaper photo he still did't fel 100% certain. It's important not to miss this point. He said he became certain about the girl's identity only later on, actually he said he became 100% certain when he saw Knox in the courtroom. "

Memory cannot become more certain after a year. Especially with the publicity and photographs of Knox. The truth is why would he remember a girl who he did not know, and could not reliably identify close to the time of the event. Why would he remember the day and time without some external event to link it to. We see in this case how Curatalo and Sollecito both got confused about days, and the postal police about times.


Mach; "And the burden of proof is reversed"

An interesting observation. In particular Mach emphasises that simple unreliability is not sufficient for the Italian courts one has to show motive.

Further we see a distortion of objective again about 'honour'. So Quintavale is initially questioned about purchase of bleach, Quintavale says no she did not purchase bleach. Then Mach says that Quintavale was not specifically asked did she come in for another reason than purchasing bleach. So it is quite possible she came in but when shown a photo by a policeman investigating a murder and asked did she come into to purchase bleach and cleaning products Quintavle answers 'No', but would conceal the fact she was there, but did not purchase bleach. But why should it matter if Knox was there but did not purchase bleach? Because in the Italian system making Knox out to seem a liar is important. It does not matter that Curatalo apparently provides an alibi, what is important is that he shows Knox to be a liar, a wicked and sinful woman who deserves to be punished. Similarly here the importance of Quintavale here becomes not that he witnessed Knox purchasing cleaning materials (for the selective DNA clean up?), but that he establishes her as a liar as she says she was in bed with Sollecito at that time. It does not matter that this is a further alibi placing Knox away from the flat further limiting the time in which she could have done the alleged staging and cleaning and disposal of her clothes and cleaning materials, what is important is to importune her honour.

I think also the way the evidence is evaluated, based upon application of the inquisitorial system, is that the defendant (accused) must prove statements made by the prosecution and prosecution witnesses are untrue. At the same time, even current law - CPP Article 499.2 Rules for witness examination - states: During the examination, questions which may compromise the sincerity of the answers are not allowed.

In the old inquisitorial system which survives in the culture of many of the judges and prosecutors, the judge accepts the prosecution case as the truth. An accused can only overcome this assumption by proof of innocence. There is no "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That is why those maintaining the inquisitorial system culture, including Mignini, argue against the meaning of CPP Article 533.1, and claim that the standard is redundant to the traditional Italian practice, and why the Hellmann motivation report devotes considerable argument to the use of BARD standard as a real judicial tool.

 

[Vixen]

Raff is one of the flakiest people of any case I've ever read about. I am surprised when he remembers his own name.

Not just a flake.

 

[Vixen]

It should also be noted that Maresca would have been aware that the Marasca CSC panel verdict for the rape/murder of Meredith Kercher was an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2, with specification "the appellants (accused) did not commit the act (crime)".

So therefore, since if was a final acquittal (an acquittal by CSC annulment without remand), Maresca honestly reported that "there are now no avenues open to them" including any new civil action.

Maresca did find the Marasca CSC panel verdict unusual, because it was sweeping; but that in large part was because it was delivered under CPP Article 620 (L), which is probably rarely used. I suspect it the CSC uses it when it realizes that the prosecution case as well as the lower court verdict and motivation report it is reviewing under appeal was an absolute disaster under the standards of Italian law, including evidentiary standards. In fact, that is how the Marasca CSC panel motivation report justifies the annulment without remand.

Thus, from the viewpoint of the Kerchers and their lawyer, Maresca, who I am confident is very skilled and knowledgeable in Italian law, there is no practical difference in the legal consequences of the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito under CPP Article 530.2 with the specification "the appellants (accused) did not commit the act (crime)" and one which would have been under CPP Article 530.1 with the same specification.

It is clear Maresca's meaning was that "there is no other avenue open" was ceteris parabus the ruling was legitimate.

As we have seen and as comprehensively set out by Machiavelli, there are grave question marks as to Bruno-Marasca's legitimacy. Marasca immediately retired and Bruno, we are told, is suffering a psychological (?) affliction.

 

[Vixen]

The PGP made a big deal over the fact that Amanda's defense lawyers didn't make noise of her mistreatment by the police. They never really made the case well she was led to say Patrick. As even the partially brain dead Barbie noted the defense could have done a much better job.

The lack of public criticism of the judiciary and the police doesn't mean there isn't criticism.

The ECHR requires claimants to exhaust all internal avenues of complaint first (except for Article 3: torture). Amanda falls at the first hurdle. She didn't complain to the Police Complaints Commission in Italy, she didn't complain to the US amabassador who visited her in jail regularly, her brief, Ghirgha, denied there had been any ill-treatment and Amanda herself testified her treatment was fine. In her Prison Diary she bragged of how excellent the prison conditions were, and settled in very well (as psychopaths are known to do).

Bruno-Marasca did not throw her a crumb of comfort (their verdict was geared towards their Raff paymasters) and scathingly described her calumny as being a cover up for Rudy, co-murderer.

Epic fail.

 

[Vixen]

It explains nothing because it's clear it didn't happen. The bleach in Raffaele's apartment had been there "prior to the murder". There were plenty of cleaning supplies at both Raffaele's apartment and at the cottage. And of course, there was no cleanup so there is little reason to be waiting at the store and of course Quintavalle contradicts both himself and his employees.

It's clearly a false memory and you'd have to be a moron not to be able to figure that out.

A year is simply too damn long

The evidence is damning, even without Quintavalle. As Amanda was known to be an early riser (even Raff said, 6:00am) then his account has credence.

Quintavalle is of good character, impartial and has no motive to lie.

Oh, don't tell us, he's another anti-American in the sway of the evil Mignini.